DiggJoin DiggAbout

2nd Finish in Fifth Fails to Dim Paul's Hopes

nytimes.com — Despite coming up short in New Hampshire, a race that many people considered his best opportunity, Ron Paul indicated that his campaign would go on.

made popular 362 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

Related by Keyword BETA!

How Newspapers Tried to Invent the Web but Failed

  • 456 diggs
  • Made popular 6 hr 37 min ago
  • 50
  • www.slate.com

Mike Gravel Appearing on The Colbert Report Wed, May 2nd!

  • 1379 diggs
  • Made popular 1 year 250 days ago
  • 80
  • www.studentsforgravel.com

Oops: LA Times wiki experiment fails after inundated by porn thumb

  • 524 diggs
  • Made popular 1 day 9 hr ago
  • 81
  • fora.tv

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Minarchian, on 01/10/2008, -83/+59Paul beat both Giuliani & Thompson in the two States of IA and NH.

    In total votes he is in 4th place.

    And this is even with the obvious vote rigging going on in NH.
    • Herkimer56, on 01/10/2008, -39/+63Total votes doesn't mean dick. What counts are total delegates and Ron Paul has two. This places him in fifth place for the moment. I'm sure that he'll be even lower after Michigan.
      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -45/+72"In total votes he is in 4th place."

      For all the bleating you tards do about how well you understand the FOUNDING FATHERS you have no clue how our system works.
      • craiggroshek, on 01/10/2008, -54/+15Buried for your abusive tone and ad-hominem attacks. I seriously doubt you have ever read the Constitution, sir.
        • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -15/+46You do not understand the basic fallacies, insults are only ad-hominems if they are intended to be persuasive.
          • dshPls, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7They choose to ignore the facts, and spin Paul's abysmal performance into a positive tone.
        • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -8/+19apparently they don't know the difference between an ad-hom attack and a simple insult, either...
        • mstoneburner, on 01/10/2008, -21/+6craiggroshek is a *****.
      • Corrosionx, on 01/10/2008, -13/+35Well, the Founding Fathers didn't even want political parties so there, STFU.
        • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -17/+19What does that have to do with the price of free market tea in Paultopia?
        • Hortnon, on 01/10/2008, -11/+29Clearly, that justifies just being willfully ignorant about the system.
        • jmpeagle, on 01/10/2008, -12/+39they also wanted slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person...the founding fathers are not gods among men. All politicians are to be distrusted, even the founding fathers.

          The reason they weren't for political parties (ergo Madison's Federalist paper #10) was because of 1000 year's of historical precedent in England where factions constantly faought eachother for power leading to countless war over power...War of the Roses, Glorious Revolution, etc... However the U.S. Constitution combined with many British institutions pretty much negate the possibility of factions leading to constant Civil War with free entry allowed into politics, which is why every once in awhile a party either has to significantly change its platform or it is replaced by another party.
          • fatbert, on 01/10/2008, -7/+6That's the most intelligent post I've ever read in a Ron Paul thread. Congratulations.
          • JLecker, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3They made the 3/5's Compromise because they knew southern slaveowners wouldn't ratify the constitution without some way of counting slaves in the census. Thomas Jefferson wanted to put a passage denouncing slavery in the Declaration (but ultimately did not). Don't judge the Founding Fathers because of one compromise--they knew national unity was more important than arguing over moral (and economic) principles.
          • madmage, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2But to be fair, parties still suck.
        • deadmoo, on 01/10/2008, -8/+9I think the Republican Party is in real danger of getting replaced, if they don't change their platform, or maybe just follow the one they used to stand for.
          • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -12/+7It'd be nice if they actually knew or cared what social liberality meant with all the bluster libertarians have about "liberty", but they'll get replaced... with the exact same people. This goes for Paul and all like him.
        • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -6/+9Sure, the founding fathers who adopted the constitution of America on September 17, 1787, knew that there would be a state named Michigan in or around.. 1836. :/
      • p0tent1al, on 01/10/2008, -13/+19His comment still stands, in overall votes he is in 4th place which is a totally legitimate comment in itself, just like Al Gore got more overall votes than Bush in 2000. Thanks for jumping to conclusions though.
        • Drax0n, on 01/10/2008, -7/+7He should win a "jump to conclusions map"
          • fatbert, on 01/10/2008, -1/+7It's "mat" not "map." Did you get that memo?
    • saltinekracka20, on 01/10/2008, -33/+24Wth dude, Giuliani didn't even bother with IA, that's why he came in last. Same probably goes for NH. Looks like Paul it pocketing all that campeign funding you guys worthlessly blew on him.
      • MindStalker, on 01/10/2008, -6/+17Actually Giuliani spent a LOT in NH (according to NH residence who have seen a lot of his commericals, he has spent a lot of days there too).
      • Gryffydd, on 01/10/2008, -2/+11And he actually spent a LOT more time in Iowa than he admitted to. He had even more of an official campaign presence there than Paul did.
      • banmaster, on 01/10/2008, -5/+6Saltine, its a pity he didn't win so he could clean up the education system and your kids might actually be able to learn how to spell correctly, unlike yourself.
        • CoolWind, on 01/10/2008, -2/+5ass
        • beve54, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1Zing!!
        • GoatRoper, on 01/11/2008, -6/+3You are a Paul supporter and you question the education of someone else? WTF. Check the mirror first kiddo.
      • jeffwmartin, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Didn't bother? Appearances in Iowa Aug 01 - Jan 03...
        Paul - 27
        Giuliani - 35
        McCain - 38
        Thompson - 75
        Huckabee - 86
        Romney - 109
        • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4Visiting and money spent are two different things
      • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -3/+5Giuliani visited Iowa more times than Paul did. And he has spent a lot of time in NH. When he goes down in flames on super tuesday he'll drop out.
    • chillmandan, on 01/10/2008, -3/+9Obvious vote rigging? Did I miss something?
    • ZenFountain, on 01/10/2008, -12/+2Paul's campaign office has finally given an official response to the vote rigging:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • Humptydank, on 01/10/2008, -2/+9Wait, you're adding together the total votes from a primary in one state and a caucus in another to generate a totally different result, and then in the next sentence you're talking about vote rigging?

      Oh you Ron Paul supporters, don't ever change you crazy bastards!
    • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1Hey Minarchian, you feeling the love in here? Yeah, you are feeling the love.
  • Herkimer56, on 01/10/2008, -81/+63He's finished fifth three times. Someone should tell the NY Times and have them correct the headline. Oh, and Ron Paul's hopes couldn't possibly be any dimmer. He stands a better chance of being elected President of Russia by write-in vote than he has of ever being elected President of the US.
    • craiggroshek, on 01/10/2008, -43/+14Says the man with a Communist symbol as his avatar.
      • COINTELPROAgent, on 01/10/2008, -13/+33Communist symbol? Take a look at my avatar and get an education.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/10/2008, -9/+41Craig, your complete ignorance is showing today.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonecutters
        Grow up.
      • V3n0M, on 01/10/2008, -17/+16COINTELPROAgent: "Take a look at my avatar..." as a reply to craiggorshek's comment to Herkimer56.

        Forget which name you were logged in as Herkimer? (or should I say COINTELPROAgent?)
        • UglyBunny, on 01/10/2008, -3/+15You didn't even look at his avatar...
      • Corrosionx, on 01/10/2008, -18/+7Yeah, didn't the whole anti-Paulistas brigade have NSA and CIA icons at one point? After all, if you're going to shill for tyranny, why not.
        • Hortnon, on 01/10/2008, -9/+23Actually, no, just me, Herkimer, and onetimer.

          I do it to mock you, as I suspect the reason is for them too.
        • Herkimer56, on 01/10/2008, -11/+24I just got tired of all of these idiots constantly accusing me of working for the government so I started using those just to make you people look even stupider than you are.
        • V3n0M, on 01/10/2008, -14/+4"stupider"? I'm sure you did a great job.
      • Herkimer56, on 01/10/2008, -8/+27I'm guessing that you didn't bother to look at his avatar and instead went straight to the baseless accusations. You're a bigger idiot than Craig is.
        • V3n0M, on 01/10/2008, -7/+9Accusing? I was just asking. Since that is "COINTEL"s only post on this thread, what could "his" avatar have to do with "you", that "he" responds to a reply concerning "your" avatar with the possessive "my avatar"?
        • insllvn, on 01/10/2008, -3/+7Herkimer: "He's finished fifth three times. Someone should tell the NY Times and have them correct the headline. Oh, and Ron Paul's hopes couldn't possibly be any dimmer. He stands a better chance of being elected President of Russia by write-in vote than he has of ever being elected President of the US."

          craiggroshek: "Says the man with a Communist symbol as his avatar."

          He refers to your stonecutters emblem as a communist symbol. This is a bit funny, but no big deal. So far, so good.

          Then COINTELPROagent says this: "Communist symbol? Take a look at my avatar and get an education."

          It appears as though you are responding, with a different name, to correct craggroshekk's misconception. I am not sure what relevant education is to be offered by COINTELPROagents avatar, but I admittedly can't make out what is in it very well. Looks like a couple of big cats fighting.
        • COINTELPROAgent, on 01/10/2008, -5/+11WTF is wrong with you people? Holy crap. I know you guys are all upset about Ron Paul losing but lay off the drugs for a while!
      • chronically420, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2all of these people talking about avatar are ***** idiots. yes, lets base somebody soley on their avatar. thats like saying "im not going to pump gas at that station because of their red roof, even if the next gas station is 20 miles away" morons...
      • phenry50BMG, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4I liked Herkyboy's Unkle Skam avatar better. It was certainly more fitting. He never talks about Constitutional issues. It's always blah, blah, ***** from him.
    • chronically420, on 01/10/2008, -15/+3are you an idiot or do you not read real news and just go off of your favorite republican candidates website "news"? i'll understand eitehr way. both would be acceptable to explain your ignorance
      • dkevinscalf, on 01/10/2008, -7/+0I have problems spelling either correctly sometimes too.

        Is it "eitehr" or "eyedder"

        I'm never quite sure.
        • chronically420, on 01/10/2008, -4/+1you and everyone else obviously knew what it was. why you bitchin about it? so what if theres a typo every now and then. maybe i dont care enough to go back and correct it when people will know exactly what it is anyways.
          • dshPls, on 01/10/2008, -3/+2Way to fit a stereotype, you burned out hippy.
  • papsy29, on 01/10/2008, -35/+122nd Finish in Fifth Fails to Dim Paul’s Hopes
    • mongoh8fire, on 01/10/2008, -6/+18Does Polly want a cracker?
    • saltinekracka20, on 01/10/2008, -19/+4Give us an update when the article says, "49th Finish in Fifth" and we'll see how hopeful you are by then.
    • Flaxseed, on 01/10/2008, -2/+8Does anyone else find it weird that a guy named "saltinekraacka" responded to this?
  • galeninjapan, on 01/10/2008, -29/+65Good. It would be ludicrous to drop out after two states that are so small. He has too much faithful support.


    If however he doesnt win, I would like to see him run as the VP on the libertarian ticket.
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -20/+29"He has too much faithful support. "

      NH was the state in which he had the most "faithful support".
      • thejwac, on 01/10/2008, -11/+14What is your source for this comment?
        • shirosamurai, on 01/10/2008, -14/+24Every Ron Paul supporter there is. All of them were saying how NH was the "Live Free or Die" state and that all the independents would be voting for Paul. They all said he'd never place below third, and many were pushing for a second or first place win. Guess that didn't work out so well, eh?
        • BadseedJR, on 01/10/2008, -12/+6Yes, "All of them were saying." Nice facts. Listening to what people say on the internet isn't the truth. There's no way to know where he has the most support without unbiased polls. Good luck getting those. I'd be willing to bet he has a lot of support in Texas too... you know, the state he represents?
          • neognostic, on 01/10/2008, -8/+12People in Texas think he is a nut, I live there and everyone I talk to about the race laughs when his name is brought up.
          • jimbobuk, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3....Ignorant, obese fools!!!
          • IndigoMoss, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4@neognostic
            But then they go on to talk about how God talks to Bush and that queers are what is wrong with the country.

            On a side note, the comment system still sucks.
        • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -2/+11http://www.freestateproject.org/Nov15_welcomeRPsup ...
        • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -6/+8--- "Yes, 'All of them were saying.' Nice facts. Listening to what people say on the internet isn't the truth." ---

          Well you know it had to come to this.

          For the last five months we'd say, "An article said..." and they'd say, "That article is lying!" We'd say, "A poll said..." and they'd say, "That poll is lying!"

          Now we finally say, "But you just said..." and they say, "We were lying!"

          I knew the Ron Paul thing would self-destruct at some point, I just never thought it would be so funny.
          • yojiffyskippy, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1The only thing funnier would be if he announced Admiral James Stockdale as his running mate.
      • joosebuck, on 01/10/2008, -3/+10it was also the state he supposedly only spent $230,000 on advertisements in.
    • skyshock1, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3Not to mention all the damn money he still has left for campaigning! I'd really hate to think those donations I sent wouldn't be used for his campaign or some equally worthy cause.
    • HanSolo69, on 01/11/2008, -3/+5And if he gave up now too many people would start asking for their money back after they realize how horribly they squandered it.
  • valaw, on 01/10/2008, -28/+66let's see, 2 down and 48 to go, why should his hopes be dim. everyone knows that this is going to be an uphill battle. mr. paul hasn't given up on us, are we going to give up on him
    • BrandonMills, on 01/10/2008, -21/+30Ron Paul's poll numbers in the states he lost were by far the highest because his campaign focused on them. We're now going into the 'bad' states which were supposed to get a boost from the early states. Given that this won't happen, and that the polls were right all along, Ron Paul can't realistically win the nomination now. Don't believe me? Look at his 'outstanding' numbers going into the next states. ( not just one poll you like. Average of polls. ) His numbers are crap and getting worst by every failed state.

      The fat lady has sung on Ron Paul's campaign. Now it's just how long until he bows out.
      • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -6/+7Ron Paul isn't going to bowing out until the end. He's got a large chest of money. So regardless of the polls and caucuses and primaries, we're going to fight to the very end, and we'll go down swinging if we have to.
        • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -9/+14So he doesn't know when to quit and will piss away millions of dollars from the people...

          He sounds no different than any other Republican politician.
        • jimbobuk, on 01/10/2008, -2/+6....well, in your eyes he can't win then?? If he gave up and returned the money people would call him a coward and it would undermine his message! People have donated that money to support the message, more than the man! If Ron Paul can be the vessel through which this message is heard during this election, then he's doing what his people want him to do!

          I live in Britain and I wish we had someone like Ron Paul over here! The current British Government have brought in more laws than any other government (especially since the attacks on the US & UK), and we are slowing having our Civil Liberties removed. The Terrorism Act is thrown around and used as justification to invade ANYONE AND EVERYONE'S privacy!
      • ssn697, on 01/10/2008, -7/+4The "Ron Paul = Lyndon LaRouche" comparison gets more valid every day. Now all that is left is to find out, months from now, he did something illegal with campaign money...
        • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -5/+2LaRouche is 100% about the message, and more consistent even than Paul.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2"We don't have a chance in hell of winning but we have some cash to burn so we're staying in the race" So that's the strategy? Genius!
    • ivandir, on 01/10/2008, -3/+6Don't forget that half of the morons that are against him don't even speak about his 20M dollars. More than any other candidate in the race for the Q3 2007.

      I would propose we give him even more money in Q1 2008 to really show the nation that his support is not gone.
      • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -8/+5Please do. With the writers' strike on your antics are about the only thing keeping us entertained.
      • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -6/+5"I would propose we give him even more money in Q1 2008 to really show the nation that his support is not gone."

        Please! Take out loans to do so, you will make it all back when he wins :)
      • misterS, on 01/11/2008, -3/+1..because elections can't be bought?
        • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -3/+4Aren't you just the cutest little thing!
    • silveravnt, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2No
  • notmike721, on 01/10/2008, -27/+33yeah, it bugs me that before the elections we get all these pro-rp articles, but where is the victory lap we can take after he loses?
    • BrandonMills, on 01/10/2008, -10/+9Victory lap after he loses? Someone needs to explain to you the concept of 'losing'.
      • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -7/+7The day he drops out and the tards fall on their swords will be a beautiful day indeed. Of course we will have to deal with a couple weeks of endless conspiracy theories but that to will end.
    • Drax0n, on 01/10/2008, -4/+8Yea because you put so much effort into "beating" him that you deserve a victory lap right?

      lol
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/10/2008, -9/+7If he loses you lose, whether you know it or not. Enjoy your victory lap, loser.
      • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -7/+7Drama queen
        • justinlarsen, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3Oh no you didn't
        • thirdoffive, on 01/10/2008, -6/+4>>Drama queen

          The consequences are dramatic.

          Imperialism triggered blow black that cost us 2,752 people in NYC, DC, and in a field in Pennsylvania during 2001. Continuing the imperialist policies has cost us 3,913 (so far) more people in Iraq.

          Don't vote establishment unless you're really ready for more of this.
      • chrissandvick, on 01/11/2008, -4/+4 Ghostyboy's a crook, He's admitted on Digg to criminal fraud with hundred's of victims.
        http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/North_Americ ...
        • GhostyBoy, on 01/11/2008, -5/+4Wow. I am seriously impressed that you managed to digg that up. It actually gives me a certain sense of pride that you somehow thought that trying to discredit me was worth that much effort. Well done.

          For the record it's true, I WAS a criminal, and I did confess. I stand by my statement, go ahead and look if you want.

          Thank you very sincerly, Chris. You sir, just made my day.
  • blorc, on 01/10/2008, -23/+105Even if Paul doesn't win, it doesn't change the fact that his message has ignited a fire that's not going away anytime soon. Look at the amount of vote he received in 1988 vs. 2008. He's up 900% from before.

    While it saddens me to see Paul struggling, as well as understanding that he has a very strong battle to actually win and may very well not, it doesn't change the fact that the movement will continue on and hopefully significantly grow between elections, especially if things keep going the way they are.
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -27/+15"Even if Paul doesn't win, it doesn't change the fact that his message has ignited a fire that's not going away anytime soon"

      It's the same idiot fire that's been going on since the Civil War.

      The only thing that's "new" about Paul's bog-standard conservative candidacy is that he's the favorite among the Truthers.
      • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -8/+13Or maybe among the VERY SIGNIFICANT portion of the population that has lost faith in their federal representatives. They have abused their power and failed to address perceptively important problems, and they're paying the price in decreased faith. The natural outcome of this is support for platforms which decrease federal power. Regardless of the outcome of this election, I have no reason to believe the victor will be able to restore this faith if the economy goes down the drain. With a weakening traditional media, the status quo of US politics is becoming increasingly vulnerable to a big upset. It may or may not come together this election, but the trend is clearly towards decentralized and popularly-influenced media, so have fun with your up-river swimming...
        • EditorResponse, on 01/10/2008, -5/+5How is 5% to 10% very significant? I think 30% would be very significant...whereas 5% to 10% is just the far left or far right loons in that 3rd standard deviation. Think about it.
          • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -4/+410% is significant because it was statistically very close to 3rd place in the totals, and it's right up there with the results of more well-supported candidates. Kucinich was getting 1-2%, which is more in line with historical fringe candidates. Also, we haven't seen any election results from out west, where the president's popularity is much lower, even among republican voters.
          • WiseWeasel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Also, not all people who have lost faith in their government voted for Paul. Many probably voted for Democrats in the hopes that they would somehow fix things.
          • cswake, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2^^ And that's the problem. Most Americans have lost faith in the Federal Government, but they keep making the same mistake of electing someone who is ethically bankrupt.
    • saltinekracka20, on 01/10/2008, -20/+9"He's up 900% from before." Awesome! He'll DEFINITELY win the 2012 election!!! ........oh wait. He'll be dead by then.
    • gilgamesh23, on 01/10/2008, -11/+4"Look at the amount of vote he received in 1988 vs. 2008. He's up 900% from before."
      Dude! That over twenty freaking years! We can't handle that kind of slow movement.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1That's a far reach (1988) for a silver lining. You Ronbots may be wacky but you sure are optimistic little boogers. Good for you.
    • silveravnt, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2Don't worry. If a democrat is elected it will push a lot of people toward revolution. Our ranks will grow.
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 01/10/2008, -15/+69I think the big picture that some are missing is that he's placing at all. I like Ron Paul and for him to even place next to these other bigwigs is a big step.
    • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -23/+8It's a sign that we're getting dumber as a nation.
      • BadseedJR, on 01/10/2008, -9/+15Yes, listening to the constitution and not following the mainstream candidates is so incredibly dumb. Seriously, think before you type.
        • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -7/+2"listening to the constitution"

          Ron Paul is not Jesus and Constitutional Literalism is still ridiculous.
        • silveravnt, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2"Constitutional Literalism is still ridiculous."
          Wow! just Wow!
      • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -5/+11Agreed. It's dumb that he's losing. If America was a truly educated nation, Ron Paul would be winning right now.
        • darkcooger, on 01/10/2008, -2/+5Sorry... did not mean to bury you. Stupid finger slipped...
        • Pixelante, on 01/10/2008, -6/+3Since when "living in your parents' basement" = "being an educated nation"?
    • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -1/+8Exactly, without the support Paul's platform has received on the internet, he would most-likely have performed similarly, or even worse than Kucinich on the Democrat ticket (worse because the political momentum in general is towards the Democratic Party). The level of support he has been able to achieve, while still probably insufficient to take the election, clearly demonstrates the increasing influence of the internet over the outcome of US politics. We were able to flex our collective muscle, and witness a significant impact on the elections. We're not soon to forget this power, and with more and more Americans turning to the internet for information, we seem set for some major changes in the way campaigns are run in this country.

      Without doing a better job of actually appealing to common citizens, versus simply attacking their opponents or pandering to lowest-common-denominator fears, campaigns will be dead in the water, no matter how many pundits they buy. You're absolutely right that this is a big step, and it shows that we can come together as a large group and have a significant impact on politics. As enough people are getting better informed, and becoming politically active as a result of this, and as new news and political websites do a better and better job of connecting people, our strength will only become more apparent.
  • z00k, on 01/10/2008, -46/+31This story just had like 40 comments, and now all of a sudden it has 97... In 10 seconds? I ***** call ***** on that. We know Ron Paul is going to continue his campaign. I don't really think anyone cares. There is literally too much ***** Ron Paul trash on Digg these days... There is literally freaking 2,115 pages of Ron Paul "articles"

    We get it. You freaking think Ron Paul is great, Now keep it to yourself and praise him on your own website.
    • tuurd, on 01/10/2008, -21/+8***** you, you whiny bitch.
    • eosp, on 01/10/2008, -15/+12Digg's users generate its content. Digg users like Ron Paul for the most part. If you disagree, then you can leave. No one forces you to go here.
      • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -12/+17Digg users are sick of the front page being hijacked by Ron Paul's zombie army.
        • slenderdog, on 01/10/2008, -7/+6*Some* Digg users are sick of seeing Ron Paul stories on the front page.
          There. Fixed it for you.
        • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -8/+4Actually I think he was right the first time.
      • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -5/+4are you ***** kidding me? You organize out at places like ronpaulforums.com telling people to digg articles. People who even said it was painful to actually sign up for a Digg account come here just to digg them.
    • Gilbum, on 01/10/2008, -8/+6"Now keep it to yourself"...
      Its politics. And like it or not american politics affects the rest of the world, so if you don't care then don't read it and dont digg it. QQ to u.
    • Drax0n, on 01/10/2008, -10/+5Kevin Rose? Alex? Oh wait its not your site either.. so.. umm.. how to put this.... STFU.. perfect
    • WiseWeasel, on 01/10/2008, -12/+6Sorry, I didn't realize that this was your website. *****.
    • nymphetamine, on 01/10/2008, -8/+11Ronbots sure are a friendly bunch, huh?

      RP/DK '08! Vote for change and elect Richard Pryor and Donkey Kong!
  • BrandonMills, on 01/10/2008, -43/+52Didn't dim his hopes? That's 'nice'.

    Still not going to be President.
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -17/+9Alright, George *****.
    • SoulGrub, on 01/11/2008, -10/+3He won't be president. But he's managed to convert millions to his cause, particularly the young internet generation. He may have huge effect on US policy in the long term, especially when the US economy continues its massive downward slide.
      • josh4rim, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Educate yourself. Understand the importance of being a Delegate, he may win if enough Ron Paul Supporters would be Delegates.
  • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -52/+44"The campaign must go on!" Translation: "I'm as ***** not giving any of you suckers your money back, or donating it to a good cause..."
    • BrandonMills, on 01/10/2008, -19/+18The Ron Paul Retirement Fund would like to thank you for your generous contributions.

      Ron Paul R3T1REMENT!! Because nothing says 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' like his ability to walk off with your donations without massively spending them in the states that mattered. :)
    • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -9/+5(above) "I'm *sure* as *****..."
    • HoboMaster, on 01/10/2008, -6/+12If I'd wanted to donate that money to a charity, I would have done it myself. I gave it to the Ron Paul campaign, and I expect it to get spent as such. I'd be annoyed if he gave the rest away.
      • JamesBrown, on 01/10/2008, -6/+11next time you want to throw your money away, why not just flush it down the toilet and cut out the middle man?
        • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -6/+5correction: Hand it directly to media companies you despise and cut out the middle man.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/10/2008, -5/+11I gave my money so that he could campaign hard. I paid to hear Ron Paul talk about the constitution, and I'm getting my money's worth so ***** you.
      • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -9/+10Your offer for sex is declined as it fails to meet our needs.

        Still, Digg appreciates your desire to lose your virginity.

        Good luck with that.

      • chrissandvick, on 01/11/2008, -4/+4 Ghostyboy's a crook, He's admitted on Digg to criminal fraud with hundred's of victims.
        http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/North_Americ ...
        So you should decline any offers of sex with him so that he can give up his virginity to his cellmate.
        • GhostyBoy, on 01/11/2008, -4/+3Wow. I am amazed that you actually care about me enough to digg up "dirt" on me. I feel special.

          Thank you, man. You just made my day.
  • clownguyx, on 01/10/2008, -28/+82Even if he doesn't get the nomination, he is spreading his message and it is resonating with people. He's polling around 10% in primary states. Do you think 10% of the people knew who he was before then? Not to mention how many people are waking up to the Federal Reserve system and foreign policy. I count myself as one of them.

    Dr. Paul has already won. We may not get this nomination, but the seeds have been planted.
    • c0n724ll10n, on 01/10/2008, -20/+15Oh please...if there's one thing that bugs me the most about Ron Paul, it's the overly-zealous one-liners that his supporters throw out right and left.

      Not that "fired up, ready to go" is any better, however.
      • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -5/+5Haha... so what his supporters say bugs you out about Ron Paul. Truly, if there is any better evidence that you're a clown, it's this. So how is the Barnum and Ringling Circus working out for you?
        • c0n724ll10n, on 01/10/2008, -4/+2Well the fact that something as trivial as a corny one-liner happens to bug me the most about Ron Paul isn't showing any contempt for him at all. I just dislike corny one-liners, from all camps.

          Either way, I'm not the first person to get annoyed by Ron Paul's overly-zealous fans, and it's not an invalid position.
    • Scottamus, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4He's getting women pregnant on the campaign trail?
      • mOdQuArK, on 01/11/2008, -2/+3Nah, but if a pregnant woman needs a baby delivered, he's the right guy for the job.
    • norcalscan, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2How come I've never been asked to poll? Who/what are these polls?!
    • DiscoJohn, on 01/11/2008, -4/+4Oh god, congratulations, only $17 million out and now people know who he is. Hot dawg.
      Congratulations. You've sent out enough internet spam to fill a digital grand canyon. Give me the same resources and I swear to you I could convince every man, woman, and child in America that the moon is made out of cheese.
  • 8bit_Hero, on 01/10/2008, -41/+30The sooner he's out the sooner Ron Paul Diggers will be off his nutz
    • silveravnt, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1Fail. Most of us have fundamentally changed our views due to this.
      • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+2Republicans are still republicans, the world keeps movin', but they all stay the same.
  • BenMuldowney74, on 01/10/2008, -27/+5this is all just a trial run. screw the republicans and their nomination. lets expose the vote fraud and then run as an independent. you know herheimer will hate that. he will have to get on his megaphone and alert all the other woody allen-esque nerds all over again. LMAO
  • Kyderdog, on 01/10/2008, -38/+30THANK GOD.. NOW maybe there will be something good on Digg.
    • dkevinscalf, on 01/10/2008, -7/+6Hear hear.

      Wait... no see Linux and police brutality still exist. So those two will just compensate for the sudden loss of Ron Paul action.
      • Drax0n, on 01/10/2008, -3/+5Dont forget brittney and macworld is comming up...
  • expat002, on 01/10/2008, -44/+34I guess the American public rejects a 19th century demagogue who is also a blatant racist.

    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -11/+5So I guess, quite frankly, you're a blatant dumbass.
    • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -9/+7Yeah. His bigotry is forgiven and ignored even though articles like this from the New Republic show him to be just like Huckabee:

      In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."

      From: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
    • terminal157, on 01/10/2008, -6/+6"Blatant racist"? You have no respect for the truth. You are a liar.
      • amoirae, on 01/11/2008, -6/+3No, you're just ignorant and in denial.
  • ericdano, on 01/10/2008, -26/+19Somewhere, Geeks are crying.......but the big question is, can anyone hear them?
    • Drax0n, on 01/10/2008, -4/+9Pssst... your posting a comment, on digg.com.... i hate to break it to you.. but your a geek,.
      • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5You're an idiot.
      • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -6/+4And you come here to spam politics on a worthless candidate, what does that make you?
    • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1I don't know, how deep in the basement are they?
  • fleischner, on 01/10/2008, -39/+30He's a lunatic. His followers are lunatics.
    That is all.
  • bsczap, on 01/10/2008, -44/+65Dear New Hampshire,
    Follow the advice of your state motto and drop dead.
    Signed,
    The Constitution
    • SpykerSpeed, on 01/10/2008, -14/+12Fantastic comment.
    • legendxx, on 01/10/2008, -20/+9Oh man I knew this day would come. All you ***** paulbots who joined on the online bandwagon because you think drastic, radical, insane change is exactly what this country needs must be loving this. Everyone with an ounce of brain matter in history or politics has been telling all of you that he wouldn't get close to being able to even touch the gop nomination.

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you.. blah blah blah.. every crazy person on the street follows that path...
      • amoirae, on 01/10/2008, -11/+4First we ignore them, then we laugh at them, then we get annoyed that they won't leave like relatives that can't take a hint.
      • phenry50BMG, on 01/10/2008, -4/+12Damn, I'll bet you lick boots with the best of them. He has awoken a sleeping, apathetic mass of people with one simple idea - freedom. If you truly believe this is a free country, you have no concept of what true freedom is and obviously lack the ounce of brain matter you spoke of.
        • legendxx, on 01/11/2008, -4/+2True freedom doesn't exist in a society by definition.. try again. A society has rules.. freedom is the exact opposite of rules. Believe what you want.. but don't go around sensationalizing people with buzz words like True Freedom. The word you're looking for is More Freedom or Less Rules.. sounds dry doesn't it?
        • rizzo2008, on 01/11/2008, -2/+4Freedom is being able to do whatever you provided you don't hurt anyone else. Anarchism does not equal freedom
          • Misesean, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3OK, I'm confused...you just defined freedom as anarchism and then denied it...
          • HotBaconSauce, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3Technically through anarchism is how you can have the most freedom. You really have to understand what anarchism really means, not it's convoluted definition these days.
          • rizzo2008, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2No I am a Paul supporter. Anarchism has many different definitions but laws are still required as long as they don't infringe on the right of an individual to keep their property and live their lives.
      • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -4/+10An armed IRS agent can come into ones house hold a family at gunpoint and take everything they own simply because they refused or didn't pay income tax properly. We have gone from a country where the government feared the people to one where the people fear the government. Paul tried to get the message out and even if he doesn't win it will be harder in the future to suppress candidates like him.
  • expat002, on 01/10/2008, -41/+31Hey looked what I found when I googled Ron Paul's Race problem

    http://wirelessactivisim.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron- ...

    I love Google, because then I can learn about all the racist bigoted things a candidate has written and said.

    My favorite is that he says Aids is "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby."

    Wow, what a great bigot Ron Paul is. Thanks Google!!!
    • iblaine, on 01/10/2008, -5/+11What this world needs is a stand up candidate like Guiliani, Huckabee or Hillary. Surely those career politicians will do what is best for the country and not themselves, unlike this crazy Ron Paul guy.
      • bimtott, on 01/10/2008, -7/+14expat002 does raise a point. The racist Ron Paul newsletters aren't getting the attention that they should, and nobody is adequately answering who wrote them and why.

        He may be a dream candidate in many many ways, but this is one really ***** huge elephant in the room.
        • terminal157, on 01/10/2008, -7/+4I think he's adequately answered. He's specifically said he finds the views in the newsletter appalling and has apologized left and right for it. I'll only be holding what candidates actually say or do against them, thanks.
          • chrissandvick, on 01/11/2008, -5/+7Apologized after political opponents have brought it up you mean, years after the fact. Did he apologize in the newsletter? Did he apologize to his readers? Or did he continue to let them think he agreed with what was said in his name? Or is he lying his ass off and the words of the Ron Paul newsletters are his words, in spirit at least?
    • jasondragon, on 01/10/2008, -6/+12From: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron- ...
      “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
      • expat002, on 01/10/2008, -3/+7What are there NAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        • tman84, on 01/10/2008, -8/+4it doesn't matter, there is nothing wrong with that letter. I've read through it twice, maybe you should try the same.
          • chrissandvick, on 01/10/2008, -4/+6If the Paulians had any sense at all they'd claim you're a plant to discredit them. Part of the reason the newsletters are so damaging is that a good chunk of his supporters think "That's so true" when they read them. And by leaving them standing until he got caught out by "Lefty" Morris Ron Paul implied he also supported them, at least until it became politically inconvenient.
          • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -1/+4He won't say because they're still in his campaign.
        • terminal157, on 01/11/2008, -5/+3Not Ron Paul. Why does it matter, beyond that?
      • chrissandvick, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7A statement that requires that you believe he never read his own newsletter and that no one from the small political circle that is libertarianism talked to him about what was in his own newsletter, FOR YEARS. The right thing to have done would have to published a retraction and an apology and disown the newsletter. Which would be a trick because to have apologized he would have to have admitted the Ron Paul newsletter was engaging in the fraud that he was writing it. Instead he didn't engage in this bit of CYA till he was caught by political opponents.
        But really, the above is just giving the Paulian fantasy to much credit. Of course he knew and approved of the content of those newsletters.
      • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6Okay, let's give him credit for not editing it.

        Did he not even read it? Glance at it? Was he on the mailing list? Did none of his friends read it and give him a jingle at the old OB/GYN office and say, "Hey Ron, they're workin' over the black folks and Jews pretty hard in that newsletter of yours, you might want to have a look?"

        For years and years and years?
    • Haecceity, on 01/10/2008, -8/+6Interesting that you're being Dugg down.
    • tman84, on 01/10/2008, -9/+3does someone pay you to be so ignorant, did you even read that letter. He's asking why do we honor someone who lied about their Phd, and the FBI has files proving he was an adulterer and pedophile.
      "oh but he had such a positive message"
      so did Hitler if you were a Nazi
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -6/+5RP's true beliefs on racism
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

      3rd party view on the New Republic article
      http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41 ...


      Oh yeah and if any of you listened to NPR today you heard how Kirchick actually lied about his article on public radio claiming that all the newsletters he found were written by Ron Paul contrary to what he admits in his article.
  • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/10/2008, -29/+14*whispers*
    Vote fraud
    in two states
    Costistent
    media
    blackouts
    and
    repeat lies

    Ron Paul is up against the most powerful powerbrokers in the world. You think this is gonna be a clean fight? LMAOTT (Laugh my *** off to tears)
    • JoeVet, on 01/10/2008, -5/+6Ron Paul is up against the most powerful powerbrokers in the world......the American voter.
      • silveravnt, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Everything is as it should be. Everything is as it should be. Everything is as it should be. Keep saying it
    • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Wyoming was a beautiful thing to watch if you like Chicago style old school politics.
    • terminal157, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2"LMAOTT" = douche. Saying "LMAOTT" and then explaining the acronym = superdouche.

      And I'm a Paul supporter.
  • d3dm, on 01/10/2008, -33/+26"The campaign must go on!"

    Translation: Ron Paul believes that the majority of male teenage basement bedroom dwellers in the US live in states other than IA, WY, or NH.
    • eosp, on 01/10/2008, -8/+2Most of them live in California. QED.
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -10/+1So where do you live? I think he's talking about you, scumbag.
    • cgbspender, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3So how do you explain the "basement bedroom dwellers" donating 20 Million?

      Maybe you are an basement bedroom dweller yourself.
  • Hacbarton, on 01/10/2008, -41/+37My favorite thing about Ron Paul stories on Digg are that all the Paul supporters bury anything negative about their candidate while the rest of the world tries to squash the spam that floods the message board, meaning there are few stories with more than +5 diggs.
    • GoatRoper, on 01/10/2008, -3/+5I can't get to them all :)
    • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6My little Greasemonkey script says that at the time of this posting you have 0 diggs -- 21 up and 21 down.

      Funny.
  • Dynamo418, on 01/10/2008, -31/+22I just want to know, for all the people who donated what... 1500-2000$... yeah how do you feel now. Sure sure, "Donating in the name of freedom blah blah blah contribution to the future blah blah", but really, you must be pretty annoyed that Mr. Paul has failed thus far, despite your impressive donations. Just saying, is all.
    • tman84, on 01/10/2008, -11/+9when clintonn or obama loses, how do all the donors feel. It's no different except for the fact that you know even though your candidate lost, you at least contributed to someone who respects the Constitution, States Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and oh yeah is committed to ending a war.
      • Dynamo418, on 01/10/2008, -5/+3They probably feel pretty *****, that's what i'm saying! I understand support for a candidate through awareness and being vocal in one's community, but to throw money at a candidate, money that is relatively insignificant and largely goes unacknowledged, seems like a bit of a waste to me. Now, i'm not going to tell people how to spend their own money, but it just seems (especially in the case of Dr. Paul), that it is a high-risk (a lot of money that will most likely be used ineffectively and the candidate will most likely lose), and low-reward option.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -4/+7actually its tax deductible
      • Dynamo418, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1So? Being tax-deductible doesn't mean it's not a lot of money to spend. What point are you trying to make here?
      • whorunbartertwn, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1And that's only worth something if you're itemizing over the standard deduction right?
      • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3no its that I don't lose anything by donating and I get to support a good cause
        • Dynamo418, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Do you understand what tax deductible means??? It means that the donation is free from taxation... you still 'lose' your donation...?
      • cramtod, on 01/11/2008, -0/+5Best of luck with your audit.

        IRS Pub 526 (2007)
        You cannot deduct contributions to organizations that are not qualified to receive tax-deductible contributions, including the following.
        ...
        9. Political organizations and candidates.
        ...
    • Akronos, on 01/10/2008, -9/+9You'd probably be the first to make fun of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson if the revolution failed some 230 years ago. Actually, they'd probably be killed, but that wouldn't stop you from laughing at them while drinking some British tea.
      • tman84, on 01/10/2008, -7/+2is this achronos from b.net?
      • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -4/+1The British tax stamp makes the tea taste better.
    • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -3/+7The average donation is just $100. He has raised $20,000,000 in $100 donations.

      That is 200,000 supporters willing to put their money where their mouth is.
  • droo31, on 01/10/2008, -31/+44Ron Paul will not finish in the top 3 in ANY primary. Negative digg me all you want...you know it is true. Who will the Paulheads vote for in the general election? He is, after all, still a Republican.
    • expat002, on 01/10/2008, -12/+2http://www.rootforamerica.com/

      This guy will take over where Ron Paul left off. he has the same priniciples as Ron Paul
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -7/+2He will probably run as an independent despite his claim that he will drop out if he doesn't get the nomination.
      • banmaster, on 01/10/2008, -2/+5He's never flat-out said he won't run as an independent, just that its not going to be very unlikely.
        Those 2 things are VERY different.
      • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Banmaster is actually correct. my bad
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -4/+7Yes but he ran for the Republican nomination for the simple reason that you cannot get any public attention by running as an independent or a third party. I actually think we would have preferred to run as an independent in the first place but the way campaigns run around our ridiculous two party system in this country forbid it.
      • droo31, on 01/10/2008, -5/+9That may be true...but Ron Paul, is fundamentally fairly conservative. Pro-life...Anti-union...voted against gay adoptions...the list goes on.
        • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5He is pro-life but wants to leave it up to the states to decide NOT the federal government. But he is conservative in a more libertarian way (though he isn't entirely a libertarian either) with his foreign policy concerns.
        • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -5/+6Yeah, a doctor that has delivered 4000 babies being personally pro life but not forcing that on anyone else either way with government regulations at the federal level, how horrible.
        • chaosium, on 01/11/2008, -4/+5"He is pro-life but wants to leave it up to the states to decide NOT the federal government."
          "Yeah, a doctor that has delivered 4000 babies being personally pro life but not forcing that on anyone else either way with government regulations at the federal level, how horrible.

          That's not what his voting record states.
    • jeffwmartin, on 01/10/2008, -8/+13I'll still vote for Ron Paul as a write in. I wouldn't vote for any of the other Republicrats or Demopublicans. I haven't voted for an R or D for national office in over 10 years and don't plan on starting now, unless it's for RP. I quit voting for the lesser of two evils and watching the candidates out there now, I don't think I could figure out which one was less evil. Either way we'll get more war, more bloodshed, less money and fewer rights. I hope the mass of ignorant, apathetic voters who think they are entitled to something or think we can spread "democracy" with a laser guided bomb enjoy their continued subservience.
      • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"I'll still vote for Ron Paul as a write in"

        Good, thank you :)
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/10/2008, -3/+9Paul's people will probably write him in. Seriously, none of the other guys are remotely worth voting for. Obama maybe, cause he is the only one who hasn't done anything hideous yet.
      • cswake, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Obama has NeoCon/CFR members as his advisors and loses support quickly after that bit of information.
        • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1So what? That would only lose Paultards who are primarily staunch republicans, not traditional Dems.
  • mikusjay, on 01/10/2008, -16/+40It really doesn't matter whether or not he becomes president as long as it awakens people to the current state of affairs.
    • brad3378, on 01/10/2008, -4/+6......And you can bet your ass that we'll be keeping a more watchful eye on whoever does get elected.
      • Pixelante, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3And then what? You can watch until your eyes fall out, it won't make any difference.
        • phenry50BMG, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3It depends upon what you are watching through and what it is attached to.
        • smartalien99, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3oh man that made my day.
  • tuurd, on 01/10/2008, -25/+34Go drink your status quo kool-aid and read other diggs if all you have is hate.
  • alkaline213, on 01/10/2008, -34/+25Ron paul spam ensues
  • colberrep, on 01/10/2008, -13/+22oh you mean the vast majority of americans want things like environmental protection, minimum wage, campaign finance reform, workers and consumer rights, anti-trust law, and funding for science. what a surprise. digg losers for the loss.
    • monkeybacon, on 01/10/2008, -14/+9Oh you mean the ones that have absolutely zero knowledge of economics and next to nothing on any other subject other than popular culture? Just because a majority (its not vast BTW) want the government to care for them cradle to grave doesn't make it right, morally superior, or better than the Libertarian alternatives.
      • Pixelante, on 01/10/2008, -9/+5But they are the majority and they outnumber you, so deal with it or hang yourself.
        • jeffwmartin, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3And you have been brainwashed into believing we live in a democracy and that what the majority wants actually matters. We are a constitutional republic that happens to use a democratic method to choose its representatives.
          There's another term that means "democracy", it's mob rule. Our system was founded on the notion that the individual had certain inalienable rights and in a pure democracy those rights could be violated by popular vote. Since very, very few politicians seem to even give a damn about such quaint notions as rights and liberty, I don't guess it even matters anymore.
        • phenry50BMG, on 01/10/2008, -4/+4You are a complete and absolute moron. You have no understanding of the US Constitution. This is not a democracy where the majority gets to rule over the minority. Good Lord the idiots are coming out of the woodwork!
          • Pixelante, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2So what? I'm not American. Europeans have changed their constitution a good number of times, that does not make them dictatorship even though they lack some "freedoms" (freedom of speech in Europe is far from absolute) that they don't miss at all.
            The US Constitution will change too. It's just a matter of time.
      • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -3/+6Well then, monkeybacon, allow me to exercise my personal liberty and tell you that I have a fairly deep knowledge of economics, I know quite a lot on a bunch of other subjects (including humility), and I'm pretty strong in popular culture as well.

        From that foundation I'll tell you that colberrep's options are better than Libertarian alternatives not because they're terrific, but because Libertarianism is a shallow, feeble-minded, dorm room philosophy, that lends itself best to adding a temporary air of seriousness to someone who would otherwise be a garden-variety pothead.

        The difference between Libertarian ideas and workable public policy is the difference between thinking about something and thinking it through. Libertarianism is terrific in theory (see bong referenced earlier), but when you actually try to find a way to put even the smallest ideas in practice it turns into a Van Halen reunion.

        So if you'd like to be condescending towards the people who think Libertarianism is the worst kind of self-indulgent pointless philosophical joke, then have at me, because I'm your poster boy.

        Pick a topic you like and we'll discuss it. Not on the basis of how things "oughta" be -- I think we all "oughta" have flying cars -- but how the world would actually function with the things that fall out of Libertarian brains.

        Looking forward to it!
        • Nostradamus411, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2humility : the quality or state of being humble

    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -12/+4Paul wants campaign finance reform and he definitely supports worker/consumer rights by getting us out of NAFTA and protecting American jobs. He isn't against science he just doesn't want the federal government subsidizing everything which actually has hurt our image even more in the third world.
      • colberrep, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2libertarians are against campaign finance reform. read your handbook.
    • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -8/+4All of that is available at the state level.

      You know, like how California wants stricter environmental standards and they are being overruled by the feds?

      Or how under state law medial marijuana is legal, but under federal law it is illegal.

      Or how people think they have the right to die with dignity, but that is overridden time and time again by the feds.

      Would not happen under Ron Paul.
      • Spudster, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Under Ron Paul, state's would also be allowed to make policy decisions on those same subjects in a regressive manner. It's misleading that argument, but allowing states to set their law means that other important laws would be revered too (civil rights act).
      • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+2Under Ron Paul, the corporations would tell the State what do so.

        Fail.
  • lichme5000, on 01/10/2008, -33/+47I love libertarians: if you don't believe in their politics, you are either an idiot or misinformed or both. If their candidates don't win, it's because their message didn't get out (purposefully squashed by the media) or because voting was rigged.

    How about this for an explanation: people understand the position, and don't like it.
    • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -9/+16I agree with your comment 100% as far as Paul supporters, but I wish all libertarians weren't lumped in with them so often. The group of people who call themselves libertarians is just as diverse as the Republican or Democratic parties, and most of them I've come across in my life have been very reasonable and always respectful, in stark contrast to Paulies. Perhaps most important, just as he's not really a constitutionalist when it doesn't fit his needs, neither is Paul a libertarian.
      • chaosium, on 01/10/2008, -7/+12I used to believe that way, and even voted Lib in the last presidential election. Paul helped me to realize that the core of the Libertarian party isn't the "social liberal, fiscal conservative" I thought they were, they're just disgruntled Republicans, and not always for admirable reasons. I suppose I could thank Paul directly for disturbing me enough to be pushed back to the Dems.
        • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -4/+4Well, seeing how many libertarian party officials have come out for Paul, you're probably right. There are still good ones out there, though, like Gene Burns, who's on KGO 810 here on the west coast (which might even reach Texas at night; they've got a ridiculous transmitter). Now that you mention it, though he calls himself libertarian, I think he left the actual party a little while back, too.
          • ssn697, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4I can still pick up Gene Burns in Montana on clear nights. KGO and KNBR have MONSTER transmission ranges (the 50,000 watt leader!).

            Didn't Burns run for Pres on the Libertarian ticket in '84?
          • KMye, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3That's pretty impressive, especially given the topography.
            I don't know if Burns ran then or not, but it's definitely possible; I've heard him talk about speaking at Libertarian events and being involved in the party back in that period. I certainly don't agree with him all the time, but compared to Paul, he's a scholar and a saint.
          • ssn697, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4I just looked it up. He did indeed run in '84. I may be getting old, but my memory is as sharp as, er, uh, what was I saying?

            I like it when he gets riled up over the war. He is suddenly back in his 20's, ready to rumble!
    • ScottMitchell, on 01/10/2008, -6/+4We have an explanation for that, too: PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS! :-p
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/10/2008, -6/+5A lot of what you said holds some weight but if you honestly think Paul ever got a shot in the media you can only be half a retard.
      • amoirae, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2Rather than a full retard like you.
      • DiscoJohn, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2Not like he hasn't been on every syndicated news show in the last 4 months anyway... Can Fred Thompson say that? Jesus.
    • rlbond86, on 01/10/2008, -8/+13Thank you! I understand Paul's position completely and it frankly is ridiculous to me. I don't believe in decentralization and I know my state of Kentucky would ***** things up if they did them themselves.
      • pin0chet, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3Even if they did ***** things up, your state lawmakers are a lot more accessible than Congressmen, so even a realtively small group of concerned citizens can have a voice in state politics, unlike the Federal level where only entrenched interests have any real influence.

        Furthermore, if Kentucky adopts bad policies, there are 49 other states in the Union which are likely to have better policies. Just look at the diversity of state laws now. We have medical marijuana and decriminilization in some places, where other states punish even small drug offenses severely. Some states have high taxes like New York, Illinois, and California. Others have no income tax whatsoever. Missouri allows passengers in cars to carry open cans of beer. Massachusetts has mandatory health insurance, but most states don't. So if your state does something bad, you can join with others to change local politics. If that fails, you can always vote with your feet. And many do--since Virginia hiked several fines and taxes, Maryland is starting to see an influx of former VA residents.
    • jeffwmartin, on 01/10/2008, -5/+6I've encountered way more democrats and republicans that are dismissive of any view other than their own and think that anyone that disagrees with them is an idiot. Of course there are more Ds and Rs out there, so one would be more likely to encounter the rude ones.
      I guess I would be classified as libertarian (that's "l" not "L"), I call myself a theoretical anarchist. I try to be respectful of other people's views and I don't just dismiss them as idiots. Now, if they act like an idiot, I will. I assume ignorance before idiocy, so yes, I will try to educate.
      I think a large portion of voters do understand, at least a tiny bit, the libertarian principle. And I'm sure a lot of them don't like it. But there are very few people alive now that have been alive in a time when there wasn't an income tax, minimum wage, federal reserve, NSA, CIA, BATF, etc. People are naturally scared of the unknown. They have the illusion of security and as long as they think they are free, they are passive. That's one reason even some of the Democrats are picking up the "terrorists are coming to kill you" mantra. If the sheep are afraid of the wolf, they will let the shepherd control them and continue to shear them.
    • Xevec, on 01/11/2008, -1/+3The thing is, it is believed that libertarianism is the most "consistent" principle. The main point of libertarianism is that the use of force to achieve a goal is wrong.

      But I will agree that there may be a huge population out there that does not want to take their own responsibility. It would be AGAINST libertarianism to force people like you to follow our ways. We just ask of you to allow us to follow ours. That if we do not support our government, we do not have to pay money to them. You can continue to pay all you want. Just don't let us libertarians be a part of it.
      • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1"It would be AGAINST libertarianism to force people like you to follow our ways."

        Unless you're gay, in which case RP has been quoted as giving his full support for taking the State's laws against consensual crimes over individual rights.
  • prashn, on 01/10/2008, -23/+42What the F*** is your problem, Ron-Paul haters!? If you do not like his message of personal liberty and non-intervention, vote for McCain/Giuliani and expect the whole planet on fire.
    You are saying people who donated money to Ron Paul's campaign are stupid -- just because he is not winning?
    By that logic, if Obama wins the nomination, people who donated to Hillary are stupid?
    And by that logic, you should only donate to a candidate that is expected to win?
    Thats Bill-O'Reilly-way-of-looking-at-things.
    • noself, on 01/10/2008, -20/+19You are pretty stupid. Some of us believe libertarianism is a dead-end philosophy, embraced only by those who already have more then enough material wealth. We have no interest in seeing a candidate rise to any persuasion on an utterly selfish, archaic, tested-and-failed philosophy.
      • bsczap, on 01/10/2008, -11/+7Tested and failed? Excuse me. It's the only one that has succeeded. Ron Paul wants to roll back the Fed to the point where this success went off course!
        • sonicEd, on 01/10/2008, -4/+10Where?
          • bsczap, on 01/10/2008, -8/+3Does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell?
          • solistus, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7Come on, guys! The Gilded Age was great! It was that damn New Deal era where everything went awry... If Standard Oil wants to own all the hospitals in town and ban striking workers from them, that's their right... Right?
          • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -3/+4Does "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half" ring a bell?
    • monkeybacon, on 01/10/2008, -2/+10What people want is for their "team" to win, above all else.
    • sgtpppr, on 01/10/2008, -4/+9That is the same logic the pollsters HOPE you use when voting so that they can influence elections. If people vote/donate to the 'front runners', then whoever determines the front runners has all the power in this country. Don't listen to pollsters...vote for and donate to whoever you want.
    • acomj, on 01/10/2008, -10/+17Have you read Ron-Paul's web page?
      Its not a message of personal liberty, its a message of "society doesn't matter". Its the independent American going West standing tall on his own. It doesn't hold true anymore. His foreign policy however is right on, and he appears to be a nice fairly intelligent guy.
      Its great to get rid of the department of education if your luck enough to have parents with the money to school you.
      I'm perplexed by his statement on the enviornment (I used to be an environmental engineer and he's way off, no regulation = tons of pollution)
      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/

      • solistus, on 01/10/2008, -8/+2His stances on issues as nuanced as environmental policy will never go beyond simple ideology. Regulations are bad, so even when they work, Paul has to pretend they don't.
    • rationalist, on 01/10/2008, -14/+11You mean personal liberty for white males, and non-intervention in corporate exploitation and corruption. Ron Paul loves to restrict the liberty of women and same-sex couples, and loves to intervene in our bedrooms, our science classrooms, and to use our tax dollars to support his theocrat agenda.
      Check the actual Congressional record of your candidate, rube. You are being duped by an authoritarian theocrat in libertarian disguise.
      • khfn, on 01/11/2008, -2/+6Uhh... what you accuse him of, he says the opposite in interviews. Who am I going to trust?
        • cosinezero, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Well, what he says in interviews means much less than how he votes... but you go right ahead and trust what you want.
  • dashdingo, on 01/10/2008, -32/+37SPOILER:

    He loses. That's all there is to it. Sorry, America.
  • MindStalker, on 01/10/2008, -18/+21:) People don't drop out of campaigns just because they are losing, they drop out of campaigns because they have run out of money. No more donations are going to the other 5 Ron Paul is still getting tons of donations. The others will start getting donations from GOP insiders once a clear winner is obvious, but as its going there is no frontrunner. If Feb 5th primaries go past with still no clear winner its likely that NONE of the big 5 will have any money whatsoever left, and no donations coming in. Ron Paul will be the only one with money left.

    What will happen then is anyones guess.
    • theutopian, on 01/11/2008, -7/+7Awww how cute. The cute little paultard is holding out hope. How sweet.
    • beve54, on 01/11/2008, -2/+4Romney is funding his own campaign. So, unless he wants to stop spending his own money, he won't quit.
    • BrandonMills, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3He doesn't have *that* much money. Have you seen donations on the Democratic side of the isle?

      Furthermore, if he doesn't get the nomination, those donations don't mean a damn, do they?
  • hackthesystem, on 01/10/2008, -24/+19
    • mickyg, on 01/10/2008, -4/+7Quoting prashn:
      You are saying people who donated money to Ron Paul's campaign are stupid -- just because he is not winning?
      By that logic, if Obama wins the nomination, people who donated to Hillary are stupid?
      And by that logic, you should only donate to a candidate that is expected to win all the way?
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -7/+5it doesn't matter what his religious beliefs are because he wants stricter seperation of church and state.
      • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+2He doesn't believe in State/Church separation, you liar.
        • card51short, on 01/14/2008, -1/+1who cares what he believes? He doesn't impose his beliefs on anyone.
          • chaosium, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1He would allow the States to impose theology, a violation of the CONSTITUTION and why Constitutional Literalists are dangerous.
    • banmaster, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7As for the creation thing, sure he is, but he had stated timer and again that its NOT his job to preach it to everyone and use it as a campaign message unlike several others who will say ANYTHING to get the rightwing nutjobs voting for them.
    • maxtangent, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1Perhaps you could enlighten me and explain some of the scientific method behind evolution?
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html
  • MikeFallopian, on 01/10/2008, -20/+14Ron Paul was always a long shot, but the newsletter scandal is a real killer for his campaign. He should drop out before he does lasting damage to the libertarian movement in America.
  • pentakle, on 01/10/2008, -24/+18Ron Paul, time to pack it in, fact.
  • rowlodge, on 01/10/2008, -10/+15internet overload, you guys don't understand the line between news and spam.
  • 30somethinDad, on 01/10/2008, -17/+7The Revolution is going to last for 100 years and freedom will prevail. Get used to it.
  • WakeUpToFreedom, on 01/10/2008, -14/+10Digg is full of ass holes and 12 year olds who don't know *****.
  • trademork, on 01/10/2008, -7/+15As a Ron Paul supporter, I don't understand:

    "Mr. Paul, who raised nearly $20 million in the last quarter, has enough money to propel him into the Feb. 5 primary states where he intends to compete." - NYTimes article

    "Then there are Michigan, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday and its nearly 20 primaries. Frankly, we need $23 million more to have a chance of beating the establishment candidates." - Ron Paul in his How Do I Say Thank You? email/post

    Mr. Paul has hardly begun to spend all the money he has raised, yet is saying he needs "$23 million more"?
    • mickyg, on 01/10/2008, -10/+11trademork, I, a Ron Paul supporter thank you for your donations.
      If donating more to his campaign is hurting you financially, please do not stretch further. However, think of this as a way of educating others. I have learnt a lot listening to his messages. And I am spreading his message of freedom. Hopefully the next generation will ask more meaningful questions to the presidential candidates. And if that happens, we know one person who we can thank.
      What would we do with our dollars when someone like Giuliani/McCain takes it away from us and uses it to bomb another country?
      The mainstream media can kill Ron Paul; but they can not kill his message.
    • banmaster, on 01/10/2008, -2/+10I think he should have started spending it before NH. Just having the largest total means nothing unless you spend the stuff.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3The unfortunate reality is he needs to raise this much money to compete with the other more endowed Republican candidates. Since advertising your campaign in twenty states at least a week before the election requires millions of dollars I am not sure he will be able to raise enough money fast enough to cover this.
      • amoirae, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1So, Paul is underendowed and is compensating with money?

        First Bob Dole and Viagra and now Ron Paul and penile insecurity. He should talk to Larry Craig about that.
    • Daiken, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3well supposedly he spent $3 million in NH which to be honest kind of seems like a waste seeing how poorly he did. There are bigger states waiting, and hence more money needed.
    • FredFredrickson, on 01/10/2008, -11/+5What do you expect? He's a Republican, after all.
    • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -9/+4Look, I'm not a supporter, but I'll be the first to give him credit.

      For a guy who said on national television that he's a fiscal conservative, and then said that the government should have bought all three million slaves in the nation to avoid the civil war, and then have pictures surface of him signing autographs with white supremacists right before a *whole bunch* of racist stuff turns up in old newsletters published in his name, who hasn't explained how he would actually do a single thing he's said he wants to do in office, and who's legislative record stands in direct conflict with nearly every stated ideal of his campaign, I think three fifth place finishes in a row is outstanding.
      • Qtip42, on 01/11/2008, -2/+3Punctuation is your friend. And he's explained many times the remarks in those newsletters were not his, the white supremist thing is stupid as hell. Did you know nazi's support obama? I'm mean seriously, can you control who your supporters are?

        His views and ideas have not changed in 20 years. You seem to be very uninformed and/or only concentrating on the people feeding you disinformation. They will do that to him throughout this quest because of his freedom message. It's dangerous to big government.
  • Nismobeach, on 01/10/2008, -10/+18It's tough to win any election when those running the process magically find 31 "misplaced" votes the day after for a candidate who originally received 0.
  • Darph.Bobo, on 01/10/2008, -22/+18This is not good news for the all the Digg Paultards.
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 01/10/2008, -7/+13I wonder what Paul supporters are going to do if he loses. Get out and vote.
    • ivandir, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Yes!

      Vote for Ron Paul.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5They will write his name in.
    • buckrogers1965, on 01/10/2008, -5/+8Paul has already won. His message, our message, is getting out to the people, despite a massive attempt by the MSM to marginalize his candidacy, he is getting as many or more votes as the media selected "front runner" candidates. This is huge and something that the powers that be did not want to happen.

      It is improbable that Paul will win the presidency, because so many people have been conditioned to think that we need a huge federal bureaucracy, and the politics of fear has been used to manipulate people for so long. First the cold war, now the long war on terror, no matter even if it takes a thousand years.

      We can't keep fighting a constant war; it bankrupted the soviet union and it's bankrupting us.
      • theutopian, on 01/11/2008, -3/+3Okay, what the hell does MSM mean?
        • GhostyBoy, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2I think it's some kind of brainwashing technique.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 01/11/2008, -2/+2Main Stream Media, I guess. One I always use, and seems to fit.
      • coryking, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I've become convinced the more you use Three Letter Acronyms (TLA's) in your writing, the more of a kook you are and the less "this person's comment is worth reading" points I give.

        FSF, RMS, ESR, MSM, M$, GPL, DHH, CT (consiperacy theory, which I guess is kind of almost a tautology) and of course TLA. Think about it. Every kooky cause on earth is rife with three letter acronyms.
      • Cyberen, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1Denial.
    • Humptydank, on 01/11/2008, -2/+4Ron Paul will never lose. He will just be injusticed into history.
  • popnwave, on 01/10/2008, -9/+4I say spend the money you've raised to shine a light on the issues you stand for.. I donated to the campaign and even if he doesn't win it all I hope he spends it all!
  • vofuse, on 01/10/2008, -26/+27It'll finally be over for Paul when news of his bigoted newsletters breaks out of the right-wing blogs and onto the front page of Digg...

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul ...
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/09/grandfatherl ...
    • alpine75, on 01/10/2008, -14/+10It will be all she wrote! The fringe candidate will become an outcast.

      What's amusing is that Paul is claiming someone else wrote those messages. Whatever! Greater politicians have fallen for far less then this!
    • Frumbler, on 01/10/2008, -13/+9Looks like it already has broken out, bye bye Ron. Your name is on it, your screwed. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/10/ro ...
    • lotik, on 01/10/2008, -9/+9It would be nice if you would take the same amount of time you used to compile this post to read the other side of the story.

    • g00dETH3R, on