digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

$5.01: The February 12th Obama Money Bomb

dailykos.com — "So I propose that on February 12th (Lincoln's Birthday) we have a money bomb extravaganza of small donations of $5.01 for Senator Obama. The reasons for this amount are easy to see: 1. Small donations are powering Obama's campaign. 2. Lincoln is on the $5 bill and the penny..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 02/08/2008, -35/+151I'm in
    • CypherXero, on 02/08/2008, -28/+8This is just a general question here, I'm kind of wondering why people hate Ron Paul but love Obama? Please, tell me something (other than the "racist" remarks he may or may not have wrote himself) that would make him a bad president. I can already tell you something I despise about Obama, and that's the fact that he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Go back and look at Ron Paul's voting record, and you'll see none of that BS.

      I'm just very curious why the Ron Paul hate, and the Obama love?
      • u2wedge, on 02/08/2008, -7/+19relevance
        • gyrfalcon, on 02/08/2008, -5/+4Relevance as in not paying attention to the Obama spam...
      • iofthestorm, on 02/08/2008, -12/+20Well, first of all part of the hate is because of the stupid spammers who were gaming digg before, and also, his ideas are interseting but would ultimately fail in the modern global economy. Isolationism, no thanks, and gold standard would only cause crazy instability in the value of the dollar.
        • CypherXero, on 02/08/2008, -12/+12First, there's a lot more Obama spam recently on digg. Second, it's not Isolationism, even Ron Paul said so himself. Its not getting involved in foreign affairs (like Iraq), but we'll encourage free trade and diplomacy. Third, the value of the dollar is based on nothing right now, the central bankers have been successful up until now to make the dollar act like gold, but it's failing, as you know. Gold is rare, gold have value, and thus the dollar used to get its value from the gold reserves we have. The gold and silver standard was in place for 200 years, up until the 1970's.
        • rancemo, on 02/08/2008, -8/+10"gold standard would only cause crazy instability in the value of the dollar."

          Are you ***** serious?
          • gyrfalcon, on 02/08/2008, -5/+3Apparently the dickwads are serious.... Seriously messed up in the head that is.
        • skew009, on 02/08/2008, -4/+12non-interventionism is NOT the same as isolationism. that gold standard comment is just simply idiotic. are you implying the dollar is not already unstable or something? Just wait a few months and tell me if you still feel that way. Fiat currencies always collapse. ALWAYS.
      • TheAkolyte, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4Are you really asking people why they have opinions and preferences? I assure you, none of these candidates are without fault.
        • CypherXero, on 02/08/2008, -7/+6True, but why would someone that wants change vote for Obama, who supports the National ID card and the Patriot Act? Those are both ***** ideas created by the Bush Administration, and the candidate that says the word CHANGE like it was going out of style is backing these horrible bills? That's not change, that's moving backwards in a direction, that frankly, we're tired of. It's been almost 8 years with Bush, and I don't want anymore of this nonsense.

          That's why I don't like Obama. I think he can give amazing speeches, but his voting record scares the hell out of me.
          • smthop3, on 02/08/2008, -3/+6Good arguments can be made for the National ID card. Mike Gravel, who I think it's safe to assume is in no way associated with the "higher powers" you're alluding to, supports the National ID card on the basis that we basically already have one in a drivers license. We already need proof of identification to do...everything...so what's wrong with all that information being put on a better card?

            Also for the Patriot Act, Obama said we can change it so that it doesn't take away our civil liberties, implying he wants to change it around a bit. Take it for what you will, but I don't see why his voting record should scare the hell out of you.
          • Nougat, on 02/08/2008, -3/+7The RP crowd seems to snub their nose at anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with them, there's a lot of name calling ("sheeple," "wake up," etc). Big "if you're not for us, 100%, then you're just part of the conspira -ahem- machine.

            The Obama crowd seems to just be saying, "Hey, look, this guy is good." And sometimes a couple of sensible reasons.

            One tone is acceptable, the other is not.
      • ncairns, on 02/08/2008, -17/+55An Incomplete List of Things I Hate About Ron Paul, in no particular order:

        1. He doesn't believe in evolution.
        2. He authored the 'We the People Act'.
        3. He opposes net neutrality.
        4. He tried to legally define life as beginning at conception.
        5. He supports DOMA.
        6. He opposes funding stem cell, and just about all, research.
        7. He believes in 'the War on Christmas'.
        8. He doesn't believe in strict separation of church and state.
        9. He thinks the Civil Rights Act was bad legislation.
        10. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned.
        11. He voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington, DC.
        12. He supports teaching Creationism in public schools.
        13. He supports bringing back school prayer.
        14. He thinks the ED, DoE, EPA, et al., should be abolished.
        15. He voted against removing oil industry subsidies.
        16. He voted against raising CAFE standards.
        17. He voted against expanding alternative energy incentives.
        18. He opposes universal health care.
        19. He opposes SCHIP.
        20. He voted in favor of a border fence.
        21. He voted against including 'sexual orientation' as a designation in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
        22. He opposed banning drilling in ANWR

        I could go on, and on, and on...
        • gyrfalcon, on 02/08/2008, -16/+3No you couldn't Mr. Copy & Paste *****.
          • mywhitenoise, on 02/08/2008, -2/+6I can hear the sound of defeat coming from your words.
          • gyrfalcon, on 02/08/2008, -5/+1Just like I can hear the lies in yours fuker.
          • ncairns, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9Oh I couldn't?

            23. He, in a fit of profound ignorance, doesn't realize the power of the Court to establish de facto law.
            24. He voted *against* tax funding for organizations which provide abortion information, but *for* it for those which do not.
            25. He, while claiming to oppose tax subsidies for education, supported one for 'Christian schooling'.
            26. He supports 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.
            27. He got a 38% rating from HRC.
            28. He got a 0% rating from NARAL.
            29. He got an 'A' rating from the NRA.
            30. He got a 5% rating from LCV.
            31. He supports funding failed abstinence-based sexual education programs.
            32. He doesn't understand the Lockean philosophy he claims to base his entire ideology around - at all.
            33. He voted against establishing the AMBER alert system. I mean, seriously? WTF?
            34. He opposes intervention in Darfur, ostensibly on the basis that Iraq was a ***** idea and the Constitution doesn't have the word 'Darfur' in it.
            35. He talks about OTHER people's pork spending, but regularly introduces spending bills with BILLIONS of dollars of his own.
            36. He opposes birthright citizenship.
            37. He opposes minimum wage laws.
            38. He supports abolishing Medicaire and privatizing social security.

            And, yes, I could *still* go on.

            By the way - take a look in my comment history. Nowhere in those 2000+ comments will you find this list or my first list. I don't copy and paste - I leave that to you Paulies.
        • ledzep19752000, on 02/08/2008, -9/+4List of Things I Like About Ron Paul! See ncairns' comment.
        • jollins, on 02/08/2008, -5/+12It makes me happy to see a list detailing why Ron Paul would be a terrible leader actually get dugg up for once. Perhaps Digg is finally getting taken back from hands of the paulbots...
          • nathew, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6i think they started to shut up once they realized he wasn't going to stand a chance in the primaries just because they gave him a bunch of money on guy fawkes day.
      • rlbond86, on 02/08/2008, -8/+24Ron Paul is against public education. Ron Paul is against abortion. Ron Paul is against net neutrality. Ron Paul is against Stem Cell Research Funding. Ron Paul is against government research spending. Ron Paul is against separation of church and state.
        So what if he didn't vote for the Patriot Act or funding the war? Guess what -- Obama voted for the Patriot Act because Democrats made a deal to take out some things; it's a start. He voted to fund the war because you have to do that, you can't force a pullout by cutting funding or the troops run out of supplies and die.
        Obama is also ELECTABLE. And maybe you think differently, but voting for an unelectable candidate is a waste of a vote -- just ask Ralph Nader.
        I am a democrat. I've always been one. And, believe me when I say this, Ron Paul's policy is the exact opposite of what I want. Less regulation of corporations? No thanks. More state power? I'll pass. Literally NONE of his views match my own. But for single-issue voters like yourself, his policy of a withdrawl on day 1 is enough.
      • Depthfunction, on 02/08/2008, -3/+10I don't hate Ron Paul. I just hate the Ron Paul fanboys.
      • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -5/+2Most like ron paul, however his paulistinians are obnoxious as all ***** and should all DIAF.
        • card51short, on 02/08/2008, -5/+4Lemme guess..you're for endless war against JIHAD?
          Just a guess...
        • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Many of us actually dislike Paul for his radical stance on infringing on civil rights with nearly every one of his policy positions... but the paulbots certainly do make it worse. I sincerely hope that the majority of the paulbots are too young to vote (they seem it) and will learn to do some actual research before they're of voting age.
    • JoeHammer, on 02/08/2008, -34/+25If we elect Obama to office, we get to use the word ***** with no strings attatched...right?

      -White People
    • CthulhuDawn, on 02/08/2008, -2/+27February 12th is also Darwin Day. Donate to Obama to actually fund U.S. scientific advancement!
    • tierpinho, on 02/08/2008, -21/+4yeah, in his a@@ you brownnoser - wake up, RP08!
      • NoCt1, on 02/08/2008, -4/+13RP isnt in the race bro.. look at the stats.. so far my left nut has more votes than he does... And AND Just me and your mom and your GF voted for my left nut
      • kickelephant, on 02/08/2008, -4/+8Keep hanging on to that raft, you silly RP supporter. I let go MONTHS ago
      • card51short, on 02/08/2008, -2/+5"Keep hanging on to that raft, you silly RP supporter. I let go MONTHS ago"

        You let go before the primaries began? Pathetic...good riddance.
    • skew009, on 02/08/2008, -3/+20This is such a bad idea! Credit card processing fees anyone? The ratio of credit processing fees to donations will be horrible on this one. I suggest you rethink this idea.. It won't help the campaign as much as you think it will.
      • deanlowe, on 02/08/2008, -1/+11This is obviously a scam started by the credit card companies to get more fees from Obama fans.
      • nonym, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure organizations that take in millions of dollars each day have pretty damn low processing fees. I'm especially sure because no one's ever refused my credit card when I'm buying a $4 lunch or spending $2. Maybe they're just taking a huge hit, though. ...
        • litkaj, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3It's against the merchant agreement to set a minimum charge amount for customers. If they accept a card at all then they have to accept it for ALL transactions. If they don't (like the Chinese place near my home) then you can complain and they'll get in trouble.
      • jkbowman, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4From Kos:

        A lot of you have been commenting on can I give more? Is it only $5.01? I think if you want to do $5.01, $10.02, $105.01, $210.02, etc. If you want to use multiples, whatever is fine. As long as the $5.01 is used somehow where it is visible to the campaign that the we Kossants and other online progressives are powering this campaign because we want our damn country back!
      • MrDiggDugg, on 02/08/2008, -2/+5Yeah a whopping 0.04 - 0.10 on $5.02, if that
        • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Seriously. Retail/service minimum CC purchases aren't because they cost 4$ a transaction.
    • borez, on 02/08/2008, -4/+17I've donated, and I'm not even American.
    • Ireland, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9MULTIPLES OF $5.01 WORKS TOO, DONATE MULTIPLES!!

      $10.02, $15.03, $20.04, $50.10 etc...

      LET'S MAKE HILLARY'S $5M LOOK LIKE 2c
      • NoCt1, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7already does.. last i check obama had 7.1 million in a day
      • jollins, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4Okay I have to ask... Aren't money bombs not a good strategy to support someone? I've heard money bombs are bad because donations drop off before and after the scheduled day, and campaigns need constant cash flow.
        • Ireland, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Yeah, but it creates more buzz and cause an unusual explosion of cash from people who may not donate in the first place.
      • card51short, on 02/08/2008, -5/+1"already does.. last i check obama had 7.1 million in a day"

        2 days...
    • MBX1, on 02/08/2008, -16/+2Yay look at all these obamatards thinking he's any different than billary.

      He's the same kind of CFR member.

      Elections are rigged. Do you really think the military industrial complex is going to allow a president not of theirs
      • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -3/+4Paultard, why do you worship the Founding Fathers if they were FreeMasons?
    • Shuk, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4I'm Canadian and I'd be in for this. However, Obama's site says you must be a resident/citizen of the United States to donate. I wonder if they check your paypal address.
      • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4We appreciate the sentiment, but please don't.
    • shrewduser, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3i don't fully understand (i'm an australian) why would you be donating 2 pieces of currency that lincoln appeared on, on lincolns birthday, to obama? lincoln was a republican, is there a link between these two men i'm not seeing?
      • BeanTeddyMagic, on 02/08/2008, -5/+0+1
      • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Senator Obama frequently refers to President Lincoln as one of the revolutionary leaders that brought great change to the country. In Lincoln's case, at least abolition of slavery. Lincoln is also from Illinois, but I think this is not really a factor.
    • Vigilo, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2People LISTEN its rigged and Hillary is the chosen one so don't waste your loot. He has plenty of special interests giving him money and constant media coverage so just save your money for the looming recession for gods sake.
    • bcmorrison3, on 02/08/2008, -3/+0Two words: NOT QUALIFIED
  • jolifam77, on 02/08/2008, -129/+35Ron Paul Owns the money bombs. FYI.
    • DimensionalPunk, on 02/08/2008, -8/+29Does it look like a blimp?
      • kenyan, on 02/08/2008, -10/+4You mean blimps can't swing people to vote for you?
        • haterrade, on 02/08/2008, -4/+10Especially when they say "Who is Ron Paul?'
          ..exactly
    • lordbeef, on 02/08/2008, -13/+12Ron Paul's money doesn't count since it's all fiat money
      • OneLess, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8I wish I could digg this comment twice. You, sir, have won the Internet for today.
    • echolyean, on 02/08/2008, -18/+9And I block all Ron Paul spammers. FYI.
    • asauterChicago, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9wrong thread...
    • kipmartin, on 02/08/2008, -6/+15who is Ron Paul? is he running for something?
    • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -5/+10Obama's already beaten his takes, Paul is his bitch.
  • supernovanights, on 02/08/2008, -69/+199I'm definitely in.
    Digg me down for this, I don't care, Ron Paul does not "own" jack ***** when it comes to donations. Just because he came up with an idea that helped get him money does not mean that another (and in my opinion, MUCH more reasonable) candidate cannot use similar tactics. Thats like saying when one candidate organizes a sponsorship dinner, another candidate is somehow wrong or infringing upon that candidate's idea.
    • r00fus, on 02/08/2008, -9/+38You do realize that Dr. Howard Dean was the true innovator here.
      After Dean, the netroots fundraising capabilities were legitimized.
      • supernovanights, on 02/08/2008, -9/+11I'll buy that before I buy into Ron Paul being the premier figurehead of netroots funding.
      • RyeBrye, on 02/08/2008, -3/+5Having lived in Vermont when Howard Dean was Governor, and driven on the pot-hole ridden interstate after he left that was a direct-result of him cutting highway funding to fund projects that would give him political kickbacks... I can honestly say he was one of the worst politicians I have ever been a constituent of.

        I think someone on his campaign came up with the idea, but I wouldn't think he did it unless it also involved some how raising taxes and giving the money away to satisfy his bleeding liberal heart.
      • rentmitchum, on 02/08/2008, -5/+2Also, BYAHHHHHH!
    • ThomasPaine23, on 02/08/2008, -26/+19LOL, yeah if by Reasonable you mean someone who voted for the "Patriot Act" then thanks but I'll wait.....

      • CypherXero, on 02/08/2008, -8/+9I don't know why people are digging you down, it's a fact that Obama voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, H.R. 3199
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/08/2008, -6/+5Im digging him down for sitting on his ass for 4-8 more years and refusing to pick the best (not perfect) candidate because of an issue that is common to all the candidates (who are in serious contention). That's just plain dumb.
        • ThomasPaine23, on 02/08/2008, -9/+8Obama VIOLATED his OATH of OFFICE by voting for the PATRIOT act. Plain and ***** simple.
          So no I'll not support him.

          Is he less odious than the others? yes, but that makes no difference
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Yes, it does make a difference. Don't vote for best candidate available? You are worse off when the ***** candidate gets elected!

            That's it. That's the whole line of reasoning here. Why is this so difficult to understand? I don't care if obama killed a baby for no reason. If everyone else killed ten babies, you should vote for Obama... Or perhaps leave the country in that case, but either way, sitting around playing video games while the worst choices are imposed upon you is not the answer.
      • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2It's a common trait in adolescents to lack the ability to see the world in anything but absolutes. If you care to read Senator Obama's position on the PATRIOT Act, feel free to do so. Somehow, I don't think you're up to the task because that might just challenge your world view. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...
        In a nutshell: there were ultimately four versions of the PATRIOT Act up for consideration: the original draconian version, which was voted in before Senator Obama was in office; a second one which Senator Obama sponsored, called the SAFE Act, which removed all of the language permitting violation of our civil rights; a third version which was drafted by the Senate and passed unanimously, which was not as good as Obama's, but one that was more palatable to other members of the Senate; and a fourth version, which is the one that was ultimately passed because even the version from the Senate didn't make it through the House.
        So after much negotiating and debating and compromise, Senator Obama voted in favor of this version of the PATRIOT Act. If he had remained stubborn and voted to reject it outright all along, no progress at all would have been made, and we would be at risk of the original draconian version still being in force.
    • kahlessreborn, on 02/08/2008, -5/+55To be fair it wasn't Ron Pauls idea his money bombs and he had no help people just decided to do them
      • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -21/+17Ya, and Obama has 400 times the media coverage. Go ahead guys, support socialism all you want. I know 10 times more about Obama more than all of you Obama supporters. Sheep.
        • 30somethinDad, on 02/08/2008, -12/+6More like lambs to the slaughter. How any person who loves their country can vote for anyone who is affiliated with the CFR is beyond me. They obviously consumed toxic amounts of fluoride through out their life time. DUH!
          • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -4/+2"toxic amounts of fluoride"

            I can only imagine the amount of mental child abuse you're inflicting on your kids. It's a shame that people like you breed, and surprising if they survive to adulthood.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/08/2008, -4/+11Actually Marx is my favorite philosopher. Funny you should mention it. So yes, please, on the socialism.
        • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -10/+4If you love socialism so much, then maybe you should move to a country that wasn't founded on the opposite of it.
        • archiesteel, on 02/08/2008, -3/+10The US wasn't founded on the opposite of socialism.
        • brettmurf, on 02/08/2008, -4/+1I know 100 times more about more grammar more than you know more about anything.
          Don't talk down to people if you cannot talk.
        • Cnat, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3Who doesn't love socialism? Wealth redistribution, Nanny statism, no more private property: Sign me up! I love throwing money at big government. Sheep.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/08/2008, -2/+3If by sheep you mean philosophy major with a concentration in political philosophy, then yes. Pretty much everything you are claiming about Marxist socialism is incorrect. There need be no wealth distribution (at least not after the system is started), nannying coul be vastly lower than it is currently (the only thing they have to enforce in socialism in order to fit the definition is that nobody gets paid in non-wages or wages disproportionate to their effort), private property can ABSOLUTELY exist in socialism (nothing at all implies lack of private property under a Marxist state), and the government may or may not be bigger, but if it is bigger, nobody has to throw money at it. It is simply funded by the money that people are currently claiming to "earn" by sitting on their asses doing nothing productive except for having money.
    • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -9/+13The last time I read mention of a money bomb for Obama (in the comments of a digg story), the Obama fans were saying that they were too good to stoop to Paul's level of a money bomb... interesting that they've changed their tune.
      • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -10/+3no actually you didnt
        you are a liar.
    • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -11/+5Hey be nice, you gotta support ron pauls retirement fund when he loses and takes the cash with him...
      • lasenorita, on 02/08/2008, -4/+10You do know that Ron Paul doesn't participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program and that he always returns a portion of his budget back to the US Treasury, correct? To top it off, he's never once voted to raise Congressional pay or accepted a government-paid junket. He supported his five children and worked hard to put them through college without government assistance. He would rather negotiate a lower price or even offer his medical services for free rather than accept Medicare and Medicaid.

        The man hasn't a greedy bone in his body so I don't understand why you're falsely insinuating that he'll "take the cash with him".
        • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -7/+2"The man hasn't a greedy bone in his body"

          Yet he is unable to succeed and is using you idiots for donations.
          • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I think the plan has always been that he can roll the $$ over to his congressional campaign if the national one does not bear friut (yes this is legal in texas thanks to LBJ)
      • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Where is this idea that Ron Paul is going to run off into the sunset with his campaign donations coming from? Just curious.
        • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1It's pure speculation, obviously. However, one must wonder where all that donation money went to. He certainly didn't spend it on advertising for his campaign. At the very least, he's guilty of gross mismanagement of the money all these well-intentioned people donated to him.
    • Herostratus, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8Ron Paul still owns the record for most raised in one day...
      • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Incorrect. The Obama campaign raised $6.2M in the 24 hours after the polls closed on Super Tuesday.
        • r00fus, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Wasn't that close to $6.5M? I know that the counter still had time left before I donated my $5
    • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3Who do you think donated to Obama? It's the Paul supporters who came to the gruding conclusion that Ron, unfortunately, will not be in the general election under a major party and decided that Obama was 2nd best. Why do you think that it was only AFTER super tuesday that this Happened? Let's face it, the $$ in this campaign is coming from the anti-war crowd. Plain and simple.
  • Gabberwok, on 02/08/2008, -18/+53Lincoln is good, but Hamilton, Grant and Franklin are better... that said, I'll definitely be donating at least $5 on the 12th. :-D
    • notBrit, on 02/08/2008, -11/+10Make it a multiple of $5.01, then make it as large as you want!
    • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -13/+7Looks like you just compared Obama to Grant.

      Grant is consider one of America's worst presidents by historians and professionals.
      • notBrit, on 02/08/2008, -5/+15Looks like you just missed the point.
        • trvr, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4StormCommander is consider (sic) one of Digg's worst users by historians and professionals.
          • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1He should probably fly back off to Stormfront.
      • Gabberwok, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5For those of you who had no idea what I was talking about... Washington = 1, Jefferson = 2, Lincoln = 5, Hamilton = 10, Jackson = 20, Grant = 50, Franklin = 100.
      • directive0, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Professional what?
    • 955701, on 02/08/2008, -3/+1Hamilton was actually an elitist *****.
      • wtfpwned98, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Hamilton believed that the single largest government expenditure should be to interest paid on public debt. *Interest payments.* This would have the effect of putting money in the hands of banks, who could then loan it out as they saw fit...money would be channeled to the people who would invest and develop the economy. Right, FFS, don't stimulate the economy from the bottom up...the unwashed masses will waste it on food, and rent!
  • SheilaNoya, on 02/08/2008, -26/+102Why wait until February 12th? If you believe in Obama, donate whatever you can now:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yes ...
    • kakapu4u, on 02/08/2008, -5/+27I agree. I don't think money bombing and the inevitable comparisons to Ron Paul would do anything to help Obama; the less you have in common with someone with marginal popularity among the voting population, the better. Help Obama by donating on any other day than proposed money bomb days.
    • chronichyjinx, on 02/08/2008, -1/+7I think the digg effect just took down the donation server
    • Ireland, on 02/08/2008, -3/+1No wait, let's break the registers!
    • blackmage439, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3I agree, however, large, quick gains are appealing to the masses.

      Why do you think penis enlargement companies spam so much?
    • dsignr, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2The point of this is to show a united donation.
  • RansomHoldiay, on 02/08/2008, -19/+36how about $25 and then an extra $5.01 for good measure.
    • ph070sh0p, on 02/08/2008, -2/+13Make it $25.05 or $30.6 so its a multiple of 5.01
      • D4r7h3v1l, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4But that would be a Jackson, a Lincoln, and a Jefferson or a Jackson, a Hamilton, a Jefferson, and a Lincoln. No go.
        • trvr, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4I think the idea is that it could also be seen as 5 $5 bills and 5 pennies (for 25.05).
    • AtHomeBoy2000, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5I was thinking more like $100 with an extra 5.01 thrown in
  • cowdudeman88, on 02/08/2008, -20/+39Vote Obama! Don't let us down Maine!
    • CaptainM4d, on 02/08/2008, -1/+17I'm voting on the 10th! I won't let you guys down!
      • Akintunde, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4your comment suddenly made me think we were in a battelfield and horribly outnumbered...but don't worry, cause we got skilz, yo.
        and Captain, i'm sorry, but your the one that dies for dramatic effect, you will be missed, brother...=/
    • MxM111, on 02/08/2008, -10/+6I am trying to understand this phenomenon. I thought the average Digger is intelligent human being who likes discussion and respectful to other people opinions, but lately it is just the mob. First Ron Paul, now Obama. And god forbid if you say something not even against the candidate, but not supporting. You get lynched ... ehm ... buried by the digg mob.
      Just watch this post going down if I say that I think that Clinton has better chance of wining general election because she is not as liberal as Obama and more centrist, and thus will be able to attract more votes from the center. Ready diggers? Bury!
      • archiesteel, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10So far Obama has received a much more positive response from moderates and even Republicans. He's a much less divisive figure than Hillary.
      • scottc, on 02/08/2008, -3/+4"because she is not as liberal as Obama and more centrist" Where did you come up with that?? Hillary is definitely more liberal. Maybe you fell for that silly rating by the National Journal - who just happened to call him the most liberal senator when he became the most viable Democratic candidate - the same way they did with Kerry in 2004. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/ob ...
        • bitspace, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1No, MxM111 is correct - Obama is pretty widely considered to be more liberal both fiscally and socially than Clinton. Having said that, he does have more appeal to moderates on both sides of the fence, and is definitely not the divisive personality that Clinton is.
          If we vote Clinton in, the Republicans will come out in droves to see that she isn't elected. They hate her with an inexplicable passion.
  • synaesthesia, on 02/08/2008, -22/+51Ron Paulites should be proud- they set a precedent and made enormous segments of the 'internet generation' involved and aware of politics and comfortable with donating online to support their candidate of choice. Now Obama supporters are going to do our best to live up to the precedent set before us and deliver a Money Bomb that will blow Hillary out of the water and set America on a path towards Change!
    • Armitage, on 02/08/2008, -35/+18Too bad the Ron Paulites didn't teach you how to think, you'd know that Obama is a big government democrat and puppet of the globalists. He's not for the kind of change we want.
      • cameronio, on 02/08/2008, -8/+5It's true Ron Paul stands for a more fundamental change. However, Paul's followers are a very vocal minority. Obama is the only reasonable candidate that stand a chance of winning.

        The way I see it, we need a president that unities everyone across all demographics and makes us proud of our president again. And right now, Obama is the only popular candidate who can achieve that.
      • bphicke, on 02/08/2008, -4/+5Too bad people vote for who the media tells them is popular instead of voting on the issues. Lets hope the American people wake up before it is too late.
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2When they're paying $8 for 1 gallon of gas with a dollar that's worth even less than it is now because Obama doesn't cut spending they'll open their eyes.
    • tdog138, on 02/08/2008, -2/+30Why does Howard Dean not get any credit for realizing the potential of internet campaigning/donating? I mean, when he was doing it in 2004 he was an actual frontrunner. Got to give the guy some props.
      • dohidied, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6I've heard pundits credit Obama with making the Dean strategy successful. It's just that people on the internet have poor long-term memory.
    • compson, on 02/08/2008, -1/+23actually howard dean taught everyone that small donors can fund a campaign via the internet.

      then the democratic establishment took him down.
    • CannedMango, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10I agree.. win or lose, this generation is going to be politically active for the rest of their lives. The more passionate and informed voters there are, the better it is for the country.

    • Eddylee, on 02/08/2008, -2/+12Howard Dean did it first. Get your facts straight.
    • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -4/+2Getting politically active involves educating yourself. Obama supporters are just getting giddy over some eloquent words. No educating taking place there.
    • Swordman554, on 02/08/2008, -8/+2To expanding American health care to Mexico! YES YOU CAN!
    • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -3/+4ron paul wasnt in any way responsible for any of this. At all, in any way, he was late to the party by about 4 years
    • BrandonMills, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2I love how they were so guilible to think their tactics wouldn't be used by other candidates. This is why we should have stopped Internet hype / spam advertising on day one. I mean, I'm a *huge* Obama supporter, but I'd like to keep it the number of stories down to only relevant stories. I can't say that's what is currently happening.

      On the bright side of things, at least its fun as heck to watch Ron Paul supporters deal with what they were dealing. Now maybe they can start understanding why we wanted to burn them at the stake after more than half of a year of that crap.
  • jimmyhoffa2222, on 02/08/2008, -12/+52Glad to see supporters getting together for this. The worst thing possible for Obama is if his supporters become complacent. Hillary & Bill are a political killing machine, it's gonna take millions of people to bury them into the ground. Vote Obama.
    • madmonkey300, on 02/08/2008, -12/+3Why are you sheep even doing this? Wall Street already has his back. LOL
  • eminiguy, on 02/08/2008, -12/+16I am in, too. A few multiples of the "basic" donation.
  • xpda, on 02/08/2008, -21/+15I may hold out for February 22 and donate $1.
  • onetimer, on 02/08/2008, -40/+35Even as someone who likes Obama, I'm going to have to bury this. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't bury this after complaining about the paulspammers soliciting donations too. Please don't do to digg what the paul spammers did. That kind of behavior is the last thing obama needs.
    • RansomHoldiay, on 02/08/2008, -20/+9Obama supporters : hey guys, money bomb on feb 12th

      paul supporters : YOUR CANDIDATE IS THE ANTI-CRHIST (insert numerous links to blogs here) INSIDE JOB! TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!!
      • diggdiggerid, on 02/08/2008, -15/+7No, I find it's often the opposite.

        Paul supporters: The United States should not tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. It's up to them.
        Obama supporters: ZOMGRACISTZOMGRELIGIOUSFUNDAMENTALIST! Everyone must conform!
        Obama: I am against gay marriage.
        • onetimer, on 02/08/2008, -12/+14Yeah... That might have worked if paul hadn't introduced an act (sanctity of life) that would circumvent the 14th amendment and ban abortion nationwide by giving a zygote the rights of a person.
          • Cleaner44, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
            8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.
            http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announ ...

            Obama Linked To Federal Corruption Trial
            http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/obama-linked-fed ...

            Did Obama Return All the Rezko Cash?
            http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/did-obama-return ...
        • MrWhite7, on 02/08/2008, -4/+10God forbid someone disagree with you
        • bphicke, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4@onetimer, that zygote already has legal rights. If a doctor harms it he is legally responsible, if you kill a pregnant mother in a car accident that was your fault you can be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter instead of 1, etc.
          I think we need to stop setting double standards. Why is it ok for you to have the baby killed but then turn around and hold other people responsible for doing the same thing.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/08/2008, -7/+19I admire your integrity
    • afwjam, on 02/08/2008, -9/+7I still think your an asshat but am none the less impressed with what you have just said. At least your not a flip flopping tool.
    • EagleRufio, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4So the last thing Obama needs is people trying to rally other people to donate to him? Or is the last thing Obama needs, the support of the people online?
    • offput, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7Yeah, I really want Obama to win, but I was annoyed by the countless Ron Paul articles, and I'm annoyed by the countless Obama articles.
  • Malacandra95, on 02/08/2008, -13/+29Gave some today... but I'll give more on the 12th. I'm making the transition from Edwards, which isn't that hard for me.
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/08/2008, -22/+9Wow, real original Bamabots. Where'd you come up with this idea? Surely it can't be from the same people you were mocking for doing the same thing a few months ago, because that would be hypocritical.
    • RansomHoldiay, on 02/08/2008, -9/+7you're right. ron paul started the money bomb craze first. he even rose $6 mill in a day, very impressive. yet this all required weeks of planning (and spamming) to take effect. obama supporters last night raised $6 million in one night with zero planning ahead, and have shown that we can meet any goal set by the campaign, no matter how short of notice. so no, we aren't hypocritical.

      Plus Bamabots sounds a lot cooler than Ronbots personally.
      • BlackMagic2, on 02/08/2008, -4/+2The power of obama supporters, or the power of the MSM?
        • RansomHoldiay, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3it's actually main stream media. none of us really give a *****, we just get a check at the end of every month for posting pro obama comments on digg.
          • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2I'm sorry RansomHoldiay, they aren't checks, they are FAT checks. Let's be specific here.
  • ssn697, on 02/08/2008, -33/+15Oh *****. Don't start this crap. Don't do what the PaulTards did. Your candidate is riding high. Start spamming Digg with this *****, and storm clouds will brew.

    Obama doesn't NEED some stupid "no, really. Our candidate IS relevant" money bomb. He pulled 30 million in a month without the stupid exercise in pretend importance.

    Don't do it! Don't stoop...
    • MrWhite7, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4Wow... attempting to draw attention to ones candidate and his platform is stooping...
      • sirachman, on 02/08/2008, -4/+4Wow funny how Ron Paul raised more in Q4 than your cantidate... Yeah other than biased media he really needs to 'pretend' he is relevant... Whatever, enjoy your communist future Mr. Wealth Re-Distributioner ! Hope you dont ever want to actually work for a living, because by that point the man will surely take all your earnings away and give them to the poor little poor people.
    • rdnkjdi, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4No man, we ARE the next generation. We WILL make a difference by pushing green and red thumbs for our candidate, and we WILL force everybody to read at least four stories a day on how great he is. You sir, underestimate the power of green and red buttons, and 5.01!
  • Stonedonkey, on 02/08/2008, -10/+49Each transaction has an overhead -- a surcharge that goes to Mastercard, Visa, et cetera. So the smaller your donation, the more of it will be eaten up by the system. So if you have, say, $20 you want to contribute, the campaign will be better off if you send it all at once, instead of in four chunks plus pennies.
    • TomK88, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I can't wait for the Visa IPO. :)
    • adrianmonk, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4It *is* possible to mail a check. I know, it may seem old-fashioned, but you can still use paper for financial transactions. The credit card companies get 0% of that.
      • Stonedonkey, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4That's true, but physically processing a check has a surcharge of its own. I can't imagine how long it would take to deposit thousands of checks made out for $5.01 :P
      • wendelgee2, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2and pay $.40 for a stamp??? Screw that.
    • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Processing fees are not that much.
    • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Processing fees vary wildly based on the bank. In many cases it is a strict percentage.
      Now a days, you can even use your credit cards at fast food restaurants. (the Wendy's near me accepts them.) There is no way that the fast food chain would accept them if there was a minimum fee associated with payments. How could even a $1 charge be justified on a $5 (or less) meal?
      • phybere, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I'm fairly certain the pricing schemes are counting on losing the processing fee, if somebody pays in cash it's just an unexpected bit of profit.
  • wedges, on 02/08/2008, -8/+16well, then $20.04 it is.
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 02/08/2008, -14/+48I donated $1 to every campaign so i could get all there spam.
    • twrife, on 02/08/2008, -1/+19their
    • dumpyhumpy, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3umm I tried to donate $1 to Dr Paul. There's a $5 minimum. other candidates are prob the same.
    • sjmorton, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2They will send you the spam for free.
    • Bravesguy18, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2you're an addict.
  • dukeeeey, on 02/08/2008, -56/+89Ron Paul
    • allan17, on 02/08/2008, -4/+14Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob Dole...
      • Balath, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2You took a wrong turn somewhere near 1996. You made me laugh, though, and you sound like a pokemon, so you're getting a digg from me.
      • PeachtreeDish, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1"Bob Dole is GORgeous..."
    • asauterChicago, on 02/08/2008, -13/+4For what? The Republican nomination? He's out, it's McCain's race now. Old RP, would have to run as an independent at this point. Enough already, these our are diggs. If you don't like seeing Obama stories filter them. I urge everyone to start reporting Ron Paul spammers.
    • Brad324, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5The humor of this comment is all about the timing. I've seen it get buried to negative infinity, with profane, angry replies, and I've seen it dugg to +110, while various people shoot milk out of their noses. It's a highly unpredictable comment.
    • kipmartin, on 02/08/2008, -6/+5RuPaul
    • SoyJames, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul
  • Armitage, on 02/08/2008, -37/+14Money Bomb... yet another Obama rip off.

    "...This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of "one world government.'...National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept..."
    -Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama Advisor and vocal supporter

    Enough with the Obama stories. BURIED.
    • hoffey, on 02/08/2008, -12/+5He will probably smooth talk his supporters into thinking a one world government is the way to go.

      Right after he gives them all national id cards.
      • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -8/+4Don't say that too loud, he will hear you via the Patriot Act.
    • kenyan, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Yeah you are.

      Sorry, but its an inevitability.
    • dn11, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6it must suck that your candidate has 4 delegates
  • diggzoid, on 02/08/2008, -12/+155001 Diggs!
    • BeanTeddyMagic, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1I thought a dollar was 100 cents?

      But then, what would I know? I'm Australian!
  • aceakm, on 02/08/2008, -20/+7No. I support Obama and everything, but he has plenty of money already.
  • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -19/+6Obama: "Change means you vote for someone because of their skin color. Don't worry, you aren't being racist. In fact when you vote for someone because of their skin color, it is the exact opposite of racism!"

    Oprah: "can to I beiz ur VP now plz?"
    • Synova, on 02/08/2008, -2/+3Quotes is suppose to mean...you know...you are quoting someone.
    • pilgrimbeats, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2what the hell are you talking about?
      • chaosium, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2He's from Stormfront, what do you expect.
  • cjnkns, on 02/08/2008, -12/+14I'll do it! Anything to help
    • tierpinho, on 02/08/2008, -8/+1go NWO slave go!
    • d03boy, on 02/08/2008, -5/+1Anything? Would you give your life for what Obama offers?
  • sonicularulus, on 02/08/2008, -23/+15I don't support Obama nor do I feel that he needs $5.01 from each member of the Digg community. That money can go towards something else. For example, I ran across a guy at my college trying to raise money to help homeless families care for their children. My opinion: a homeless family can use my $5.01 more than Obama. If you walk up to Obama and give him $5.01, he'll probably laugh at you and say "this is not what I meant by change" while that homeless family will love you and thank you endlessly for your thoughtful care. Yes, $5.01 is not much to many of us, but it can go a long way if given to the right people.

    So in other words, save your money and give it somebody who can actually use it.


    • TomK88, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8Might as well not vote either since one vote in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter.
      • Sochalist, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Write in College Guy Who Collects For Homeless People on the ballot! He'll appreciate your vote!
      • BlackMagic2, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Now you're talking!
      • sonicularulus, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1i didn't vote for the primaries because in my opinion, the candidates we have right now don't seem much of a leader.
        and no, i won't vote a person who collects for homeless people for president. that would be stupid.
    • DimensionalPunk, on 02/08/2008, -2/+9Closing the wage gap is much more worthy of my charity than putting another 40oz in the hand of a homeless person.
      • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3What the *****? I have a real problem with this comment.

        First of all, not all homeless people are drunk idiots that spend any money they get on food. I've given money to homeless people... in fact, most homeless people I meet, I buy them food AND try to give them money and all they want is the food. Maybe I've just been lucky.

        But moreover, you're supporting a liberal candidate. The embodiment of hand-outs. Free health care for everyone, but don't dare give them a few dollars, lest they spend it on booze? Like Obama is going to spend your money any better!
        • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1"First of all, not all homeless people are drunk idiots that spend any money they get on food."

          That should say "booze," not food.
        • foned, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1what an awful typo rofl. ;]

          But I agree, to support Obama, and not support homeless people is retarded.
          • sonicularulus, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1im not necessarily supporting the homeless, though we should. But i feel that our money can go to a better cause. Not a presidential campaign, but to multiple charities to support different things - aids, breast cancer, homelessness, education, etc.

            that was my point. not just homeless people. just think about it and put your money where it really matters. that is all i am saying.
            giving money to somebody who already has it is just stupid.
      • sonicularulus, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2stop stereotyping.
        "ooo he's homeless..ooo he's a druggie" that's just messed up. some people have gone through some hard times and just couldn't get back on their feet isn't the same thing as being a druggie
    • hierophantus, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Why do anything ever? There's always something better you could be doing. In fact, you should be ashamed of yourself right now because you aren't.
    • rarson, on 02/08/2008, -5/+2It's funny, but you make a good point. Romney funded a lot of his own campaign. Obama could do the same, but instead people are giving him their money... even though he's just another elite class politician like the rest of them. Arugula, anyone?
      • samson7842, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Obama does not have the kind of money Romney has. Do your research. Obama is well off, but he has no where near enough money to fund a presidential campaign.
  • Awspire, on 02/08/2008, -29/+7Barack Obeggar
  • ironpirate, on 02/08/2008, -24/+7Yes give away your money. Why don't you go give it to a charity or something rather then some stupid ***** TV ad
  • smokeymcblunt, on 02/08/2008, -32/+17Maybe that .01 is the "change" Obama is talking about. Lord knows he isnt going to change anything else.
    • MrMacMan, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1no, its tradition at Daily Kos so they know it can from people who supported Kos and other 'net roots' sites.
    • MBro, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I'm an obama support but I'd like to congratulate you on the zinger.
  • Scheissen, on 02/08/2008, -20/+12copycats
    • dn11, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4too bad Ron Paul couldn't copy Obama's ability to actual win something and not waste the tens of millions you gave him
  • diggdiggerid, on 02/08/2008, -27/+21He "believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman".
    It's funny how when any other candidate has this view people here would say he was a religious nut, but if it's Obama they just try to ignore it and give him more money. I cannot endorse someone who lets religious demagoguery dictate their rule.
    • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10He's technically right, but you're right about how people freak out and then are hypocrites
    • sulthernao, on 02/08/2008, -4/+17He supports Civil Unions and full government benefits.
      • foned, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2why should there be two different sets of civil liberties? bill mahr said it best when he said "I don't think there should be two different sets of rules, one for people who stick their penises into a vagina, and one for those who don't" (thats not an exact quote, but you get the point.)
        • eightballrj, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1He is saying NOT to have two sets of liberties. He is describing both "titles" having the same liberties and benefits... Same way I think..
        • LBobRife, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1Same civil liberties, different names. Think of it this way. When a guy and a girl have sex it's called heterosexual. When a guy and a guy or a girl and a girl have sex it's called homosexual. Different names for the same (sort of) act. Now if only they could come up with a name that sounded better than "civil unions".
        • bemidia, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1@LBobRife: How about "marriage"?
    • dagnabbit, on 02/08/2008, -2/+19Yeah, you may be right. But Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He also sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

      http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statem ...
    • underwise, on 02/08/2008, -1/+11I think he is trying to change within the system. He said on the MTV debate that his church recognized gay marriage, so it may be that he personally believes in gay marriage but realizes that in order to get at least some of the same rights for gay couples he needs to make concessions in the form of calling it a civil union
      • crimson117, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Obama's church (UCC - United Church of Christ) is one of the most open churches I've found. They're the ones who had those TV ads which were deemed "too controversial to air" by many networks. It's pretty sad that a church being welcoming is considered controversial.

        http://www.ucc.org/god-is-still-speaking/
    • Synova, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7It's a step in the right direction. Once people have become accustomed to civil unions I'm sure marriage will come soon thereafter. The civil rights movement did not happen overnight.
    • dn11, on 02/08/2008, -1/+12Obama is the only candidate i've seen go into a church and tell them directly they need to eradicate homophobia - and i've seen him do it in several speeches
    • eightballrj, on 02/08/2008, -5/+1Gay marriage... NO. The definition of marriage is a religious union in the strictest sense. If you are getting the same benefits as married people why does it matter if it is technically called marriage or civil union? Do I agree with homosexuality? NO! But, I am for civil unions because it is an equality thing. I think gays should have the same civil benefits as straight couples.
      • foned, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2just don't call it marriage, thats blasphemy! and this country won't have any of that...
    • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Personal opinions do not always equate to what he puts forth as his plan of action. I am sure he doesnt like xyz food, doesnt mean he wants it banned.
  • ivandir, on 02/08/2008, -16/+8More money to the rich. Obama needs to start giving some back to the people.
    • dn11, on 02/08/2008, -4/+12he can't do anything if he doesn't get elected
    • cameronio, on 02/08/2008, -3/+11Obama is one of the least wealthy candidates running for President.
    • ivandir, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Last time I checked he had $35 Million just in January. I don't think he is poor based on todays standards.
  • MrWhite7, on 02/08/2008, -12/+24How appropriate, the FIRST American president to circumvent Habeus Corpus.
    • compson, on 02/08/2008, -3/+16when lincoln did it, it was constitutional.
      • thirstyg, on 02/08/2008, -4/+7Actual, he was the one that made it legal.
        Congress changed the rules after the fact.
        • jerbaker, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Um, unless Article 1 Section 9 was written "after the fact" (hint: it wasn't), then you're flat out wrong. It allows the suspension of habeas corpus when "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

          Having half of the United States in armed rebellion satisfied the requirement of "in cases of rebellion."

          To all of you digging the comment up: Do you even check facts, or you just Digg up whatever sounds good?
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2No it wasn't. As someone who studied wartime law last semester, I can tell you that it was unconstitutional de jure, but constitutional de facto because Congress retroactively authorized his revocation. The HC Suspension Clause is in Article I, which is all about Congress. There is no mention of HC in Article II (the Executive), which implies (via one canon of Constitutional construction) that HC may only be suspended by Congress.
        This has existed untouched in the Constitution since 1789.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 02/08/2008, -0/+22Compson's right; the Constitution specifically states that it can be revoked in times of "rebellion or invasion." Certainly having half the country leave and go to war with the other half constitutes a rebellion.

      Having a dictator in charge of a country thousands of miles away with no direct connection to recent attacks, however, does not constitute an invasion, contrary to what Bush would like you to think.
    • MrWhite7, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5Legal authorities since the 18th century have considered habeus corpus to be a fundamental HUMAN right owed EVERYON; even the slaves they owned. I'm not contending it's not a Constitutional provision, I'm contending that it's ***** wrong no matter what the situation.
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1As a law student who studied habeas corpus in wartime last semester, I'd like to know your sources for that.
    • Zaggynl, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2(Latin: [We command] that you have the body) [1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

      Knowledge++;
  • noizeuk, on 02/08/2008, -10/+3Why should more money mean a better chance to win the election or even minority/majority states?

    Correct me if my morales are wrong here, but isn't the whole idea of presidency and candidacy based on intuition, ideas, fore-thought and most of all, genuine care and understanding for what America and the World needs?

    I'm an onlooker however, I have seen unbiased and accountable news sources (BBC World News) cover this election candidacy and to be honest, Obama looks like he has that nouse.

    (on a personal side note: why do the Hilary Clinton supporters jump for joy and hang on every last word that she says. hell I only have that emotion when my favorite football (soccer *sigh*) scores! I mean if those are the people theyre after for voting, then they must be desperate!)
    • darkphenox, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1It should not but it dose.
    • grungefan, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1You clearly don't understand how democracy works, at least here in the states. For an accurate representation, look at American Idol.
      • saranagati, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up, but i wish i could take that back. I honestly believe people put more thought and research into voting for their american idol than they do for president.
    • cameronio, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1It seems like Obama is going to win on BBC because the rest of the world want Obama. Chances are, America will vote for Obama once they get to know him. To get to know him, he needs ads and rallies, which cost money.
  • holyreality, on 02/08/2008, -9/+24feb 12 is my birthday.
  • satman33, on 02/08/2008, -4/+4oops
  • theghoul, on 02/08/2008, -14/+18As soon as I get my refund from Ron Paul's Teaparty07, I'll donate.

    I want Paul to win, but it's looking pretty bleak.
    • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -20/+10OK, go ahead and donate for the candidate who voted for the Patriot Act then. Have fun in socialist fascism.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8*****, he must be good if he was able to vote for the PATRIOT Act before he was even in Congress.

        Oh--ohhhhh, you mean the version that he had rewritten to give us back all of the liberties he could.
        Yeah, I TOTALLY see where you're coming from.
        • Synova, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4Wow, one person who actually reads up on these things before they post. I'm astounded. =)
        • bassik, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2considering he did vote for the reauthorization, perhaps others should take a bit more care in their research.
        • Tyvon2000, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1so, what you're saying is he wrote a better version, but STILL voted for the current [bad] version, right? lol then your point is moot, sir.
    • AndyWhite, on 02/08/2008, -5/+9You give up so easily.
    • HigherLogic, on 02/08/2008, -2/+6So vote for Ron Paul. Why must every election come down to either the lesser of two evils or the most electable? If you like what Ron Paul has to say, then vote for Ron Paul. If you're voting for Obama because you've given up on Ron Paul, then I feel pretty sorry for you.
      • archiesteel, on 02/08/2008, -3/+1Do Ron Paul supporters realise he's running in the *Republican* primary, not the Democratic one? So it makes *no* sense for people to say they should vote for Paul instead of Obama - they're not running in the same race yet!!
        • foned, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I think he meant support, which i would assume, would lead to a vote later on..
        • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but if Ron can't get into the general election, I'd much rather see Obama on the ticket than 'she who must not be named'
      • chrispix, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Or people just don't want Clinton in office. It is not about the lesser of two evils. Its making sure no evil gets in office (again). I don't care if it is Paul vs. Obama. But I don't want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, so I go to the Democrat side, and vote to make sure that Clinton does not get my primary vote. I don't care if it is E.T. vs Obama..
      • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1Actually I feel like this is the first election that I will be choosing someone I want instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. Even though Obama is my second choice (after Edwards) I still feel strongly for him.
        Unfortunately, if Clinton gets the nomination than I will be forced to go with the lesser evil approach and pick John McCain.
        • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1That choice is like trying to decide between the Anti-christ and re-incarnated Hitler. How can you choose either? I think our mission is clear, No Hillary, No Mccain. The R's don't have a prayer anyway, So now I shift gears to go against HC.
    • Infowarmachine, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2my first candidate, a strictly small government anti interventionist constitution supporting soverenty loving die hard american hero doesnt seem to be doing well, so im going to vote for a big government socialist NWO CFR member shill... ya good logic there
    • GeorgeClayton, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately I don't see it happening THIS election, but hopefully this message is getting out there. Hopefully he'll be around next election cycle or someone with his fiscal policies & honesty. Would be interesting to see him as Obama's running mate; except I don't see it happening due to differences in fiscal policy.
    • dmjarrington, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Ron Paul is still in the race. He doesn't need the popular vote. He needs delegates, which he has. You are giving up at a critical juncture in the campaign. This is only the first obstacle.

      Don't let them beat you. This is a psychological war. Never forget that. The war is on your mind.
      • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1I too yearn almost more than life itself for a Ron Paul presidency, but I really don't see it happening. We need to shift strategies and plan for 2012 or 2016. We know there is a base but we have to maximize the potential. I don't think Ron is a smooth enough orater and doesn't speak in simple terminology that any moron can understand in a clear, concise and nationalistic(yes thats right nationalistic) way. The average moron has to be reigned in or else he votes for the shrewdest opportunist that hits his or her key words. I think we have to be ready to get dirty if we really want a win. Ron's "problem" is that he's too pure, and too straightforward and doesn't play games or dumb his message down. We need a guy that's pure like ron but pragmatic enough to, say, hire a speechwriter so we can really exude leadership and nationalism and manipulate emotions. Message alone will only appeal to intellectuals. Intellectuals are, and probably always will be, a minority.
    • ahfarnum, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0WRITE HIM IN! He can be the largest written in candidate of American history!!!
  • HugoNaught, on 02/08/2008, -25/+14Obama will keep you in the war until at least 2013. Do you want a draft??
    • thefirstenemy, on 02/08/2008, -3/+10I never knew Obama wanted to keep all the troops in Iraq untill 2013. His submitting legislation calling for the withdrawal within 16 months really threw me. Is the source of this exclusive information your ass?
      • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -3/+316 months? Goodness
        Even Gravel's plan was 6 months
  • HyperZiper, on 02/08/2008, -24/+32Difference is... the Paul campaign was straight up grassroots. aka. The People.
    Let Obama keep the troops until 2012, and let's get a tax increase as well.

    • LBobRife, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1The people planned Paul's. The people also donated somewhere around 3 million after the 5th before Obama's site decided to try to reach 5 mill to match her.
    • Altanar, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2Also, Ron Paul was an Internet fad, a la Snakes on a Plane.
    • KyleGoetz, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2You're implying that Obama's popularity isn't grassroots. I suggest you get your head checked. Did you forget that Clinton was the "obvious winner" months ago? Obama has caught up almost completely BECAUSE OF grassroots movements.
  • DDMX, on 02/08/2008, -40/+27Digg THIS if you support Ron Paul.
    • dagnabbit, on 02/08/2008, -20/+9***** Ron Paul
      • d03boy, on 02/08/2008, -8/+11***** freedom, liberty, sovereignty mwahahahah.down with ron paul!
    • Tweekster, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2***** paulistinians.
      • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1You know it's funny you say that. All I hear from paul haters is "we've been displaced!" Digg has been taken over by Paulites....etc.. Shouldn't you be
        saying "***** Paulsrieli's"
  • lyrica42, on 02/08/2008, -10/+15I'll do it. Out of all of the candidates this election, Obama scares me the least. $5.01 is do-able on my budget.
  • u2wedge, on 02/08/2008, -4/+11start today just for practice.
  • brwright, on 02/08/2008, -25/+16Obama kills babies. Argument won by me.
  • zerhynn, on 02/08/2008, -19/+9So we're gonna send him envelopes marked as donations with bombs in them, right?
    • BillyBumpkin, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3You are a ***** of a human being. I truly hope you get a visit fromt he Secret Service... at work, so everyone can see what kind of ***** you really are.
    • zerhynn, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1It was a play on words.

      Normally I would've gotten dugg up for that, I guess I'll go back to commenting when the right kind of people are online.

      Did it for the lulz.
  • aschmack, on 02/08/2008, -7/+25Better than Rudy's suggested donation amount.
    • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3What was that? $9.11 ?
      (cut to the scene of the 9 poking an 11 on a bed with Jon Stewart commentating...)
    • SoyJames, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2You may think it's a joke but it's not. That's what they actually asked for.
      (edit*** that comment was supposed to be a reply to stretch611)
      • stretch611, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Honesty, yes, I really posted that as a joke. If that is truly what they asked for, I am really scared. (and happy he did not make it anywhere with his campaign.)
  • mluu921, on 02/08/2008, -9/+15you guys can count me in! obama for 08 !
  • MoralCuntPiss, on 02/08/2008, -24/+0John McCain is going to be the next POTUS, don't waste your money on this guy.
    • 30somethinDad, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Haha, best joke I heard all day. McAmnesty who "hates gooks" and wants stay in Iraq for a 100 years and start more wars in the middle east will be the next president? The general public is not dumb enough to vote for McCain, you're just special.
      • JavanSClark, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2he's also prone to wishful thinking.
    • Bilabrin, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Partisenship aside, that would be impressive. The democrats have all the momentum and the $$. Look at the difference in the #'s of poeple going to the primaries. It's easily 2:1 for the Dems. I don't like the idea of Hillary as POTUS but I'd put my $$ on a D VS. McCain.
  • tierpinho, on 02/08/2008, -26/+19lincoln?? haha, he supported slavery.... vote for obama and you get more slavery - he is no different than bush, ie. supports the REAL iD, pre-emptive war, won't discuss monetary policy, voted for the patriot act... real "change" my a@@ - wake up AMERICA!!!
    • DDMX, on 02/08/2008, -6/+7"lincoln?? haha, he supported slavery.... vote for obama and you get more slavery - he is no different than bush, ie. supports the REAL iD, pre-emptive war, won't discuss monetary policy, voted for the patriot act... real "change" my a@@ - wake up AMERICA!!!"

      QFT!
    • d03boy, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3qft
    • StormCommander, on 02/08/2008, -6/+6You forgot to mention that Obama voted for the Patriot Act
      • adrianmonk, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5He did, but read the floor statement that he made about it when he did vote for it. He repeatedly voiced his disappointment about the failures to work out a bill that had better protections for civil liberties in several key areas and urged people to keep working on improving it in that area in the future.

        The statement is here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...
    • JavanSClark, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1you forgot to mention that Ron Paul is going nowhere. He couldn't even pull 1 state on Super Tuesday... oh wait.. the conspiracy got him. My bad.
  • kevin28282, on 02/08/2008, -14/+5try to spread this on facebook...college kids can afford 5.01. its one less beer at the bar
    • Bravesguy18, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1$5 for a beer! you're going to the wrong college bar.
  • AndyWhite, on 02/08/2008, -35/+30You guys are all welcome over at the Ron Paul Revolution. Obama ain't gonna end this war. And he certainly won't end our Empire. You have to ask yourself, if he really was going to change anything would the Mainstream Media give him coverage all day long? The MSM's vested interest is the status quo staying the same, thats why Ron Paul is ignored. Don't let the big money people control you with a false prophet. Help us end our empire before it collapses on us all.
    • bingobongony, on 02/08/2008, -10/+5You really don't understand yet that no one wants Ron Paul as president?
    • RyeBrye, on 02/08/2008, -6/+6Even if Ron Paul one EVERY SINGLE delegate remaining, he would not be able to win the nomination.

      What is the Revolution going to do now?
      • trvr, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4They are going to digg down every comment and story to the contrary.
    • HigherLogic, on 02/08/2008, -6/+5Don't worry, in 4 (or *gasp* 8) years, they'll all wonder why nothing's changed, and look for another candidate that still won't give them change.
    • asauterChicago, on 02/08/2008, -6/+4Yes I hope Ron Paul wins, I want them to teach the bible in school... Oh wait, Ron Paul wants to get rid of those pesky public schools!! Oh and get rid of all those gays and get rid all those pesky Civil Rights laws, I don't want black people around my children!! Ron Paul 08!! Let's go backwards 500 Years!! Yay!!
      • gator76, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4You clearly have no idea what Ron Paul's platform is.
      • flsurfer, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3He wants to get rid of the Department of Education not public schooling you freaking idiot. All the Department of Education does is raise the cost of education and lower the quality. It's the most wasteful bureaucracy in the country. Get rid of Civil Rights???? His whole ***** platform is based on protecting them. DO SOME RESEARCH
    • adrianmonk, on 02/08/2008, -1/+0What makes you say Obama won't end the war? Have you listened to his answers to this question when he has been asked? Out of the 3 remaining major candidates (him, Clinton, and McCain), he is the only one who supports basically a timetable for withdraw from Iraq. He's also explicitly said the war in Iraq isn't improving our safety in the US, that the Iraqi factions need the pressure of US troop withdrawal in order to get them to be serious about working out their differences, and that there will be no permanent US presence in Iraq except for perhaps an embassy.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/08/2008, -3/+1Hey I hear Alex Jones is having a tin hat sleepover.. you're missing out, better hurry on over.
    • nobody7, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1If anyone is thrown for a loop on RP, his controversies are here: http://tinyurl.com/349r4s that is why there is lack of RP support
  • mrzack, on 02/08/2008, -24/+4Since Lincoln probably had some illegitimate babies with his slaves...ironic since O'bomba is ....
    • OneLess, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Lincoln didn't own slaves...
    • JavanSClark, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1After viewing yoru profile, it's plain that you are a tin hatter. Kindly shut up and continue thinking the world is out to get you.
    • kipmartin, on 02/08/2008, -1/+0slaves? are you taking crack or just a moron?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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