Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
ABC- No mention of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel as presidential runners.
abcnews.go.com — This pdf file can be found by going to http://abcnews.go.com/politics, going to '08 Campaign and clicking on "See who's running for 2008". It contains a list of 12 republicans and 9 democrats, none of which are Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. In an obvious attempt to hide them from public view, ABC have once again proved who runs the news.
sollycardy- 698 diggs
- digg it
- lilyrdape, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Make sure you email ABC and let them know whats up.
www.RonPaul2008.com
They will do anything to shut Paul up because he is the only one honest about what the rest don't want
you to know...- sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15email ABC here
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660 - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7ABC MENTION OF RON PAUL AS A PRESIDENTIAL RUNNER
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_FINALLY_added_to_ABC_News_Poll
Quit spamming your damn submission everywhere! I'm convinced now that this is an unintentional mistake. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9pompano:
>Quit spamming your damn submission everywhere! I'm convinced now that this is an unintentional mistake.
It's not an unintentional mistake. Until Digg gets smart and starts banning the IP of all of these scumbags who keep spamming, you and I will continue to see a dozen Ron Paul/Mike Gravel articles per day. These nutcase followers don't care if Paul has less than 1% of the vote in polls -- they know that he's the one true path to enlightenment because they're zealots. ABC also doesn't cover Earl from Montana who's "running for president" because he also has no chance. - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Yahoo is screwing the public too. All of the major "news" outlets are (Yahoo, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, etc.). These outlets put America to shame. No actual candidate should be silenced, especially in something as serious as a presidential race. It's a disgrace to everything we supposedly "fight for" as a country.
*********
Please Digg to Stop Yahoo:
*********
NOTE: This was originally posted just for Mike Gravel but please apply it to all who might be missing (Ron Paul, etc.)
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Yahoo_Where_s_Mike_Gravel - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -20/+13Here....I'll tell you "what's up".
Both Gravel and Paul look great compared to their boring competition. They have fiery, fresh rhetoric. They would make great Presidents in summer blockbuster films.
BUT LET US LOOK AT THE FACTS NOW.
Ron Paul -
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released.
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
We need more facts and less ***** on Digg. I am tired of these Ron Paul and Mike Gravel crazies hijacking things. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, Green Party or Libertarian, but the media wield incredible power over which candidate is selected. Remember when Howard Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic primaries by a long shot? He was the dark horse candidate whom the public liked, until the media blacklisted him that is. Remember that? Then all the liberals were left to vote for was Kerry. Remember the free ride the media gave Bush in 2000? They almost never even called him on blatant lies, but as soon as Gore even made a misstep when speaking it was a national scandal.
The reason these candidates have no chance is precisely because they are excluded by the media. - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@bigdavediode
You say that they don't cover Ron Paul simply because he doesn't have a chance, but you're looking at a .pdf without a date on it, which includes statistics which predate his announcement of candidacy. There aren't any guidelines that tell you what makes a candidate eligable for appearing on the .pdf, either. That's why I think it's either a simple mistake and that anyone who says this is "intentional corporate censorship" is looking too far into it. ABC News wouldn't include Ron Paul in internet polls if they were trying to "hide" him from the mainstream. By the way, this guy has been spamming his own submission on every single Ron Paul page and it's probably inaccurate. - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7I'm loving this....I'm getting dug down for posting HIS VOTING RECORD!!!
If you want to vote for someone who is AGAINST campaign finance reform, AGAINST the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, AGAINST standing up to China, and AGAINST standing with the rest of the world by signing the Kyoto Protocol......vote Ron Paul.
These are not my opinions, these are facts! - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4pompano:
>You say that they don't cover Ron Paul simply because he doesn't have a chance, but you're looking at a .pdf without a date on it,
Actually it turns out the PDF is four months old. So you're right, although my point is valid in that why should they cover a bazillion marginal candidates who have zero name recognition and zero support (or are within the margin of error of zero)?
But you are right in that the PDF was created before Paul was even a candidate -- not that it will slow down the Libertarian spammer's shrieking at all.
Why Digg doesn't implement IP banning I have no idea. Expect a dozen more articles before the end of the day. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4bass:
>If you want to vote for someone who is AGAINST campaign finance reform, AGAINST the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, AGAINST standing up to China, and AGAINST standing with the rest of the world by signing the Kyoto Protocol......vote Ron Paul.
But if you ask his followers, he's got excuses! It makes sense in his tiny brain and the tiny brains of his followers! The question I have is how did this idiot make it into government at all? - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yeah, I can't believe some of these comments. How could someone not feel outraged at the major media conglomerates not including all major candidates on the list? Gravel, for instance, had the most buzz after the debate. He stole the show, deservedly. Prior to that he was nearly completely unknown. Think about that for a second. Then once the "news" outlets/elite realize, "oh *****, this guy will have a chance if more people see him" they -- literally -- don't include him. Seriously think about that. This should give you a little clue into how dangerous and easy it is for people in power to control what you know.
And I'm not talking about all the geeks here who already support Gravel. They already know. What I'm worried about are the 99% of regular people who will never come across these real, serious candidates, unless the media offers fair coverage.
US Citizens: YOU SHOULD BE OUTRAGED. Or do your feel the American people deserve less? - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@basscadet:
The Kyoto protocol is damn near impossible for the U.S. to implement without ~massive~ money dedicated to implementing it, abortion isn't necessarily what a woman does with her body, but what a woman does to something in her body (and many people would argue it's outright murder), and standing up to China would be economic suicide. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Ir, calm down. Take a deep breath and repeat after me:
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are not major candidates.
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are not major candidates.
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are not major candidates.
There, you're looking better already! - hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you want to know WHY Ron Paul takes the stands he does on particular issues (he doesn't opposed steam cell research, btw), check this archive:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Ron Paul has been writing position papers for Lew Rockwell for years. Sometimes you scratch your head trying to figure out how a libertarian like Paul would take a position that isn't always libertarian, but after you read what he says, you see why and often agree. - hiimsneeze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4amen
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"I'm loving this....I'm getting dug down for posting HIS VOTING RECORD!!!
If you want to vote for someone who is AGAINST campaign finance reform, AGAINST the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, AGAINST standing up to China, and AGAINST standing with the rest of the world by signing the Kyoto Protocol......vote Ron Paul.
These are not my opinions, these are facts!"
Until something is done about unrelated riders on bills it's impossible to look at the "main" subject of a bill and the voting record and draw ANY conclusions. I'm not saying Ron Paul had a "good" reason for voting the way he did, but I can say that posting a selected list of votes on bills that we know nothing about doesn't prove anything.
Also, how did you expect him to vote on partial birth abortion? I mean, seriously, he's a Republican, and not even all Democrats support partial birth abortion. Anyways, I could probably slum through every politicians voting record and find somewhere he voted against the "Free Puppies and Rainbows for America Act" because it also happened to carry a rider authorizing $10 billion in no bid contracts to the reps from Montana's brother in law to build dog houses for said puppies. It doesn't mean anything. - JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Bass:
Your Crazy if you think the US Politicians can continue to spend money without caring that it inflates the money supply.
In 2005 The government spent 1.2 trillion on a war, and 600 billion on a hurricane. (on top of everything else)
The dollar is at an all time low.
10 years ago gold was around $340 an ounce. Today its at $686.
Is gas going up or is the dollar going down?
This is why we support Ron Paul.. but on to the points you listed..
Ron Paul has mentioned he is PRO stem cell research. He said "I don't see why you cant use the fetus taken from a tubal pregnancy for research."
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (good, choice in school is a good thing.)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (good, the Kyoto Protocol is unfair to the US)
I for one don't care WHAT China does, so long as they aren't shooting at us.
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (hmm.. no opinion)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Why can't you use your own money as you like?)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (good, if the school wants them there then this is ok. make a case by case basis.)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (good, Paul delivering 4,000 babies himself may have put him close to this issue) - inrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@eicos
They're not major candidates because they have not yet been able to get fair coverage. Gravel was entirely unknown. Then the first democratic debate happened, 8 Democrats. And Gravel stole the show! Prior to this the main candidate I was considering was Obama. Mike Gravel, however, after learning more about him, was amazing. He was the type of person so many liberals have been waiting for to come along and bring greatness.
I like to know what candidates actually exist. I try to be open minded and check out who's "the best." Gravel, without a doubt, is the real deal.
So please, don't be against people who want all the main candidates to be *shown* by our news organizations. Just a week ago, the HD DVD ordeal brought Digg to its knees. The matters of censorship across the board by our US media is a problem infinitely larger. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"But if you ask his followers, he's got excuses!"
It's not a question of excuses, it's a question of principles. If a bill is unconstitutional, it should be voted against at ALL times, even if you personnally support some of its provisions. Those bills are usually full of pork too. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1mrgreen:
>Until something is done about unrelated riders on bills
That excuse doesn't fly because Ron Paul also voted against the line-item veto! You want it all ways with this guy -- oh well something must be done, but when something was proposed, he voted against it! Nor did he offer any amendments to improve it's constitutionality or functionality! He just said "Oh, that's no good" and voted against it! He's an example of everything that's wrong with government today. Well, him and his toadies. - BlakeEM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@basscadet
I digg you down because you have no idea what you’re talking about. He voted against these things because they are things the government should not regulate, he wants to leave it at a state level. Also he thinks women should be able to do whatever they want with there body. He may not like abortion but he’s strongly for people to make up there own minds and he wouldn’t try to stop them. Maybe if you watched some ***** videos of him speaking/explaining his views instead of trying to miss-represent his views people wouldn’t digg you down.
He is for free unregulated internet. Would stop drug war. Stop the federal reserve system. Stop the governments abuse of power and maybe actually follow this great thing we have called the constitution.
If you haven’t noticed these issues are very popular on digg, as are stories on these issues. This is why he is so popular. By not realizing why he votes that way you completely miss the point.
His foreign policy is that of a strong self defense, this worked very well in the cold war, and there is no reason it can’t still work. We don’t need to be policing the world. Let them do what they want, if we don’t get involved with ***** in other countries so much we’d have a lot less enemies and would be a hell of al lot safer. Trade with countries, much like we trade with Vietnam now. This is how you make changes in the world. You put sanctions on a country and the people turn to there government and next thing you know you have another North Korea.
This is someone who obviously isn’t in it for money or power but in it for the people and this is why he’s so popular.
As for voting against partial birth abortion (unless the mothers life is at risk, as that bill he voted for stated). I'm atheist and I agree with that vote. At that point the child feels and could potentially survive outside the womb. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Blake:
>He is for free unregulated internet
Actually he would have voted against the development funds for the Internet in the first place. He's determined to reduce us to the "paradise" of the 1840's. - Craig42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@basscadet
You're missing the point. You can give me all the facts you have. Are you trying to justify the media's approach at making certain candidates invisible? You're getting dugg down because you're not really addressing what the article is about, instead trying to attack Ron Paul.
This is about equality in the coverage of EVERY candidate, no matter what they voted on. Spew you're facts in a digg article about facts on Ron Paul. This is about the rights of a candidate in an election to become your president. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ABC is ***** in general. That PDF has Hillary's last name spelled "Clintonn."
- sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15email ABC here
- UrbanOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18AND, at the bottom of the page, it says :
* ABC News/Washington Post Poll: January 19, 2007
So, four and a half month old news? Were Ron Paul or Make Gravel candidates at that point?
Why has no other MSM org picked this up? Removing candidates from news and polls is a bigger story than the first debate...- thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ron Paul formed an exploratory committee on January 11th, and formally announced his presidency on March 12th. Mike Gravel formally announced his presidency as late as April 17. Perhaps the site hasn't been updated since January.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Ron Paul formed an exploratory committee on January 11th, and formally announced his presidency on March 12th. Mike Gravel formally announced his presidency as late as April 17. Perhaps the site hasn't been updated since January."
I thought Gravel "threw his hat into the ring" last year - before any other Democrat officially did.
- PBronstein, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Well what do you expect from ABC? They have a thousand names of Washington elites tied to the DC Madam and they are keeping mum for 998 of them. They are cowering hacks for the corrupt status quo. With the madam story we have significant national security issues since people from the Pentagon have been implicated, but ABC apparently doesn't find that important. You shouldn't have a clearance if you are running around with prostitutes, that is a basic spying technique.
Back to Ron Paul. Just like the DC Madam story, they will provide aid and comfort to the Washington Aristocracy and the Multinational interest. When Media Consolidation was being discussed, how much news coverage did that get in the 90s? What about the current actions of the SPP and their attempt to erode our sovereignty? Do you see a pattern. The MSM doesn't represent us. We need to show the American People just how irrelevant they are by pushing for Ron Paul and eventually more Americans will wake from their Big 5 slumber and pick up on the foul scent that is coming from the Washington power structure with the MSM as a big part.- thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You sound like a French Revolutionary.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, at one time the French and American Revolutionaries all sounded alike, and even fought together for our freedoms.
- DrStrabismus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This story is also on Reddit: http://reddit.com/info/1nzd1/comments
Give it a point, people need to know about this! - JLyles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12
Take action. Contact info:
Senior VP of Media Relations Jeffrey Snyder: 646-210-9367
ABCNews.com: 212-456-4396
Media Relations: 212-456-3587
Media Relations Executive Director: 212-456-6190
News Coordinator: 212-456-3742
ED News Media Relations: 202-222-6896- aethyrnaut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I talked to Snyder and he claims that it has been updated. Hold him to it! call him more!
- sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This was my message to ABC:
After going to http://abcnews.go.com/politics, going to '08 Campaign and clicking on "See who's running for 2008" I was outraged to see how this pdf document does not contain all the presidential runners. It contains a list of 12 republicans and 9 democrats, none of which are Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have filed everything they need to run as presidential candidates AND they were in the NSMBC debates last week. If ABC is not biased it should not exclude them from ANY lists of who's running for president. Ron Paul is running as a republican and Mike Gravel is running as a democrat.- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5And Earl from Montana is running on the yahoo ticket. Why don't they cover all three? They're at the same in the polls.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Doesn't matter who it is. If they aren't covering them, they are influencing election results. It's not your call or theirs who gets how many votes. According to your logic the election is over and we can all go home now. The point is that with media exposure for ALL candidates, the public can make a better choice. You can't make an informed decision if you aren't informed.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2jerbarker:
>Doesn't matter who it is. If they aren't covering them, they are influencing election results.
So they need to put the communist candidate, the green party candidate, the socialist candidate, the Marxist-Lenninist candidate, the Natural Law Party candidate, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
There'll be 300 candidates on their list if they do that. There's no point. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2">Doesn't matter who it is. If they aren't covering them, they are influencing election results.
So they need to put the communist candidate, the green party candidate, the socialist candidate, the Marxist-Lenninist candidate, the Natural Law Party candidate, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
There'll be 300 candidates on their list if they do that. There's no point."
Yes, they should. They don't have to give equal space to them all, but they should have to at least say who, what party, a brief statement from the candidate, and a link to their homepage. They should also be required to give equal space in any questionnaire based voters guide to all candidates who are officially running. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2mrgreen:
>Yes, they should.
Well you and them will have to agree to disagree. They feel that people want the information on major candidates who have above 1% in polls, where Gravel and Paul don't (and never will.) I don't want to dig through 300 names to find a candidate, they're writing news not a historical encyclopedia. You're just upset because they weren't propagandizing for your marginal candidate who has raised next to nothing and polled at next to nothing. And when you guys shrieked and complained like children, they even put this nutcase on for you! But you're STILL complaining and using four month old documents to be outraged about! Libertarians are loud, ignorant, and will complain about things that were already fixed ages ago.
- interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Just to let you know - Digg has been burying Ron Paul articles all yesterday and today. Fair speech my ass! haha
- Taciturn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I don't think "Digg" has been burying anything. Digg users, on the other hand, tend not to want a dozen duplicate articles on the front page.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Amen brother... I've been burying every Paul article and Gravel article I find, I've had enough with these Libertarians. However they've just increased their shrieking to even higher levels, they're dumping in dozens of articles at a time now. So from now on, until Digg does something, I'm going to sit back and watch them go to the front page. I may even Digg them all just so they can't miss how Digg is being abused. They obviously don't seem to be noticing -- I've been complaining about these nuts for six months now.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Even if we had been burying your articles all today or yesterday, what of it? Digg is a one-of-a-kind social aggregator. It is not a billboard for your propaganda. "Fair speech" (or did you mean "free"?) only means that the government doesn't interfere with your ability to express yourself. It has nothing to do with Diggers getting tired of your aggressive partisanship and deciding to turn you off.
- dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bigdavediode
you're a nut.
- aethyrnaut, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6212 456 2700 for the "national desk" for urgent issues. Call 646 210 9367 for Jeff Snyder's cell phone
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4...for a site that's already been updated to include your marginal candidate you're going to bother the guy who's ALREADY UPDATED IT -- ON HIS CELL PHONE.
More evidence that Libertarians are jerks.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4...for a site that's already been updated to include your marginal candidate you're going to bother the guy who's ALREADY UPDATED IT -- ON HIS CELL PHONE.
- aethyrnaut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Audience relations is 818 460 7471
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's where you get tickets to TV show tapings dude ... in Burbank.
- JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't get it.. I don't believe in the giant conspiracy theorys but.. They couldn't have all gotten together and decided to remove info about Dr. Paul?? right? I mean it's clear though they *are* trying to keep him out for some reason.. What are they afraid of?
I'm confused by this.. does anyone know why this is?- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5How about "because the PDF was four months old" the website has already been updated to include the head nutcase. I know it's hard for you guys to bother to check dates before you scream and shriek like children, but it is there.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4They're petrified of a candidate that is forthright and honest about his views on numerous issues!
A politician that tells the truth is deeply disturbing to many many people, generally the ones making money under the current administration, or their puppets in the press corps.
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Neither has any chance of winning. Plus no one has ever heard of these guys. Face it, it's either McCain or Giuliani. Giuliani is the only one with a chance because he's nearly a Democrat.
- h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5lol, the only hope the dems have of beating either mccain or the ny faker is Dean. Obama and Hillary don't stand a chance, and Edwards is a pompous pretty boy slickster with limited appeal and credibility.
If people would actually listen to what Paul is saying, you'd be surprised how the partisan ***** could vanish. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3If people listened to what Paul was saying, their brains would dribble out their noses under the influence of the idiocy and outright paranoia of his rants.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh god, I hope they nominate Guilliani. ANYONE would crush him. No Democrat will vote for him. No "real" Republican will - I mean, how can you be a member of a party who make "family values" a major platform item and then vote for an adulterer? Throw in his recent support for a President with an approval rating of ~20%... it's like he doesn't want to win.
Man, if the Dems give Hillary a go, and she goes up against Guilliani, we could see a 3rd party with a real chance next year. Wouldn't that be something.
- h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5lol, the only hope the dems have of beating either mccain or the ny faker is Dean. Obama and Hillary don't stand a chance, and Edwards is a pompous pretty boy slickster with limited appeal and credibility.
- gonknet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow. A list of candidates favored by at least 1% of poll respondents in January 19, 2007 doesn't have candidates you didn't know about until last week. The Digg swarm needs to chill out... there isn't some national conspiracy about this.
- PoeticExplosion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They were both in the first national debates, unlike some people on that list. As to your second comment, I have supported Ron Paul for a lot longer than he's been running for president. Some of us pay attention to national politics outside the election season. (Gravel I hadn't heard of until a few months ago, but surely the national debate should be enough to get him at least a cursory mention...)
- eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The funny thing is that most of the people here frothing at the mouth aren't even going to bother to vote in their primaries anyway.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you didn't exclude people at 1%, the list would be 300 candidates long.
- FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Pot and Ron Paul, Pot and Ron Paul . Is the not any thing else out there to post except get high and vote for the nut case
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@eicos-"despite my B.S. in economics"
eicos did your studies teach you that economics is a static discipline with one school of thought? Do you believe the book is closed, unanimous opinion, no further research, no competing theories. Is there a "Grand Unification Theory" in the field of Economics that has repeatedly stood experimental testing and peer review without fail but is known only to you and a select few? Please enlighten the rest of us on such a development so we may start sending out pink slips to all the practicing Economists.
Your trotting out a B.S. in Economics with your other statements only serves to demonstrate:
a) The sad state of education in America/World
b) The level of politicization of science
c) You need to do further study re: the discipline of Economics/the current state of activity in same - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2See, qsmon, there you go. You are literally stating that just because I have a degree in economics, that my opinions are less valid, evne though I've probably taken more economics classes than you have credit hours. Would you argue high-energy particle physics with a Physics B.S.? No? Then why would you argue with me? I mean, if you've done some reading and are prepared to argue facts and points with me, then I'd be more than willing to accommodate you with a sensible debate. But all you've done is attack me just because I have a standard education.
No, economics is not a closed book.
No, economics is not a static discipline.
No, there is no grand unified theory of economics.
However:
none of this means that all ideas in the field of economics should be treated with equal respect.
The Austrian school of economics for which Libertarian Diggers seem to show such fondness has vital historical importance. It was instrumental in the rejection of an economics based on "***** economicus," the non-existent rational automaton at the basis of the classical economic theories. The great economics Keynes listed Mises among his chief influences.
However, there are many problems with the Austrian school as well. The biggest problem is that the Austrian school entirely rejects mathematical or empirical analysis of economics, in favor of their own axioms of analysis. This means that a.) the power of their analysis is based entirely on certain axioms which are not at all self-evident and whose validity is suspect, and b.) proponents Austrian school are limited to normative, rather than positive economics, because they are unable to quantitatively characterize the status of the economy; they can only complain about the lack of individual determination and assure us that it is a huge problem, rather than doing any work to empirically prove this.
This is why while the Austrian school has had, on balance, a good influence on modern economic thought, it is not taken seriously as a unified theory.
I'm not trying to "stifle" the debate, but merely say that there's no point in having a debate if you don't know anything about the subject we're debating. If you have substantive and intelligent objections to the points I've made above, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, kindly shut your trap and go "fight the establishment" elsewhere.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@eicos-"despite my B.S. in economics"
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'll tell you why it is. It's because, at most, a few tens of thousands of committed Diggers and libertarians are behind any recognition that Ron Paul has. While Paul has breakaway momentum in the Digg echo chamber, practically nobody else has heard of him. I cite figures from the www.intrade.com prediction market, an online futures market that has historically been the most accurate way to predict the results of elections. While it's too early to call, at 0.5%, Paul is still behind Condoleeza Rice and Michael Bloomberg, two people who are not even running.
If it seems like the mainstream media is ignoring you, it's because they are. There simply aren't enough of you to matter unless you can find some wider appeal. One thing that won't work is trying to influence already-unscientific snap polls on MSM websites, which is about the same as stuffing the ballot box. If you really believe that Paul's rhetoric is the wave of the future, why don't you start a PAC for Ron Paul or join his campaign? You'll need to, because it's clear at this moment that the ball is in the Democrats' court, and they don't like cutting government programs.- FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3WOW yours was the first intelligent response I have seen on here in quite a while
THANK YOU - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1eicos:
>You'll need to, because it's clear at this moment that the ball is in the Democrats' court, and they don't like cutting government programs.
Ironic you said this because the last Democrat vice-president was in charge of a program to successfully cut government programs. Did a pretty good job of it, too.
But anyway, I agree with you and don't understand why Digg hasn't implemented IP banning on a large scale to get rid of all this posting nonsense. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Dave, we're agreed that if any party can responsibly cut spending, it'll be the Democrats. They'll cut what needs to be cut, the military+industrial lobby and hopefully ag subsidies, while leaving important social programs intact. In any case, the Republicans have entirely forfeited any moral authority they might have had on the government issue, since the Bush administration, in its attempt to finance unprecedented levels of government spending, decided to slash taxes on the highest income brackets and hope that the money would magically trickle in. No surprise we're sitting behind the largest ever budget deficit!
It took me about 2 seconds to tell Ron Paul is a total idiot. It was about when he started talking about how the Fed is stealing your money by causing inflation. *SLAPS HEAD* However, arguing against the Digg swarm was futile. I even had one guy tell me that despite my B.S. in economics, that everything I knew about economics was wrong and that I should visit mises.org to be born again. Lol. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1eicos:
>However, arguing against the Digg swarm was futile. I even had one guy tell me that despite my B.S. in economics, that everything I knew about economics was wrong and that I should visit mises.org to be born again. Lol.
Theories espoused on Mises and theories like trickle down (supply side) have been so discredited that the only way someone can believe them is through selective observation of data and cherry picking. The theories sound wonderful, and they're so clean and straightforward, but at the end of the day they simply don't work. But they are useful to exploit people who can't be bothered or don't know how to analyse data.
Maybe if you and I just read more we can both be born again in the enveloping and loving arms of Mises. I'm going for my Mises baptism this afternoon, in involves dunking in a tank of money.
- FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3WOW yours was the first intelligent response I have seen on here in quite a while
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5
Hahahaha....Digg TOTALLY SHOWS itself for just how OUT OF the mainstream of America its views are with these articles. People here think they are the "norm" but for the most part are nothing but the KOOK fringes of both the left and right.- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's right, the torpid, befuddled middle is too busy watching American Idol to bother with politics on- or off-line.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Urusai, that could not be further from the truth. By the way, did you hear about Sanjay?
- 1310nm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2By "mainstream" I assume you mean things consumable by "herds of sheep". Digg consists of people who make up "mainstream America", the one you don't really get to know because your opinions are based on what the media feeds you, the sheep. So, instead of talking to other people and finding out how they feel about matters of truth, freedom, democracy, and all the other things our country was founded on, you instead allow the media to further push the clay of your opinions into a mold full of sound bites and transitioning images. Presidential debates are full of hot-headed one-liners without people like this. Wanna buy some wood?
- interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4nina.bradley@msnbc.com,mark.effron@msnbc.com,ramon.escobar@msnbc.com,phil.griffin@msnbc.com,val.nicholas@msnbc.com, marc.rosenwasser@nbc.com,alana.russo@msnbc.com,erik.sorenson@msnbc.com,mel.weidner@msnbc.com,cynthia.antoniak@msnbc.com, tom.busby@nbc.com,stefanie.cargill@msnbc.com,robert.dembo@msnbc.com,alison.hawley@msnbc.com,stephanie.himango@msnbc.com, steve.hyvonen@msnbc.com,nick.kovijanic@msnbc.com,sandra.lilley@msnbc.com,alla.lora@msnbc.com,steve.majors@msnbc.com, danny.noa@msnbc.com,michael.rubin@msnbc.com,richard.stockwell@msnbc.com,susan.sullivan@msnbc.com,mike.tanaka@msnbc.com, robin.touval@msnbc.com,essa.yip@msnbc.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, countdown@msnbc.com, hardball@msnbc.com, Tucker@msnbc.com, themost@msnbc.com, joe@msnbc.com, MTP@NBC.com, Dateline@NBC.com, Nightly@NBC.com, WT@nbc.com, Today@NBC.com, letters@msnbc.com, business@MSNBC.com
On your marks...get set...SPAM!- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Take your campaign somewhere it will actually reach people who care. We here are all really, REALLY tired of you.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4eicos-"We here are all really, REALLY tired of you."
Could you provide evidence that you have been given authority to speak for ALL of Digg?
I am here, I have not ever, nor will I ever give you nor anyone else the authority to speak for me.
I am not least tired of what interpaul has to say or anyone else even you eicos. Let people speak, let all decide for themselves. Stop trying to be a tyrannical censor.
BTW, your trying to make people think that your having a B.S. in Economics makes you a final word, end of discussion arbiter in that area is consistent with your censor/stifle discussion attitude here. - Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm not trying to "censor" him. I'm just telling him to stop being a partisan fanboy. Aren't we allowed to do that on Digg?
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1eicos-"Even if we had been burying your articles all today or yesterday, what of it? Digg is a one-of-a-kind social aggregator. It is not a billboard for your propaganda. "Fair speech" (or did you mean "free"?) only means that the government doesn't interfere with your ability to express yourself. It has nothing to do with Diggers getting tired of your aggressive partisanship and deciding to turn you off."
eicos-"I never claimed to be neutral or non-partisan."
eicos-"I'm not trying to "censor" him. I'm just telling him to stop being a partisan fanboy. Aren't we allowed to do that on Digg?"
The above speaks for itself, your own words. As I said, for me partisanship is OK, that is everyones right including yours. The primary difference in this regard with you and I is you wish to stifle the competition and I say let all voices be heard, let all decide for themselves. You make allusions that your complaint is, for instance, that Digg is being propagandized, spammed, etc., when I have known all along as you have that your real problem/motivation is not with propaganda or spam but that it is not your flavor of propaganda or spam.
I ask you again, please stop trying to suppress information flow. Trust the marketplace of ideas to let the cream rise to the top. Until the debate is settled, once and for all, in any area worthy of debate, including Economics, the debate is not settled. If you are the friend of information flow you assist and speed the process toward the best solutions. If you strive to impede information flow you are limiting the range of possibility which is a convenient tool to game any "problem" to a predesired/predetermined outcome. The later view betrays a preference for arriving at selfish "solutions" at the expense of the opportunity to find the best solutions. If your solution cannot stand for people to freely express their views on it's merits or lack thereof it is likely not the best solution.
- baconfreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They also managed to spell Clinton wrong and think that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is from Delaware. What kind of moron is typing these things up over at ABC?
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These grad school poltroons. They have neither heat, affection, limb,. brains nor beauty
to make their riches pleasant.
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These grad school poltroons. They have neither heat, affection, limb,. brains nor beauty
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's not merely a shame that they can keep this outdated list wafting in the breeze like this. It's an outrage.
ABC's pdf list candidates who haven' t even declared their intent: Gingrich ("Tied for 3rd, favored by 9% of GOP voters.") & Gore (4th, favored by 10% of Dem. voters.")
Keeping this superannuated material up on the server is irresponsible journalism and creates false impressions in the public mind. These numbers are so old at this point as to be utterly meaningless, and they are an insult to candidates who have put their money where their mouth is and is an affront to their supporters as well.
If ABC should condescend to respond, it'll be a "Oops, this page was created to reflect the results such-and-such poll. ABC is in the process of updating it's 'Elections 2000' home page. We regret blah, blah, blah . . ." And they will continue to tweak their pages to bury insofar as possible any showing of candidates with strong, independent and unconventional points of view.
These guys, ABCMSNBCCBSFOXTIMEWARNER along with the rest of the pestilent purveyors of misinfo and disinfo are thugs and cowards, and like cowards everywhere, they will back down if you show them some BACKBONE.- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude, keeping an old page on the server is something that everybody does at some time. If they really wanted to conspire to fix the election, they would do it much more effectively, c.f. the Howard Dean "scream."
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Like I pointed out in the other thread regarding Fox News not reporting on Ron Paul, its because he doesn't play ball with the most powerful interest group in America, the one who uses any means to prevent those who don't owe total allegiance political defeat. I'm sure Gravel won't play ball either.
ABC News is the worst of the lot. Try asking this factual question in their forum and see how long it is before you're booted out: "which country in the middle east has nukes and other WMD, has a history of invading its neighbors, represses minorities and has carried out political assassinations of foreign enemies?" I didn't get though the statement before they banned me permanently from their forums. You cannot criticize this particular country in any way, shape or forum in the US and expect to be heard. No matter what they do, no matter how guilty they are, the US government ALWAYS supports them and does their bidding. Your government is bought (so is mine, btw).
(sarcasm mode on)No wonder the US is so loved outside the US (sarcasm mode off).- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes, the evil Jews have truly bought everybody off. You are the only one who sees the true nature of the Jewish cabal. I will send some minions to erase your mind with our Jew powers that we also use to control the world.
Dumbass.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes, the evil Jews have truly bought everybody off. You are the only one who sees the true nature of the Jewish cabal. I will send some minions to erase your mind with our Jew powers that we also use to control the world.
- da5id, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Jeez, are we going to test to see this stuff on the front page of Digg for the next 18 months. If people cannot figure out who is running, they should not be voting.
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In a word , yes.
This is war. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2War on Digg apparently. War on people who want to read actual news and real posts.
Well, you guys have probably won. I'm spending less and less time here now. So, congratulations.
- randge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In a word , yes.
- FunkBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Here's a link to contact information at MSNBC. It got buried for some reason so I'm posting it to all Ron Paul articles i can find.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Manic_Monday_at_MSNBC_Courtesy_of_Ron_Paul_Supporters#c6539831 - randge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@eicos
"keeping an old page on the server is something that everybody does at some time"
Absolute crap.
This ain't your mom's recipe web page. ABC is a multi-billion dollar NEWS organization.
But guess January's news is good enough for a nation of sheep and media apologists. You will continue to get what you tolerate. Good luck.- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, so what if the page itself was still there? Did anybody stop to wonder how this page was FOUND?
Just because we don't like your rambling idiot of a candidate doesn't mean we're sheep. Not everybody wants to go back to the stone age, you know. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@eicos-Nice of you to finally, clearly state your motivation for working to suppress Ron Paul instead of hiding behind false pretenses like defending the integrity of Digg or that you care about a rational political/electoral process. Fair enough, you have now done better than most that purport to be neutral but are only doing partisan service. Partisanship is fine if you identify/declare your partisanship and stay away from meaningless, distracting, red herring arguments, as well as, debate from a position of honesty like not deliberately distorting the views of your candidates opponents.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Qmason. You are making all manner of baseless attacks. Let me address just a few of your apparent areas of confusion.
a.) I never claimed to be neutral or non-partisan. I simply chose not to mention it in certain of my comments. Would you rather I tag each of my comments with "Democrat" or "Republican" so that you can conveniently ignore one/both without having to think on your own about their content?
b.) You sound like an angry ex-wife, really. In one sentence, you accuse me of hiding behind false pretenses, being anti-Digg, and caring nothing for rational political debate. Is this necessary? Do you even know me well enough to say these things? I would say no.
c.) When have I made red-herring arguments or attempted to distort the viewpoints of Ron Paul? I know exactly what Ron Paul's viewpoints are, and I don't think I've mis-stated them even once. I simply disagree with them and don't think very highly of him. People disagree with things sometimes, but that's okay. You don't have to call them names for it.
You accuse me of doing a disservice to rational debate, but rather, it is you who have stormed onto the board with nothing but one ad hominem attack on me after another. - eshornock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The file isn't "that" old....it was created on March 21, 2007. Go to File -> Properties in Adobe Reader or Foxit to see it yourself.
As for people saying these are fringe candidates or that they don't have a chance in hell since no one has heard of them--could it be that no one knows about them BECAUSE they're not mentioned by the MSM? The media should start acting like journalists by informing us of what's going on and letting us decide who's worthy of our votes instead of totally ignoring them.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, so what if the page itself was still there? Did anybody stop to wonder how this page was FOUND?
- shadows88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is this a surprise to anyone? Mike Gravel does not, and will not represent the 300+ million people in U.S. To be a leader you can't just represent a small portion of society, you have to be responsible for everyone. I'm not saying I don't like the guy, I personally agree with a lot of what he says; but that doesn't make him presidential material.
- brightmidnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was Lincoln presidential material? Did he speak for all of America? No, certainly not, South Carolina seceded from the country as soon as he became president. Was he one of the best presidents this country ever had? Yes.
How does Mike Gravel not speak for just as many people as Rudy G? Just because someone's gotten better press coverage doesn't mean they "speak" to more people. People liked what he said in the debate. It's been widely covered that none of the mainstream candidates speak for a large portion of the Republican audience. 70% of Republicans are against the war and Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to stop it.
- brightmidnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was Lincoln presidential material? Did he speak for all of America? No, certainly not, South Carolina seceded from the country as soon as he became president. Was he one of the best presidents this country ever had? Yes.
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"outsiders" have always been banned from the mainstream media. The first time I voted (in 1988... god I'm getting old), I remember laughing out loud at a commercial I saw during Letterman (which was still on NBC and still good) for Lyndon LaRouche, a true outsider. I don't remember too much of the text, but it basically made out everyone in Washington a tool of Henry Kissinger, and we should all "vote for the man Kissinger hates the most!" I thought it was a fake ad at first, but then I saw it again during Saturday Night Live. When I voted, I couldn't stop laughing because there he was on the ballot. I almost voted for him just for the humor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Now all those nutcases have found their new Messiahs.
- fuzzmello, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2they're both unstable. come on - grow up.
- TxCub420, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4NEWS FLASH! Submitting these conspiracy stories over and over to Digg make me care even less!
- jackcall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Maybe everybody at ABC are diggers and as tired as I am of Ron Paul posts... Of course that is faulty logics because the Ron Paul campaign staffers that keeps posting these stories and digging each others are now just gonna bitch as well as posting more stories...
what we need to do is marking all the Ron Paul stories as spam - which they are - BobSutan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
This is what I just sent them:
"Were is the coverage of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel? Your site doesn't even list them as presidential candidates. Considering they're the most popular independents out there its a bit odd that there is no mention of them. Moreso it makes me question ABC's objectivity as a journalistic source given the perception of favoritism in omitting such political luminaries." - infamousjre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2luminaries? seriously?
Maybe they're not mentioned because they're not popular and have no real chance of winning. They could certainly win presidencies at digg and reddit, but no one in the non-social news public knows about them. If you want to throw your vote away and vote for an 80 year old Mike Gravel just because he SAID he might legalize marijuana, go for it.
I'm thinking Ron Paul should be president of digg and Mike Gravel president of reddit. This will surely stop digg's occupation of reddit and get their soldiers home, where they belong. - moogle516, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 UomodiRispetto as much as I love conspiracy theories there is NO POSSIBLE WAY John McCain was in Skull in Bones, considering that McCain NEVER went to Yale, and skull and bones is only located in Yale. So ye.
[reply] - johnkahoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My own letter to ABC news. Was sent to http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
To whom it may concern:
I find it shameful and unconscionable your treatment of
Ron Paul and his candidacy. As you know, each of us
individually have little power over your editorial decisions
regarding the 2008 election. Be that as it may, the story of
policies regarding Congressman Paul has legs. And as a
result of your disdain for fair play, I will make it a point to
avoid your programming, Walt Disney or anything else
related to your corporation going forward. In addition I
plan on voicing my concerns about your policies with
friends and relatives.
Sincerely,
John Kahoun MD
Do write the MF's
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by