Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Contribute $5.01 to Obama TODAY (Feb. 12)
donate.barackobama.com — Today, as was publicized before, is a money bomb for Barack. In honor of Lincoln's birthday throw him two Lincolns - the five and the penny (or any multiple thereof). This is a direct link to the main donation page.
mattmccabe- 3446 diggs
- digg it
- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -61/+307Yes, we can.
- foxhaze, on 02/12/2008, -40/+14Good one.
- paddleguy, on 02/12/2008, -11/+5Yes, YOU can. Please read on, I am not a Ron Paul zealot, but I do think he out classes all the the rest.
Am I unhappy that Ron Paul won't get the nod? Yes. Am I heartbroken that the government will get fatter and my kids will have to pay for the current administrations mess? Of course. American needs to wake up, and bring back true fiscal conservatism to this country, and get behind whoever is touting the message, whether it be Ron Paul or Ru Paul. I am behind Ron's message of liberty, limited government, and fiscal conservative spending, and I always will be. The problem here is that everyone wants change, but no candidate left can follow through. Obama is backed by over 350 bundlers, and last I looked 9 lobbyist bundlers. You think you are voting for Obama? You are voting for who is in his wallet (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org). What does this mean? He too has a forked tongue like the rest of the remaining candidates. Give back your lobbyist donations and maybe I will start listening to you Barack.
I choose to be pro-liberty; pro-freedom; pro-limited government; I am for a non-interventionist foreign policy. I am not anti-establishment. I am not anti-government. I am not anti anything because I know what I resist will surely persist. My feelings are that Obama is just the second best choice, and nothing more. I'm sick of settling for second best. I'm tired of being told by the mainstream media. I did my own homework. Get behind Dr. Paul's message. Once you do your own homework, you cant argue that Dr. Paul's message is what is important.- paddleguy, on 02/12/2008, -5/+1www.whitehouseforsale.org
- chrisgnv, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Find me a bundler on that list that sounds suspicious and would have Barack twist legislation in their favor. You can't just assume people raising funds for a candidate are always looking to get unjust favors; it is possible they just support his policies he's currently detailing and think his presidency will benefit them and the rest of the country at the same time. Here's the top 3 bundlers for Barack: Clayco Construction, Brickpath LLC, and Persephone Productions. Sounds fairly innocent.
In addition, an employee of a corporation can act separately from his employer, you know.
- paddleguy, on 02/12/2008, -11/+5Yes, YOU can. Please read on, I am not a Ron Paul zealot, but I do think he out classes all the the rest.
- Rahodeb, on 02/12/2008, -59/+29But can we stop the Obama bots from spamming anything with his name to the front page?
- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -22/+8Are these the brain dead who are going to vote for the next president of the United States???
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-14 ...
A little help ... please! - hansonc, on 02/12/2008, -13/+14We couldn't stop the Ron Paul bots from doing the same so I guess the answer is "No".
- withincontext, on 02/12/2008, -6/+2QQ
- plantfood, on 02/12/2008, -3/+7less QQ more pew pew
- withincontext, on 02/12/2008, -6/+2QQ
- TMac08, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2Yes, we can.
- streak, on 02/12/2008, -4/+1Yes, we can... withdraw from Iraq in 18 months. My ass, it's playing on the Disney Channel.
Why, I remember back when Barack Obama so wisely voted against giving Bush the authorization to go to war with Iraq. Err.. wait. Obama wasn't a senator until almost 2 years after the war began. And Hillary was working on healthcare reform before Barack took up smoking.
NEVERMIND! :-))))
- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -22/+8Are these the brain dead who are going to vote for the next president of the United States???
- Vanan, on 02/12/2008, -27/+8Yes, we can.
- UGM2099, on 02/12/2008, -20/+14I am on Obama supporter but I can't help think how we here at Digg would have thrown a fit about a Republican (or his supporters) who uses the name of Lincoln in such a way. Just saying..
- Laminarcissus, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11Well, considering that Lincoln was the first Republican to win the Presidency, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8"Republican", the parties were very different that long ago.
- cmackattack, on 02/12/2008, -5/+6So this money bomb is to honor the further loss of individual and State's rights for the promotion of more federal government power and corruption...? Cause that's what Lincoln was about, ya know?
- Laminarcissus, on 02/12/2008, -5/+0That's not true Eiknujrac.
The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin.
The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
Same Republican party. That's why it's called the GOP -- you know, the Grand OLD Party?
Google provides these things if you just take ten seconds to look, you know. - Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3If you took ten MORE seconds to look, you would realize that the Republican party back then was VERY DIFFERENT, as I said. The Republicans were battling the Democratic conservative slave owners in the south over the issue of slavery. But you know, I guess you just left that part out.
Over time, party ideals have reversed, it is not the "Same Republican Party."
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Also, Lincoln is widely regarded by presidential historians to be one of the worst American presidents of all time.
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8"Republican", the parties were very different that long ago.
- Tiak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3I'm reasonably certain that Lincoln doesn't hold any particularly special place in digg's collective hearts... Negative Lincoln stories have hit the FP after all... (Many of us think that states should have the right to secede, and because he went to war over that, and not the slavery thing, he didn't do anything all that great.)
- phunlee, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Many of us? really? I don' t think a state should have the right to secede. I think some should (looking at Florida) but if we were two different countries after Civil War I*, we'd have been taken over in the early 20th Century. Has anyone ever written about that? I'm curious to see how factual my statement might be.
- Laminarcissus, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11Well, considering that Lincoln was the first Republican to win the Presidency, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
- illycoffee, on 02/12/2008, -16/+3http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Is_Barack_Obama_ ...
- pazzy, on 02/12/2008, -18/+4I'm not US citizen, why is there a restriction for abroad people? it's unfair!!!
- firstpost, on 02/12/2008, -3/+13Because it's not supposed to have anything to do with foreigners. It's an US-election. I wouldn't like it if some foreign country (or even foreign people) would be mingling in my national elections.
- alexkehr, on 02/12/2008, -4/+13Hey, we mess with other peoples governments and elections... look at Iraq.. haha. We sure did a great job mingling with their politics!!!
- streak, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Obama is going to fix all that... and in just 18 months after taking office. If only his earlier legislation had been given a chance by his colleagues, it would all be over next month.
- madeingermany, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2I'm not a _permanent_ US resident (but have been in the US for over 3 years legally). I get to pay taxes, but I don't get to donate to the candidate I endorse.
Well at least I get to complain :p
- alexkehr, on 02/12/2008, -4/+13Hey, we mess with other peoples governments and elections... look at Iraq.. haha. We sure did a great job mingling with their politics!!!
- yogurtslinger, on 02/12/2008, -17/+9Come on over illegally, Our government doesn't give a ***** anymore and neither the majority of the American public. Amnesty free of charge too!!!
Bury me if you want but within a few years, more illegal immigrants will be here than ever before complete with drivers licenses, tax amnesty and free bank accounts.- jmhyer51, on 02/12/2008, -7/+6O no! What will we ever do?!
BTW: Nice username, stupid cockbag.....- cmackattack, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3go bankrupt....
- mrdoogee, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Dugg for the word "cockbag"
- jmhyer51, on 02/12/2008, -7/+6O no! What will we ever do?!
- iainc, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Make an altruistic hardship gift to someone you personally know who has already donated legally but at too great a cost to themselves (?)
- Gabberwok, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1We really need to cut more of your cables. There are way too many international people complaining about US election coverage on Digg.
On a more serious note - the answer is that there isn't supposed to be any foreign influence in US elections.
- firstpost, on 02/12/2008, -3/+13Because it's not supposed to have anything to do with foreigners. It's an US-election. I wouldn't like it if some foreign country (or even foreign people) would be mingling in my national elections.
- GafferXL, on 02/12/2008, -9/+51Never given in my life before now, but just gave my $5.01.
- Fungo, on 02/12/2008, -5/+19Same here. I'm a 19 year old college student and just gave $25. There goes my slush fund... To a worthier cause.
- jordan1, on 02/12/2008, -2/+10same here...I'm 35 and can afford it instead of buying a couple Starbucks coffee's over the next couple days.
- mmacmu1, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8same here... also in college. This is important!
- SeaBass22, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7First time for me too. I just gave $10.02 for my wife and I.
- acuthbertson, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8Ditto brother, never donated to a campaign before but there's a first time for everything. Let's Leroy Jenkins this *****.
- haiduz, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7I'm a Junior at College, and I also never gave $$$ to a politician before. I'm in for 10.02, so now I got exactly 45 bucks in the bank. I say its well worth it considering bush cut all that funding for student loans.
- akirhol, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5Same here... 25 years old, never voted, never donated, never cared... well, in the last 8 years you can probably see why I haven't cared. Donated today though, and my first vote ever will go to Obama.
- Netrilix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2As a pathetic college student, I was able to scrounge up $50.10. I figured ten of each type of Lincoln was better than just one. Also my first time giving to a politician. In my opinion, well worth it.
- yosempai, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Pathetic college students around the world thank you.
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2I'm a poor college student and I was able to take $5.01 out of my food money for the week and give it to someone I believe in.
I wonder how much he'll raise today?
- jgtg32a, on 02/12/2008, -8/+14Bob the builder?
- n3dm, on 02/12/2008, -21/+8No, you can't. He will take that freedom from you.
- mlwarrior, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3***** you.....can.
- tmessing, on 02/12/2008, -17/+26yes we can...turn digg into nothing more than a campaign donation website...
- stealthc, on 02/12/2008, -19/+9No, I won't.
- ussoldier, on 02/12/2008, -24/+9Whats my excuse. My excuse is I'm not giving someone who has $31 million dollars, five of my dollars. Forget it. THAT MAN ALREADY HAS $31 million dollars in campaign contributions, no way in hell anyone should give him a dime. I'm looking at all the leading candidates raking in huge amounts of money... and then they drop out... its more about a money scam than anything else. These people are going to drop out, buy a huge mansion, and live in opulence for the rest of their lives while the rest of us are scratching it out on a fry machine in McDonalds.
I'm voting for my buddy Greg down the street. He's a hard working man, with a wife and two kids, goes to work every day, handy at fixing things, and has a lot of common sense. Greg don't know I'm voting for him, and he's not running, but that's ok. Greg is a cool guy. My guess is, there are millions of Gregs all across American, and the shame of it is, non of you vote for any of them. You vote in this ridiculous popularity contests of only a handful of people... when America is full of plumbers and salesclerks and janitors and mechanics and housewives, all who are qualified to run this country or any other office these career politicians run for. Its how the Greeks did it. You couldn't run for a second term. It kept these mooching career politicians out of business.
If these candidates at the 'top of the polls' are the best America has to offer, then IMHO, America doesn't have anything worth jack ***** to offer. I'm not voting for any of them, not a single career politician, not a single incumbent, and you shouldn't either.
Would you give a multimillionaire a handout of $5.01? I sure as hell wouldn't. You people must be insane. It should be the other way around. He should be giving us money. Cause a lot of us aren't making it.- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Here's why they're voting:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-14 ...
figure it out.... - justice7, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5its about making a point, as an individual -- and the number of individuals who stand up and say something. I'm not an American, and i've been paying close attention to your campaign as it really affects us all. Foreign policy affects the world and we're all watching. As a Canadian, if i could vote -- i'd cast mine toward Obama. He's the only one with an IQ high enough to figure out the USA isn't the only country on the planet.
- scdicks, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3i think i know greg. grey hair, lots of tools? if its the same guy, he is pretty cool.
- heypetray, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but he takes money from lobbyists.
- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Here's why they're voting:
- Malevolant, on 02/12/2008, -13/+6BAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
- vofuse, on 02/12/2008, -12/+7Can what? Has this ever been specified?
- tsunamisteve, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10Can: put our differences aside, change DC and its corruption, beat Hillary, fix America's foreign policy problems, win the election, etc.
- sonofabeast, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Yes we can! (fool the delusional American public with a simple catch phrase and promises of an abstract change, while another Illuminati hand puppet slips through the door)
- haiduz, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1well i gave you the benefit of a doubt that your not a crazy conspiracy theorists when you started spewing the CFR *****, but then you have to throw the Illuminati in there and now I'm convinced.
- redtangential, on 02/12/2008, -11/+13People are supporting Obama for his message of Hope. This, if you ask me (or any sane person) is a ***** reason to make someone President, just as ***** a reason as "Trustworthy" and "American Family Values" was to usher Bush into power for 2 consecutive terms. Instead of asking yourself "Which candidate do I like more?", a heart question, ask yourself "Which candidate will do a BETTER JOB?". We're not voting for American Idol here, people.
- elipabst, on 02/12/2008, -6/+17"ask yourself "Which candidate will do a BETTER JOB?"
Thanks. I already did, that's why I'm voting for Obama. - Malevolant, on 02/12/2008, -7/+10It is amazing that Obama is doing his best to generalize and not take any specific stance on anything that would cost him votes. It's plain and simple idolatry that's taking place right now and you people should be embarrassed. What is nice is that the media is starting to notice the idolatry and we're seeing stories on it...well unbiased news sources, not digg where anything not seen as 110% Obama is buried to ad nauseam. I am not anti-Obama, but I am anti-idolatry and the OP put it best when he said we are not voting for American idol here. That's one of the most striking true comments I have ever read on digg.
- qwerter, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Way to generalize, yourself. Some of us can look into the issues and decide for ourselves, thank you very much. The fact that he is charismatic and inspiring is just icing on the cake for me.
God forbid we have a leading candidate that gets people excited about political participation... - elipabst, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Frankly, I don't think he's worse than any other candidate. In fact I'd argue he's been more forthcoming than Hiillary in many areas, for example about his healthcare plan. He doesn't go into a lot of detail during his stump speeches, manly because they're stump speeches designed to rally support and get people excited. Whipping out an excel speadsheet or a reading a 500 page treatise on fiscal policy isn't going to get people fired up. That being said, he does go into a lot of detail on his campaign website about specific issues. So if you are seriously interested (which I doubt) you can check out his ideas there.
- pkonink, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
He goes in-depth enough for being a candidate in an election. - darkfires, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Specifics are in his white paper easily retrieved from his web site. Apparently you're unaware of how to obtain information from the interweb. And yes, victory speeches (something of which he's doing a lot of lately) naturally contain generalizations. The whole point is to keep the momentum going.
- qwerter, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Way to generalize, yourself. Some of us can look into the issues and decide for ourselves, thank you very much. The fact that he is charismatic and inspiring is just icing on the cake for me.
- heypetray, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, we kinda are voting for "American Idol"
- elipabst, on 02/12/2008, -6/+17"ask yourself "Which candidate will do a BETTER JOB?"
- fafaforza, on 02/12/2008, -11/+6But will Obama give that $5.01 back to you once he leaves office as a millionaire, like all the senators and presidents seem to.
- Lewie, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1If he gives us something in return for our taxes, like an end to the Iraq war and some health care or a job (healthy economy), it will be more than worth $5.01.
- sjl127, on 02/12/2008, -16/+8Screw him. I'm not gonna give him *****. Because he's just going to take it anyway. He's a thief. no pun intended.
- datdamonfoo, on 02/12/2008, -4/+11You never learned the definition of "pun", did you?
- cnot3, on 02/12/2008, -16/+9Why should we give him our hard earned money? He'll be taking plenty of it once he's president.
- Lewie, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1You don't quite understand how this whole "government" thing works, do you?
- Antinous, on 02/12/2008, -13/+7Yes, we can. Elect more CFR puppets. Congrats on being fooled AGAIN!
- Gabberwok, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Here's a link to a counter for how many people have donated so far in 2008. Let's break 500,000 this week!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_donation_cou ... - sonofabeast, on 02/12/2008, -6/+1***** that CFR scum.
- vandalay, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3anyone feel like tallying up the $$ donated in just this digg thread alone? :)
- foxhaze, on 02/12/2008, -40/+14Good one.
- Synchronicity, on 02/12/2008, -345/+68Here's your $5 dollars worth:
-He's an anti-American globalist.
-He lies about being anti-war.
-He voted to give Bush blank checks -- numerous times.
-He endorsed Lieberman.
-He asked Lieberman to be his mentor.
-He threatened Iran.
-He's in bed with the CFR.
-He's in bed with the AIPAC.
-He voted for the Patriot Act.
-He wants to police/regulate the Internet, which could only lead to more taxes and more regulations.
-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution.
-He would create a North American Union, uniting Canada, Mexico, and America under common borders and a new Constitution.
-He would finalize the NAFTA Superhighway, and steal American's private land via eminent domain to accomplish this.
-He would sign the Koyoto Protocol, and make America pay a giant load of expensive penalties/taxes.
-He would support the UN's goal to implement a Global Income Tax.
-He would sign the Law of the Sea Treaty [LOST].
-He won't get out of the WTO, NAFTA, or CAFTA, so he won't really do anything about sweat shops or workers' rights.
-He chain smokes, but he talks of "Change" like he's an experienced man of "Change."
-He won't end the War on Terror.
-He won't end the War on Drugs.
-He threatened Pakistan.
-He won't take the use of nukes off the table.
-He won't do anything to stop the runaway inflation and declining dollar.
-He would force Americans to throw their money at other countries.
-He wants to implement expensive social programs that would ultimately bankrupt the country.- meese, on 02/12/2008, -25/+121Much of that is false, and the rest isn't negative, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- Synchronicity, on 02/12/2008, -59/+20Really? WHAT is false?
- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -12/+38most of those things?
smoking, dollar issues, internet issues,
all the other ones are at a bare minimum mis-characterized, or naive attempts at jabs
particularly the foreign relations issues demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of world affairs. - Synchronicity, on 02/12/2008, -55/+16Is that so? So, Obama isn't a chain smoker? Obama has a plan that would eliminate Inflation and save the dollar?? Obama didn't promise a "Net Neutrality" law?
And, what about the Foreign Relations was incorrect?- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -15/+51im curious, when you eat, does everything taste bitter?
correct, obama is not a chain smoker - he quit.
correct, obama has economic plans to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas, to invest in green commerce, to raise the minimum wage with inflation. you cant get rid of inflation unless you have a global currency, or no trade outside of insular local communities - neither of which are possible at the moment, so instead of ranting about how the ron paul thing didnt work out i would consider reading 1. a economics book, 2. the platforms of the candidates you are attempting to trash 3. informed comments on those positions by scholars who would be able to give you a better understanding of if they are feasible and if implemented what they would actually do.
net netreuality, you dunce, would prohibit large telecom companies from taking over the internet entirely and charging for content by the kilobyte, or regulating what you can and cannot access based on a certain internet subscription plan. it keeps the internet open and free.
the "throwing their money at other countries" aspect is naive, the ramifications of the signing of the kyoto protocal among others.
america is not an island, and is not capable of such an insular existence. if we truly want reasonable protection from the rest of the world you must have a consistent, sensible foreign policy in addition to a measure of foreign aid.
read a book. - Synchronicity, on 02/12/2008, -74/+12"correct, obama is not a chain smoker - he quit."
Yea, right, so he said. Also, he quit many times before, but he was obviously lying to himself.
He's WEAK!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"correct, obama has economic plans to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas, to invest in green commerce, to raise the minimum wage with inflation. you cant get rid of inflation unless you have a global currency, or no trade outside of insular local communities - neither of which are possible at the moment, so instead of ranting about how the ron paul thing didnt work out i would consider reading 1. a economics book, 2. the platforms of the candidates you are attempting to trash 3. informed comments on those positions by scholars who would be able to give you a better understanding of if they are feasible and if implemented what they would actually do."
We can't get rid of Inflation ... without a global currency? What ***** planet did you come from?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"net netreuality, you dunce, would prohibit large telecom companies from taking over the internet entirely and charging for content by the kilobyte, or regulating what you can and cannot access based on a certain internet subscription plan. it keeps the internet open and free."
WRONG...
Net Neutrality would allow Telecom lobbyists a new and legal way to ***** with our Internet, through a certain backdoor called OUR GOVERNMENT. Haven't you learned anything from the FCC, about how they handle television broadcasting? You like them handing out massive fines over a naked boob or a few cuss words? You like having your expensive cable subscription blast lame commercials at you all ***** day?
Give lobbyists an inch, and they'll take a mile. Give them one rule to start with, and over time, they'll spawn rulebook the size of the IRS Tax Code. And, none of that will be free, because somebody has to pay for the "REGULATORS" who hand out the fines PLUS the bureau that keeps track of all the paperwork. Considering the size of the Internet, you could only imagine bottomless pit of TAXES waiting for you, if you vote for Obama's ***** version of Net Neutrality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the "throwing their money at other countries" aspect is naive, the ramifications of the signing of the kyoto protocal among others.
america is not an island, and is not capable of such an insular existence. if we truly want reasonable protection from the rest of the world you must have a consistent, sensible foreign policy in addition to a measure of foreign aid.
Oh really? So America isn't a sovereign country with borders and a Constitution, America isn't made up of sovereign/independent individuals? This isn't a Republic?
Is everything that you've learned from whatever the Founding Fathers told you in the Declaration of Independence? That you could force me to work, pay taxes, take my money anytime you want, and give it to some people in Africa?
STFU!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
read a book.
GTFO. - asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -9/+34^^^ See this is the type of person you can't use facts, logic or reason with. Just ignore him, you'll never change his mind. These type of closed minded people are an example of one of the problems with this country, and why we desperately need someone like Obama to reorganize our educational system.
- rderveloy, on 02/12/2008, -2/+10"We can't get rid of Inflation ... without a global currency? What ***** planet did you come from?"
I believe he was trying to convey the sense that, in the real world, in order to pay for all the stuff we import (fuel, food, and other consumer products), the dollar must become strong again. Without a dollar with a strong global value, prices for imported goods would increase and so would the cost of living, and therefore, inflation.
In order to reduce inflation, you need to increase the value of the dollar on the global market. There are many ways to do this. The easiest way would be to would be to reduce the amount of money in circulation by ending the war in Iraq and start paying back the money we borrowed to pay for it. - Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -5/+6This guy just comes in every Obama topic and throws his false claims at everybody. There is nothing you can do to save the man. I agree with asauterChicago who says maybe a fixed education system will prevent people who think like this from ever getting anywhere.
- nirav72, on 02/12/2008, -5/+4ignore him. He's a paulbot grasping for air.
- daninspokane, on 02/12/2008, -2/+4I like how people ignore facts when it suits them. Keep up the good fight Synch, most people refuse to see Obama for what he truly is and anyone who speaks out against him is an "idiot." While some of your tactics are less than desirable, your underlying message is coming through to some.
- mlwarrior, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Hey Synch,
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html - skankyBacon, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10Synch, quit while you're behind.
I love your proof of the smoking thing, though.
"OMG HE CHAIN SMOKES!"
"No he doesn't. He quit."
"I bet he's probably lying, maybe!"
That is just rock solid logic right there.
And yes, you are wrong about Net Neutrality. Think about the word "NEUTRALITY."
- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -15/+51im curious, when you eat, does everything taste bitter?
- sadilak, on 02/12/2008, -14/+8But is he better than McCain? or both these guys douchebags?
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Don't even reply to Synchronicity. You could come back with hard evidence proving that everything he said is wrong and he would ignore it, find another Obama story, and then copy/paste his dumb list again claiming that nobody can refute what he says. He's just an angry troll who's pissed that more people aren't voting for Paul.
- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -12/+38most of those things?
- str1fe, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3I think the diggs you're getting pretty much prove how well you're making your point.
Also, I'd like to see a valid source confirming every single thing you listed.
- Synchronicity, on 02/12/2008, -59/+20Really? WHAT is false?
- diggduggDOOM, on 02/12/2008, -16/+36Do you have links for any of the following?
-He's an anti-American globalist.
-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution.
-He would create a North American Union, uniting Canada, Mexico, and America under common borders and a new Constitution.
-He would support the UN's goal to implement a Global Income Tax.- meese, on 02/12/2008, -10/+51I think they all fall under a general class of unfounded conspiracy theories.
- hyunseob90, on 02/12/2008, -24/+7obama is in aipac moron
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9not that i don't believe you, but if you replaced the word "moron" with a link to a source, you'd be much more credible
- EtherGnat, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5So are Hillary and McCain, the only other two viable choices for President, making your attack pretty much irrelevant regardless what you think about AIPAC.
- jayleb, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf
- cmackattack, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3there are lots of people in the US that could use the money we are sending to Israel --fact.
- daninspokane, on 02/12/2008, -5/+2I think you are uneducated
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1@ daninspokane
i believe that you believe you are right... but you're not. go back to watching loose change and muttering about how everyone's out to get you.
- hyunseob90, on 02/12/2008, -24/+7obama is in aipac moron
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -3/+11Of COURSE he doesn't have links to confirm his false allegations. That would mean he actually did some research, which by reading his comment I can tell you he most certainly did not.
- AriseNow, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Funny how the "American Union" stuff has been almost realized by the economic policies of Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, with NAFTA and so on. I guess another Clinton is all we need huh?
- meese, on 02/12/2008, -10/+51I think they all fall under a general class of unfounded conspiracy theories.
- coboman, on 02/12/2008, -34/+63Ah! What would a day in Digg be like, without a Paultard listing conspiracy theories.
I was a Ron Paul supporter (I donated tons of money), but now it is embarrassing to having been attached to that movement.- mst3kcrow, on 02/12/2008, -4/+26Maybe you should think about things more thoroughly before joining them then? If embarrassment is a deterring factor in your politics, maybe it's not your thing.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 02/12/2008, -14/+7Keep in mind 98% of the diggers are too young to vote and tend to only support someone that might win. Who wants to support a loser? Diggers jump ship and change every time they think their favorite candidate looks like they are not going to win. They can care less about the party and politics. Going here for political advice is like going to the local Jr. High for advice. The children do not have enough life experiences to make a discussion that will affect our country.
- datdamonfoo, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0"They can care less"
You mean cannot care less. If they can care less, that means they care at least a little. - Synova, on 02/13/2008, -1/+198% of people make up statistics on the spot.
- datdamonfoo, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0"They can care less"
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6Which is why discussions here do not affect the country in the slightest...
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 02/12/2008, -14/+7Keep in mind 98% of the diggers are too young to vote and tend to only support someone that might win. Who wants to support a loser? Diggers jump ship and change every time they think their favorite candidate looks like they are not going to win. They can care less about the party and politics. Going here for political advice is like going to the local Jr. High for advice. The children do not have enough life experiences to make a discussion that will affect our country.
- EtherGnat, on 02/12/2008, -1/+12"but now it is embarrassing to having been attached to that movement."
There are vocal idiots attached to any issue--some more than others. It's important to separate the issue (or the candidate in this case) from the fans. It's entirely possible to support one but not the other.- darienphoenix, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1There are more vocal idiots attached to Ron Paul than any other candidate.
Maybe with the exception of Huckabee.
- darienphoenix, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1There are more vocal idiots attached to Ron Paul than any other candidate.
- cmackattack, on 02/12/2008, -6/+7Liar.
- NightVortez, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3You've said this story over 10 times in different Paul articles, in fact, that's all you've done on digg, even if you were ever a Ron Paul supporter you were a bandwagon one and by the way you call his supporters "tards" I'd say you weren't a very respective one either.
- mst3kcrow, on 02/12/2008, -4/+26Maybe you should think about things more thoroughly before joining them then? If embarrassment is a deterring factor in your politics, maybe it's not your thing.
- j0hneb0y81, on 02/12/2008, -9/+51he smokes? omfg! all this time i supported him.. i never knew.. where do i sign up to support ron paul!?
oh that's right...- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -6/+46Yes I'm with you, I've been supporting Obama for months, now this. I don't know what to do. I hear he drinks that evil beer or wine also, and on some occasions he watches those "R" rated movies. On his myspace page he lists "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" an R rated movie, as one of his favorites. I have no choice now but to give my life savings to Ron Paul and really, really, hope that he can win every single delegate left. Thank god, the odds of that are so good.
- fluxion, on 02/12/2008, -2/+16i saw a pic of him using a bottle of Lousiana sauce. LOUSIANA SAUCE. i thought he was a Tobasco man, but i guess i was wrong about him.
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7the Louisiana hot sauce is what made me change my support from ron paul to obama. They made Louisiana brand hot sauce a couple doors down from my house, so everything smelled like chilli peppers and vinegar all the time. Any man that likes hot sauce is... umm.... better than McCain???? I dunno, i got nothing.
- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7I saw him eating Chip's and Salsa one time. The Salsa was made in New York City. MADE IN NEW YORK CITY???
- fluxion, on 02/12/2008, -2/+16i saw a pic of him using a bottle of Lousiana sauce. LOUSIANA SAUCE. i thought he was a Tobasco man, but i guess i was wrong about him.
- mrdoogee, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4
We can't even pay our bills, and he's drinking Royal Crown Cola!
- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -6/+46Yes I'm with you, I've been supporting Obama for months, now this. I don't know what to do. I hear he drinks that evil beer or wine also, and on some occasions he watches those "R" rated movies. On his myspace page he lists "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" an R rated movie, as one of his favorites. I have no choice now but to give my life savings to Ron Paul and really, really, hope that he can win every single delegate left. Thank god, the odds of that are so good.
- rhabd0mancer, on 02/12/2008, -18/+41Sounds like you are upset about Ron Paul ending his campaign.
Boo Hoo.- Travis29, on 02/12/2008, -13/+15Ron Paul Hasnt Ended His Campaign Dumbass
- illspaz, on 02/12/2008, -10/+7Why The ***** Not
- rhabd0mancer, on 02/12/2008, -5/+8He is in the process of ending it. He's focusing on his congressional seat instead.
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -8/+16You're right, the American Voters have ended his campaign. He just hasn't realized it yet?
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2He should call the waaaaaaaaaaambulance.
- Travis29, on 02/12/2008, -13/+15Ron Paul Hasnt Ended His Campaign Dumbass
- winmywii, on 02/12/2008, -3/+20I've seen you post this same exact comments on a few different stories now. Get over it.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I've seen you post one comment. Quit already.
- mstar, on 02/12/2008, -1/+29Citation Needed
- enclaved, on 02/12/2008, -6/+23I chain smoke. ***** you for stating that implies anything besides the fact that I smoke.
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7you would be a bad president..... based on that 1 piece of in formation
- enclaved, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5I disagree, I could chainsmoke with a vodka IV in my arm and sitting naked in a few kilos of cocaine and I would still be a better president then what we currently have.
- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3All smoker's are anti-American globalists. I mean come on, who brought tobacco to the white man? The Indians, that's who. And I think we all know that the Indian's are all anti-american Muslim extremist, who smoke a ton (and camels to represent their hatred for cars and support for socialist things like public transportation ... and riding camels). He did spend a year in India as a child, where he picked up smoking camels. I rest my case.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Well, it could also mean that you stink, you have lots of wrinkles, you have yellow teeth ... black lungs, cancer, bad breath, no stamina in the sack, and ... that you're a ***** ignoramus who thinks he looks cool when he really doesn't.
But, who could guess, right?
Or, maybe I'm wrong and your really a she.
So, am I close, bitch?
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7you would be a bad president..... based on that 1 piece of in formation
- blackbeardtron, on 02/12/2008, -6/+21Welcome to my blocked list.
- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -31/+7Synchronicity! WHAT THE ***** ARE YOU DOING!!!!11 You can't talk bad about Obama! Even if a lot of the stuff is true, it's Obama!
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -1/+13but mostly because a lot of it is NOT true. So even if some of it is true, his whole post is discredited.
- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Yeah i forgot that rule, if ONE SINGLE THING isn't true, then everything you say is a lie.
- skankyBacon, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Way to completely misunderstand the meaning of "discredited."
- jdb252, on 02/12/2008, -3/+5Impeachment in a court of law severely undermines the credibility of a witness. Also, Synchronicity is a dumbass.
- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Yeah i forgot that rule, if ONE SINGLE THING isn't true, then everything you say is a lie.
- JavanSClark, on 02/12/2008, -4/+6Haha. Paultards are now left without a banner carrier. The only people who are going to listen to you now:
Other Conspiracy wackjobs
People who pretend to be nice to you, but then won't acknowledge you in public
The rest of us who will continue to openly ridicule you for being tools. - JavanSClark, on 02/12/2008, -5/+11Ron Paul is being destroyed in the EVERY election because...
# let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years in his name, and still employs the person who published it even after finding out about it, even though he told everyone that he fired the people involved
# gives interviews to white separatist organizations
# describes immigrants as "not looking very American to me"
# voted against the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
# works with anti-psychiatry organizations because he doesn't believe in mental illness (including the CCHR, a Scientology front group)
# describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not)
# thinks that forced smallpox vaccinations are a bad thing even in the case of outbreak due to terrorist attack (which demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge about how plagues work)
# is a Creationist who doesn't believe in evolution (jump to 2m 40s)
# Thinks Global Warming/Climate Change is overblown (and it's not)
# uses eliminationist rhetoric in his campaign mailings
# votes against a medal for Rosa Parks but sponsors legislation for medals for soldiers who never saw combat during the Cold War
# And finally, sponsored legislation to "strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life" by "prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style", amongst other things
Furthermore, your primary source of "every one else is evil, LOOK LOOK!!" information, Factcheck, finally got around to your man RuPaul, and destroyed every argument you've ever put forth.- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -4/+5OMG, REALLY HE'S A RACIST! *****, i didn't know that! Yes, as a black man, i can't support anyone who has ever made the mistake of trusting a dumbass to write a newsletter without saying something stupid 20 years ago.
# He gave an INTERVIEW to a white separatist organization!!11 NOT AN INTERVIEW! Holy *****, so Barbara Walters must be racist too!
#Source and exact quote please?
#The civil rights act infringed upon private property rights, but we live in such a PC culture we refuse to look at that fact. *it's ok people, like i said before, i'm black, i can say stuff like this without having worry about being painted a racist and losing my job.*
#Once again Source?
#Source?
#Forced vaccines are a bad thing, oh wait, i forgot "There is no link between vaccines and autism.....there is no link between vaccines and autism....the mercury is good for the kid, thimoseral is a good thing." If i just keep saying that, it makes it true.
#His own personal choice, he won't force it on me. *but once again, source?*
#The man made THEORY *yes it is a theory* is! The earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember 30 years ago when we were gonna slip into a new ice age and all freeze to death because of global cooling?
#....
#He explained that position as the fact that if congress had asked him to chip in and they all buy a medal for her, he was down, but not on using the taxpayers money. That second one i've never heard of.
#source????
And finally, you call him RuPaul, very origional. It's obvious that you're harboring some pent up rage, so much so that it almost makes people not want to listen to your entire argument. Why do you hate Ron Paul so much? Why does he make you so mad? Oh and by the way, even in he were a racist, it wouldn't bother me, because his whole campaign is about not forcing anyone to do anything or feel anyway they don't wanat to feel. Wait, you mean people should be able to decide things for themselves and control their own lives? Hmmm...what a concept. *yes for exact quotes or something he wrote, excluding the quotes i have personally heard myself, either in a debate or reading, you should give sources. Just for future reference.* - heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -3/+2You're forgetting, GoFalcons.. It's okay for them to not cite, but not for you. Ahh, the advantages to the bandwagon!
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2@heypetray
You're missing the point entirely. I could just say, "whoooooosh" but Im pretty sure even that reference would be way over your head.- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -2/+1@blue
It didn't go over my head, and you're a pompous ass.
- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -2/+1@blue
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1# describes the Constitution as "replete with references to God" (even though it is demonstrably not)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LEARN TO READ...
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion." - Ron Paul
That quote doesn't say that the Declaration and Constitution are replete with references to God. The Declaration and Constitution were not the subjects of that sentence; "THE DRAFTERS (of two documents)..." were the subjects of the sentence.
The Founders were informed; they were full of knowledge about their personal beliefs and they left hints everywhere. Both, the drafters of the Declaration and the drafters of Constitution were replete with references to God, because they were indeed full of references, the Creator of their natural surroundings and their scholarly minds equipped them with such references.
The drafters [Founding Fathers] were replete with references to God, like a student's mental library is replete with countless books or notes, from years of classes; like a student's life is replete with countless moments of study, from the will to improve; like a happy child's life is replete with moments of laughter and happiness, from a very good upbringing; like a Creator's creation is replete with clues about creativity, from somewhere or something uncanny; like a book is replete with words or chapters and verses, from an author's experiences; like an old man's legacy is replete with countless stories upon stories upon stories upon stories, from a long life; like a tried warrior is replete with scars from wars, physically and/or mentally; like the moronic anti-Paul people are replete with layers upon layers of ignorance, from their poor digestion of incredibly bad intelligence.
As for the Constitution mentioning God... The Constitution came after the Declaration of Independence, for numerous reasons; however -- generally -- the Constitution wasn't drafted to elaborate on God, but it was drafted to elaborate on the DECLARED RIGHTS that had been previously ___DECLARED___ within the Declaration of Independence. And, those DECLARED RIGHTS were not elaborated on or defined for only "We the People...", but they were mostly defined for the privileged persons of our elected governments -- to understand, to know, to remember, and to protect -- for their own good. Those DECLARED RIGHTS were scribed in ink, via the Constitution, so our forgetful/faliable elected members wouldn't accidentally trounce on our inalienable rights [OUR DECLARED AND ORDAINED RIGHTS], so THEY wouldn't stupidly ignite another bloody revolution and end up dead.
The Founding Fathers understood what it meant to be Creative, what it meant to have Creativity, what it meant to be a Creation, what it meant to create, what it meant to question all existing/created things and still not fully understand a Creator [God] or a Creation's foundation. They didn't want to force any single definition of a Creator [God], for they understood that this could lead to tyranny, resistance, battles, and wars -- everything that they had just fought to escape. They understood that individuals had to be INDEPENDENT from tyranny, to find their own way, that the government couldn't establish walls between a person and his/her growth/beliefs.
The Declaration and Constitution were ultimately images of their growth and beliefs; the Founders would not have fought for, drafted and signed the documents had they not absolutely believed in them.
- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -4/+5OMG, REALLY HE'S A RACIST! *****, i didn't know that! Yes, as a black man, i can't support anyone who has ever made the mistake of trusting a dumbass to write a newsletter without saying something stupid 20 years ago.
- oddmanout, on 02/12/2008, -1/+13but mostly because a lot of it is NOT true. So even if some of it is true, his whole post is discredited.
- hassanchop13, on 02/12/2008, -3/+2some of the things you listed made me want to vote for obama more...
i dont get nationalism at all, it seems like a dated, racist, concept. and half the "problems" with him is that he's too much of a humanist/globalist who is willing to deal with blacks and mexicans?- steveboutin, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2i'd hardly call building a superhighway from mexico to canada "dealing with." more like "in bed with"
- pimpofpixels, on 02/12/2008, -9/+50-He's an anti-American globalist. Unfounded
-He lies about being anti-war. Evidence to contrary
-He voted to give Bush blank checks – Fewer times than Clinton/McCain
-He endorsed Lieberman. – So did Clinton
-He asked Lieberman to be his mentor. Unfounded
-He threatened Iran. Fewer times than Clinton/McCain
-He's in bed with the CFR. Same as Clinton/McCain
-He's in bed with the AIPAC. Same as Clinton/McCain
-He voted for the Patriot Act. Fewer times than Clinton/McCain
-He wants to police/regulate the Internet, which could only lead to more taxes and more regulations. Unfounded
-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution. Unfounded
-He would create a North American Union, uniting Canada, Mexico, and America under common borders and a new Constitution. Unfounded
-He would finalize the NAFTA Superhighway, and steal American's private land via eminent domain to accomplish this. Unfounded
-He would sign the Koyoto Protocol, and make America pay a giant load of expensive penalties/taxes. I agree.
-He would support the UN's goal to implement a Global Income Tax. Unfounded
-He would sign the Law of the Sea Treaty [LOST]. True
-He won't get out of the WTO, NAFTA, or CAFTA, so he won't really do anything about sweat shops or workers' rights. Evidence to contrary
-He chain smokes, but he talks of "Change" like he's an experienced man of "Change." Exaggeration and Irrelevant
-He won't end the War on Terror. – Less so than Clinton/McCain
-He won't end the War on Drugs. – Less so than Clinton/McCain
-He threatened Pakistan. – Less so than Clinton/McCain
-He won't take the use of nukes off the table. – Less so than Clinton/McCain
-He won't do anything to stop the runaway inflation and declining dollar. Unfounded
-He would force Americans to throw their money at other countries. Less so than Clinton/McCain
-He wants to implement expensive social programs that would ultimately bankrupt the country. Unfounded
Unfounded Statements. -10
Fewer times/Less so than Clinton/McCain-11
Evidence to contrary – 2
Exaggeration and Irrelevant -1
True but I agree- 1
True and no other applies- 1
I wish we’d gotten Kucinich or Paul too, but of the remaining candidates he’s the one for me. I actually thing he’d make a good president because I think he’d be the man for the job as far as damage control over seas, and I think he could go a long way towards helping to unite our country as well. I also oppose his views on Gun Control.- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -19/+4"Fewer times than ..."
Don't you understand? There is ONE candidate running who isn't any of those things. He has a real record of ten Congressional terms and you pay no attention to that? There's something very squirrelly about a person who can't see that! I suggest for your own good and that of the Republic that you take a long hard look at www.ronpaul2008.com/issues and then figure it out, please. Every simpleton knows that the "top" candidates were thrown to us and you prove what a mooch you are for the mainstream media instead of what truth is all about. Hey, I'm an old man now living over seas, and it's your problems that you're really going to have to live with it because you can't see truth right under your nose. And one last thing. Don't think for a moment that Ron Paul is down and out. Far from it. He has only just begun to fight. You will not believe what is going to happen between now and September, but you have been fairly warned to get the facts from the man himself. Best!- Syric, on 02/12/2008, -7/+6Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and the Fed, which will absolutely not support. He's also disturbingly isolationist.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Uh... Who threatened to isolate Iran?
Obama did!
OBAMA is the isolationist, not Ron Paul.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Uh... Who threatened to isolate Iran?
- kemp34, on 02/13/2008, -4/+3So you advocate keeping the IRS and Fed? Wow.
- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Intervening in international civil wars is our job, no matter how much it costs!
It's not that big of a deal, we can just print more money in the meantime.
Give it 5 years, we'll be in the worst depression this country has seen.
- Syric, on 02/12/2008, -7/+6Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and the Fed, which will absolutely not support. He's also disturbingly isolationist.
- tim04, on 02/12/2008, -5/+7dude..enough already. Ron Paul already lost because clearly his policies don't agree with everyone. He is an extremist, something which most Americans don't tend to agree with. That's why a lot of people are for Obama, he's willing to negotiate.
- funkywood, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6Ron Paul lost because he's not charismatic and appears weak and close minded (I'm not saying he is, just that's how he came across). His policies are not the problem.
Some of his followers needs to start preparing to take up the libertarian cause and be prepared to be forceful about it. Maybe in a few decades the country will be ready for them.- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2"Ron Paul lost because he's not charismatic and appears weak and close minded (I'm not saying he is, just that's how he came across)."
Well, to weak and closeminded people, that probably is how Ron Paul came across.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2"Ron Paul lost because he's not charismatic and appears weak and close minded (I'm not saying he is, just that's how he came across)."
- chesbo, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9are you people ***** retarded? Ron Paul was a victim of almost a complete media blackout. Most people have no clue what any of his policies are. And to call Ron Paul an extremist just shows how much of a sheep you are.. Yeah the only anti-war candidate is an extremist?????????????????? all of the other candidates who favor big government and destroying the constitution and our personal liberties are extremist! What is this world coming to? Wow wake the ***** up people. Get educated and quit listening to everything people tell you and think for yourself.
- tim04, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1thanks chesbo, there's another reason people don't like him, his supporters are enormous closed minded dicks who seem to feel that EVERYONE else is retarded and that they're the only true Americans.
- funkywood, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6Ron Paul lost because he's not charismatic and appears weak and close minded (I'm not saying he is, just that's how he came across). His policies are not the problem.
- Sohosoutherner, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Well played, sir.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Sweet! My turn....
-He's an anti-American globalist. Founded
-He lies about being anti-war. Evidenced.
-He voted to give Bush blank checks – Just like Clinton/McCain
-He endorsed Lieberman. – Just like Clinton
-He asked Lieberman to be his mentor. Founded.
-He threatened Iran. Just like Clinton/McCain
-He's in bed with the CFR. Just like Clinton/McCain
-He's in bed with the AIPAC. Just like Clinton/McCain
-He voted for the Patriot Act. Just like Clinton/McCain
-He wants to police/regulate the Internet, which could only lead to more taxes and more regulations. Founded
-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution. Founded
-He would create a North American Union, uniting Canada, Mexico, and America under common borders and a new Constitution. Founded
-He would finalize the NAFTA Superhighway, and steal American's private land via eminent domain to accomplish this. Founded
-He would sign the Koyoto Protocol, and make America pay a giant load of expensive penalties/taxes. I agree, he's a socialist/fascist.
-He would support the UN's goal to implement a Global Income Tax. Founded
-He would sign the Law of the Sea Treaty [LOST]. True, he's a socialist/fascist.
-He won't get out of the WTO, NAFTA, or CAFTA, so he won't really do anything about sweat shops or workers' rights. Evidenced.
-He chain smokes, but he talks of "Change" like he's an experienced man of "Change." True, and proves he is weak.
-He won't end the War on Terror. – Just like Clinton/McCain
-He won't end the War on Drugs. – Just like Clinton/McCain
-He threatened Pakistan. – Just like Clinton/McCain
-He won't take the use of nukes off the table. – Just like Clinton/McCain
-He won't do anything to stop the runaway inflation and declining dollar. Founded
-He would force Americans to throw their money at other countries. Just like Clinton/McCain
-He wants to implement expensive social programs that would ultimately bankrupt the country. Founded
Founded Statements: 25
Evidenced: 25
Exaggeration and Irrelevant: 0
True: 100%
That was fun. Anybody else with substance?
- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -19/+4"Fewer times than ..."
- AngelBunny, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7can you please link to your sources? empty facts are pointless imho. Without them you are in league with faux news.
- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2which proves that it somehow works.
- saska, on 02/12/2008, -3/+13http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Amazing you can type, but can't read. Or maybe don't want to?- simpleid, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Amazing how you can type, but can't think, or maybe you don't want to?
President Bush 'said' and 'supported' a lot of things that appealed to people like you when people like you voted him in to office too. Unfortunately the only candidate with the historical voting record and passion for correcting the mistakes of the previous decade is being overlooked by your ignorance and unwillingness to accept what's honestly wrong with our economy and nation. We need a humble foreign policy, we need someone who we can rely on to execute on his beliefs. Saying what you believe is meaningless, acting on your beliefs is meaningful.- saska, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1You have no idea who I voted for or who I support. Your assumptions make me laugh.
I linked to a source that directly refutes the vast majority of your claims. But now that you've revealed yourself as a Ron Paul supporter with a mean streak, I'm even happier I've distanced myself from that group where I once counted myself a member.- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2You see, Ron Paul's supporters are INDIVIDUALS -- not zombie sheep.
You shouldn't be surprised to find a Ron Paul supporter's approach different from Ron Paul's approach.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2You see, Ron Paul's supporters are INDIVIDUALS -- not zombie sheep.
- saska, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1You have no idea who I voted for or who I support. Your assumptions make me laugh.
- simpleid, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Amazing how you can type, but can't think, or maybe you don't want to?
- quakerorts, on 02/12/2008, -5/+5He's not Hillary.
- Syric, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Half of those aren't true, a quarter of them are irrelevant, and the rest are things I support. Thanks for making me a stronger supporter of Obama.
- niteblade, on 02/12/2008, -1/+13God I love the smell of Republican Fear in the morning.
- darlingt, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6*sniffs* It smells like... victory.
- MoralCuntPiss, on 02/13/2008, -4/+0John McCain is going to be your next president :)
- Promethian, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Its funny how most of the arguements against this is "at least he isnt as bad as so and so" which really means "at least he will collapse the world into globalism slightly faster then some other people."
- teamparadox, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Here, this is pretty much (as a fan of digg) all you should need to read about Obama.. Keep in mind this is a snippet from a long list of things he talks about in regards to Tech.
"Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration."
Translation- A better system with less patent trolls. Done.- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Peer review? So it'd be just as easy to game the patent system as it is to game Digg? Just curious.
- solistus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Signing LOST would be fantastic.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1You've heard of the Declaration of Independence, right? Go read it.
- masbestiaquetu, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4its misinformed idiots like you that screw up things for everybody. go ***** read a book you racist *****.
- Asheis, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Honestly? The biggest reason to vote for Obama is simply that he can beat McCain. With Hilary, it would be a closer race. McCain is a Nutjob, would you rather have HIM in office?
- nevaseez, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Damn straight... As a Canadian I am GLAD to see him "He would sign the Kyoto Protocol, and make America pay a giant load of expensive penalties/taxes. I agree." America has ripped off Canada WAY TO MUCH esp. on the softwood lumber issue
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1.
- nevaseez, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Damn straight... As a Canadian I am GLAD to see him "He would sign the Kyoto Protocol, and make America pay a giant load of expensive penalties/taxes. I agree." America has ripped off Canada WAY TO MUCH esp. on the softwood lumber issue
- FallenWings, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2About the chain smoking... I watched an interview with him and his wife on TV at the start of his campaign. He stated that his wife made him promise that, if he were to run, he would have to quit smoking. And so he has.
- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2It's all about heroin now...
- lougoose, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Pretty sure you don't ask someone to be yoru mentor...it just happens.
Oh yeah, you are a douchebag.- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Wow! What an insightful point!
NOT!
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Wow! What an insightful point!
- kushin, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1dude, your digg downs are catching up with Mc Cain's delegate count. CNN projects you are officially the biggest dick of this digg.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Awesome! And, you could be the next great Frank Luntz!
Therefore, let me be the first to say: ***** YOU KUSHIN!!
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Awesome! And, you could be the next great Frank Luntz!
- rootadmen, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution.
Funny, last I remember he was a constitutional lawyer...- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Yea, and last I heard, the Patriot Act was Patriotic. ::rolling eyes::
Calling himself a constitutional lawyer, this doesn't mean he upholds/protects the Constitution.
- Synchronicity, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Yea, and last I heard, the Patriot Act was Patriotic. ::rolling eyes::
- patsfan456, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1You sir, are truly an insult to The Police.
- meese, on 02/12/2008, -25/+121Much of that is false, and the rest isn't negative, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- jimmyhoffa2222, on 02/12/2008, -47/+174Vote Obama!
- amdahlj, on 02/12/2008, -18/+5VotObama?
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Votebama.
- davidrools, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Obambuntu
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1edit.
- davidrools, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Obambuntu
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Votebama.
- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -32/+7...and watch all your tax dollars given away to people who don't deserve it and public projects no one wants! Also, don't forget to sign away all of your freedoms in the name of social welfare! Remember, it's wrong when the big bad Republicans ask you to do it in the name of "National Security", but social equality is A-ok!
Vote Democrat, You ***** *****!- johnhummel, on 02/12/2008, -4/+17I wasn't going to worry about your post, but when you fired up the insults at the end, I feel I must digg you down.
Sorry - next time, rant all you like, but if you can't be civil about it, then nobody wants to hear it. I've never heard someone be called a "*****" who then went "Dang - you know what, I totally want to listen to your points now! Thanks!"
Just a thought.- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -5/+2John Hummel, maybe you'll listen to mine. I don't know where to break in here, but I'm concerned about the post that has been dugg way, way down from Synchornisticy or something like that above. I'm also not interested in some of the things he put in his list. But I am interested in the fact that we're talking about the future President of the United States. If even one amongst some of the charges leveled by Synchronicity is true, then someone should be willing to take a look at it. I think Obama fans aren't being realistic here. Is he a liar? Is he an oath breaker? What about the moral allegations someone made on YouTube. I admit I've heard nothing more about it, but has it just been glossed over? Is it true and his supporters and the media are just ignoring it? Thanks for some straight answers. Dan
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Dan, here's a straight answer.
You're an idiot.- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -5/+2Spoken like a true Democrat!
"Hey, disagree with me? Want to question our beliefs? ***** you, you're an idiot!" - Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7It has its Republican parralels:
"Hey, you don't like the war? You must be a terrorist, you treasonist liberal".
Trust me on this, its not a Democratic tactic, its a political tactic. - phike, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1No one is ever an idiot about topics like this, only people who are misinformed. I think everyone is forgetting who owns 90% of the media. Hint: It's there are more republican-based companies out there other than News Corp.
- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -5/+2Spoken like a true Democrat!
- johnhummel, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Dan,
Digg's stupid comment system won't let me talk to you directly. Here's the problem with Synch's list:
It makes no sense.
Take this question he asks:
He chain smokes, but he talks of "Change" like he's an experienced man of "Change."
-He won't end the War on Terror.
-He won't end the War on Drugs.
What the hell does that mean? No specifics. No "because Obama said X".
"If even on charge leveled by Synchronony is true" - sure, that would be a problem. So back it up. It's like the scientific method - it isn't my job isn't to disprove your theory, that's your job. So if you have specific evidence that Obama will "-He would tear down America's borders and finally trash the US Constitution", evidence, not speculation, then it will be worth listening to.
Otherwise, just listing talking points without any useful backing is a worth of my time.
- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -7/+4Ah yes, and here come the socialite Diggers who can't take someone capable of repudiating a worthless candidate. If you think my insults were a little harsh, you have no idea how your candidates actually view the Democratic base.
Is the price of numerous negative diggs worth voicing my opinion? Hell, this is the Internet - in the words of John Preston: I pay it gladly.- Lemur3, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Well, if you don't know the difference between "socialite" and "socialist," yeah, you deserve to get dugg down.
- wolfzombie, on 02/12/2008, -2/+11Give me a republican who isn't about blowing the entire middle east in the name of "terror" and I'll vote republican. I was raised republican, I have voted republican in the past. I can't bring myself to vote for someone who's plan for the nation is furthering the turmoil that we have created in the mid east. The democrats, this election, are a beacon of hope to bring an end to our unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Thank you for assuming I..
a) Want to see McCain in the White House
b) Want to continue occupying Iraq
c) Think Republicans are the answer
You're 0 for 3. - daninspokane, on 02/12/2008, -3/+3Wolf, look up Obama's stance on terrorrism and Palestine. He's more than willing to send US forces there... so... yea... 4 more years of the Middle East for us.
- wolfzombie, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2I realize Obama's stance on Palestine, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan. I also understand McCain's stance on Iraq and Iran. Given the choice between the two, Obama is the one willing to get us out of the mistake we have made in Iraq rather than furthering the situation and getting us involved (without allied support) in Iran. The places that Obama is looking to seek terrorists are places that we will be backed by our allies, and not seen as thoughtless, reckless barbarians to the rest of the world.
As for active1x0, I figured the statement "Vote Democrat, You ***** *****!" was a free pass at making assumptions. My apologies. - heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1"Give me a republican who isn't about blowing the entire middle east in the name of "terror" and I'll vote republican."
Ron Paul
You can check out his anti-war position on his main site, here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/iraq/
Now I hope you honor your deal with me.
- active1x0, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Thank you for assuming I..
- Kotelic, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Well the election should be about more than just a solution to the turmoil in the Middle East. That's why I think Active has a good point ( until the random vulgarity at the end) People should consider other policies too and it seems that all that matters in the war. I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to be upset at subsequent proposals if they elect a President based on his answer to one litmus test question.
- davidrools, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Wrong. Watch our tax dollars stop being wasted on Iraq at 11 billion every month. Watch middle class individuals and families bring home MORE money in their paychecks with Obama's promise of middle class tax breaks (while removing Bush's tax breaks for the rich)
- johnhummel, on 02/12/2008, -4/+17I wasn't going to worry about your post, but when you fired up the insults at the end, I feel I must digg you down.
- victorycig, on 02/12/2008, -15/+7I liked Obama until I saw Robobama speak. He's so charismatic considering how little RAM he's running on.
- Rodman930, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1That's because he runs on ROM. It's much more stable.
- expertninja, on 02/12/2008, -3/+13Today is the VA primary, so I am.
- Laminarcissus, on 02/12/2008, -4/+13Great, Obama threads have now officially become indistinguishable from Ron Paul threads. Money Bombs, vapid one liners...
I'm voting for Obama and have contributed, but part of it was because I'd hoped the dialogue surrounding his campaign would be more important than the other candidates, and more issue-centric.
Sorry about the unrealistic expectations, I'll just go pull my cynicism out of the attic.- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1I'm with you. I like Obama and Ron. It just makes me laugh (and cry) to see how the digg tactics are mirrored between the two.
- bluezinc, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1The dialogue is more important, just not when talking to angry paulbots.
- royalwcheese, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Donated $25 for the first time. Now donate your calls to the necessary primary states. Now is the time to get involved.
- CthulhuDawn, on 02/12/2008, -2/+4You're doing it wrong. Should have been $25.05! :-p
- DephexTwin, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4But isn't $25 made up of 2500 Lincolns?
- CthulhuDawn, on 02/12/2008, -2/+4You're doing it wrong. Should have been $25.05! :-p
- ChefBocu, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Where is Nader this go around?
- echolyean, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5Hopefully sleeping this one off.
- Worldchrisis, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7Just did.
- bovilexia, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8i voted for Obama today in the VA primary.
- Ireland, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Give 501 http://creativebits.org/files/images/layout02.prev ...
- TheImmigrant, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1$5.01 would be better served if donated to Ron Paul's campaign.
- amdahlj, on 02/12/2008, -18/+5VotObama?
- TyroPyro, on 02/12/2008, -87/+13$5? That will get nothing done, and I can only imagine it will further strain Obama's donation page and 'spam' his fundraising database records.
Save up for a few days and make it $50 instead. We're not Ron Paul supporters here.- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -5/+29you give what you can, if you can give $50.05, great!
this campaign is driven by otherwise small people making small donations - i only have one voice, but it counts.- dynamik, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Why did you multiple the dollars by 10 and the penny by 5? I donated $50.10 ;)
- Netrilix, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Me too. I figure it's well worth the price.
- dynamik, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Why did you multiple the dollars by 10 and the penny by 5? I donated $50.10 ;)
- meese, on 02/12/2008, -1/+19The point right now is to make a statement in terms of the number of donors rather than the dollar amount. Sure, the dollar amount helps, but a lot of Obama supporters have already given money and we don't want to strain their pocketbooks too much, because we aren't a bunch of wealthy folks giving money to his campaign.
So multiples of $5.01 allow for people to give a moderate amount and at the same time make a statement.- irightthebook, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8Exactly. I'm a college student and I gave $200 already (and never donated to a campaign previously). $25.01 wasn't difficult, but it says something, especially going into today's primary.
What a small price to pay for a new direction for our country.- dantrenner, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I'd be more interested to know why it's not the purchase of another nail for our country's coffin. There is too much http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-14 ... going on here for actually picking the president of the United States. Come on!
- irightthebook, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8Exactly. I'm a college student and I gave $200 already (and never donated to a campaign previously). $25.01 wasn't difficult, but it says something, especially going into today's primary.
- twrife, on 02/12/2008, -2/+6I don't think they have to keep records of donations under 200$. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.
- EtherGnat, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5I think they have to keep records, but they don't have to disclose donations under $200 individually on their fundraising reports. Otherwise people could just give $199 a thousand times to get around fundraising limits.
- springo, on 02/12/2008, -1/+28Last time I checked $5.01 > $0.00 was still true.
- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul > Barack Obama is still True
- shawnanigans, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6Of course, because we all know it costs $5.02 to serve a web page right?
- mattmccabe, on 02/12/2008, -5/+29you give what you can, if you can give $50.05, great!
- twrife, on 02/12/2008, -9/+102I sense more donation records coming by the end of today after Obama has won the Potomac primaries.
- Schrodinger, on 02/12/2008, -2/+14Yes. He will win for sure. I was in line to vote this morning(Northern Virginia) and everyone I asked was there to vote for Obama.
- lowfalls, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9Yeah these primaries should be a sweep for him. Hopefully it'll give him enough momentum to narrow the gap in Texas and Penn, an win Ohio.
- Wingman007, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Ahhh, I love Obama, but despise hubris.
- queenstarsha, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1i can't help calling him president obama sometimes. it feels great.
- d03boy, on 02/12/2008, -5/+2By "more" you mean "the first of his"
- djreed, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1http://reddit.com/info/68i7v/comments/
Help get this to the Reddit front page too!
- trigatch4, on 02/12/2008, -53/+15I won't contribute $5.01 but I WILL contribute my vote and my support via word of mouth. Those two I consider to be much more valuable (although Ron Paul supporters might disagree when all is said and done). It's amazing how politics is business as usual with all the money poured into it.
If you want a FREE way to support your thoughts: http://www.politicalfury.com- joaob, on 02/12/2008, -3/+22So spam is your contribution?
- dteresh, on 02/12/2008, -6/+9How else would Ron Paul get so many supporters on Digg?
- gofalcons, on 02/12/2008, -6/+9Because people actually agree with his positions and not just that he "speaks well"
- Malevolant, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5I find you to be a massive hypocrite since, if anything, Obama is now taking ideas from the candidate you are mocking.
gofalcons is also spot on, but Obama people don't want to hear it
- dteresh, on 02/12/2008, -6/+9How else would Ron Paul get so many supporters on Digg?
- joaob, on 02/12/2008, -3/+22So spam is your contribution?
- Flunk, on 02/12/2008, -40/+318Why is US politics centered around who can raise the most money? Seems completely wrong...
- Talena, on 02/12/2008, -12/+28-1 diggs?, if you think he's wrong, you don't know what democracy is
- SickMonkey, on 02/12/2008, -3/+14Actually Obama supports public campaign financing and free air time. When you look at the fact that the average US Senator has to raise close to $10,000 a day to remain competitive in a typical senate race, you can see why the whole thing is a huge waste of their time. If there was a public matching fund, politicians at least would have a choice of either accepting public financing from the fund or raising it on their own (if they think they could do better). In addition to freeing up their time, it would also make them a lot less beholden to lobbyists and special interest groups.
- AngelBunny, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3it is obvious flunk doesn't think obama is wrong. i think you misunderstand what he is saying.
- sokarII, on 02/12/2008, -7/+1So, if you think Obama is wrong than your against democracy? What a idiotic assertion.
- voteobama4, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Not what he was saying at all..
- cjmal, on 02/12/2008, -12/+6Why is the sky blue? Why do birds fly? There are no answers to these questions.
- sup191, on 02/12/2008, -1/+15http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Blue ... That's why the sky is blue...
- Ryosen, on 02/12/2008, -0/+13Why is the sky blue? Refraction of sunlight through the earth's atmosphere causes blue light to scatter, giving the sky the appearance of being blue.
Why do birds fly? Because they can. Wouldn't you?
How do birds fly? They flap their wings, producing an amount of lift exceeding their mass, which forces them upward. While in flight, air flowing under their wings continues the lifting force, again in excess of their mass.
Is there anything else that you'd like to know?- TheNeptune, on 02/12/2008, -5/+3Where do babies come from?
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Storks.
- killacamry, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2what caused the big bang?
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2I clapped really hard.
- ArmandoM, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Rosie fell
- haiduz, on 02/12/2008, -0/+11why wont girls talk to me?
- Eiknujrac, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6Do we really have to go over this again?
- TheNeptune, on 02/12/2008, -5/+3Where do babies come from?
- skankme, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Who is John Galt?
- davidrools, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2sarcasm flies over their heads like a bird in a blue sky
- rebrane, on 02/12/2008, -2/+39Centered? Not really. The winner of the Republican primary is the one who raised the least money. The simple fact is campaigns cost money, and in the U.S. there's no public financing of campaigns, so private individuals have to do it instead. That's us!
- jdb252, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3There's a huge difference this year between the Republican and Democratic primaries though. The enthusiasm just isn't there for the Republicans - they're totally divided. So it makes sense that, with more people paying attention to Barack and Hillary, money is going to play a bigger role.
- sherkaner, on 02/12/2008, -1/+17The majority of voters pay only passing attention to politics, so simple awareness is the most difficult hurdle for a candidate to clear. Given how vast America is, it simply costs a huge amount of money to advertise in the enormous number of markets represented; the more money you have, the more people you can make aware of you. This is especially important for Obama, given that it's become clear that once people become aware of him, they favor him strongly over Clinton.
- taintedzodiac, on 02/12/2008, -2/+16There's a quote that I think will answer your question:
"No one entity in the United States holds more currency than the private citizen."
Together, the voting persons of the USA have the power to provide a true, honest candidate with more money than all of the corporations put together. We are that force. Obama appears to be that candidate.- heypetray, on 02/13/2008, -2/+1Appearances can be deceiving. Check Ron Paul's fund raising records.
- illegalcortex, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11For the same reason it's hard to buy ads, book venues for rallies, and travel cost country for free?
- davidkeithjones, on 02/12/2008, -4/+3Romney had the most raised when he dropped out. Money isnt everything but it feeds your volunteers.
- sokarII, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Most of the money spent was his own. Does it count as raising if it is from your own bank account?
- sokarII, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Campaigns cost so much money because these idiots battle it out in thirty second timeslots between entertainment. If there wasn't such a drive to promote yourself through the 30-second medium than campaigns wouldn't cost so much. In short, its our fault because, sadly, it is the most effective way to reach people nowadays.
- djreed, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1http://reddit.com/info/68i7v/comments/
Help get this to the Reddit front page too! - kingUssop, on 02/12/2008, -6/+1It's also focused on who can lift JFK's and MLK's speeches the most without getting caught.
- voteobama4, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6You're right. But at least Obama gets the bulk of it from real people instead of corporations, special interest groups, etc.
- ax8284, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Actually I think it's important in order to have a somewhat democratic election to have the campaigns funded by private money.
- voteobama4, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Not true. What we need is a re-vamp of the advertising/allotted tv time system, so that candidates didn't have to pay for airtime. Perhaps this could be done by creating a channel dedicated to political races where candidates could advertise their campaigns and positions equally and hold debates, etc. free of charge.
Though I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, his candidacy is a perfect example (or Mike Gravel, Dennis Kukunich, etc.). These guys had perfectly worthy campaigns, but were thrust into relative obscurity becuase the news outlets chose to devote most of their coverage to Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain and Huckabee -- the ones whose names were already well-known (and who had the most cash). This undermines the democratic process, becuase the media is essentially choosing which candidates have a chance based on the amount of early coverage they award them. I guarantee if Ron Paul got a fair share of airtime, he would get a larger chunk of votes. If a station existed where all candidtaes were represented equally -- regardless of money -- we would have a real choice between a wide array of candidates, not just the 4 or 5 with the most money (and that the media latches on to from the start).
- voteobama4, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Not true. What we need is a re-vamp of the advertising/allotted tv time system, so that candidates didn't have to pay for airtime. Perhaps this could be done by creating a channel dedicated to political races where candidates could advertise their campaigns and positions equally and hold debates, etc. free of charge.
- 955701, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3It is completely wrong. It's a nasty feedback loop. The majority of people in the US spend excessive amounts of time at work and don't do enough research on their representatives the make independent decisions. The result is that they can be swayed, even at the last minute, to vote for someone that doesn't really represent them simply be receiving a persuasive message at just the right time. Companies doing business in the States are affected by the legislation of these representatives. They want the reps to sign things into law to make their business bigger and more profitable. But that doesn't always line up with what individual people need, so they buy up the channels for sending messages to the people, then keep the people busy so that they have to make knee jerk decisions about who to vote for (or no decision at all - the majority of eligible people in the US STILL don't vote). The way to get elected as a candidate is to pander to the corps, but ultimately the people have to be persuaded. So the corps "help out".
- Gemfinder, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1[shrug] It is what it is. This is a capitalist system and this way Everyperson gets to make a direct impact. Unlike our voting system...
- xXSleepyKXx, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3It is an expensive trail to the white house, but at least Obama is doing it without corporate and lobbyist money. I will gladly give him money and my vote when my state's primary comes around and another in November!
- the999, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2"Who makes the most money" is the cry of not just our elections, but our culture.
- mdonato, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Money doesn't determine elections. Press coverage does. Obama energizes people because the media says he does. McCain surges because that is all people hear from the pundits, so it must be true.
- Talena, on 02/12/2008, -12/+28-1 diggs?, if you think he's wrong, you don't know what democracy is
- rhabd0mancer, on 02/12/2008, -15/+92How much of that $5.01 will be eaten up by credit card fees?
- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -1/+31Usually 1-3% so at most 15 cents per donation.
- wsanders, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11Well, it's usually 1-3% plus a per transaction processing fee between 10 and 25 cents.
- jdb252, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3They probably have a deal though because of the amount of transactions coming through. Also, campaigns are technically non-profit organizations, so there could be a loophole in credit card company policy there, as well.
- wsanders, on 02/12/2008, -1/+11Well, it's usually 1-3% plus a per transaction processing fee between 10 and 25 cents.
- soulmantim, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6Ha I was thinking the same thing.
So really the people are donating about $4.40 each- ravamp3, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2So then let's donate $5.62!
- mobbo, on 02/12/2008, -1/+41You can donate in multiples. I thought about the credit card fees and decided $10.02 would be a better chunk of change :) This is a my first donation this election season. Chalk up another active US Army soldier donation to Obama!
- samuofm, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9Thank you for both your service and your support of Barack Obama
- bitORlogic, on 02/12/2008, -2/+10Lincoln was the sixteenth president. Maybe we should be donating $16 instead?
- fridaporvida, on 02/12/2008, -9/+6debit.
- pkulak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7that's run as a credit unless you found the box for your pin number somewhere on the donation page...
- xtc46, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4just email me you card number, and pin...ill make it happen for you. Ill need your address and SSN as well..and name just to make sure its really you.
- str1fe, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Don't forget mother's maiden name!
- pkulak, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7that's run as a credit unless you found the box for your pin number somewhere on the donation page...
- asauterChicago, on 02/12/2008, -1/+31Usually 1-3% so at most 15 cents per donation.
- Timan, on 02/12/2008, -29/+10No paypal option? No monies for you.
- MaxPayne3476, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4I thought the same thing. I HATE pulling my credit card out just to buy something online .
- slapded, on 02/12/2008, -3/+5hell even ron paul took paypal
- themagellan, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Digg this up, I'm sure Timan and I are not the only ones...
- thestaton, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5Log into paypal. On the left side there is a box called paypal plugin. Click on secure cards and it will let you generate a one time use credit card, and you can use any balance in your account.
here is a link but I'm not sure if it will work.
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_vdc- ... - definedbywords, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1yea, plz to learn how to actually use paypal
- joaob, on 02/12/2008, -17/+141I just contributed my $5.01!
That makes it about $155.01 towards the campaign.- vagabondgr, on 02/12/2008, -5/+49I just put $9.11
oops.- DephexTwin, on 02/12/2008, -0/+28Giuliani's campagin already ended!
- brianjlowry, on 02/12/2008, -4/+10$205.01... will you match me with another $50?
- rawheadrex, on 02/12/2008, -3/+7Same here. Makes my total $55.01 ;-)
- djreed, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1http://reddit.com/info/68i7v/comments/
Help get this to the Reddit front page too! - ravamp3, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2I'm at $30.01
- vandalay, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Just contributed another $10.02, which puts me at 35.02
- x1soundgarden1x, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0I'm at 205.01 in three donations. I really want him to win the Presidency. It would change the country and it would change the world for the better more than any other candidate. First time I've ever given money to a campaign.
- vagabondgr, on 02/12/2008, -5/+49I just put $9.11
- RuffRidr, on 02/12/2008, -51/+4I'd rather see what he can do with less. Anybody is going to look like a rockstar when they are flush with money. The next administration is going to need someone who is fiscally conservative, not someone who spends money like a drunk sailor on shore leave. Will it be Obama? I don't know.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 02/12/2008, -2/+5you've really nailed down a position there.
- vsthsd, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1The idiocy in your argument astounds me.
- RetlawST, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1What baffles me is Ruff posted his comment 4 hours ago, but Liqu
