digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Mike Gravel and Ron Paul Still Being Ignored

usnews.com — This US News and World Report story claims that a site called BlogPulse (blogpulse.com) lists Obama and McCain leading in blog buzz. I just went to the site myself and entered the search terms "gravel", "paul" and "obama". It turns out that Ron Paul leads Barack Obama and Mike Gravel by a huge margin. Did the author just forget to look?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • faithfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Ron's popularity only surged after the GOP Presidental Debate
    • had3l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Ok, I'm not afraid of being Dugg down, when I say this:

      You shouldn't look at the peaks, you should wait until the debate buzz ends before you say that "Mike Gravel and Ron Paul have almost as much mentioning as Obama"

      I could just as well read those graphs the following way:

      "After the debate Gravel's name got mentioned a lot more because sites were analyzing and listing every candidate that were there, not only Mike. Not only that, but Gravel was "mad as hell", and that is newsworthy by itself, whether you are a supporter or not. Now, Gravel's numbers are returning to what they were before the debate."

      "Ron Paul was more known than Gravel was, so it's justifiable that he had more searches before the debates. Then, after the debate, he got a boost for the same reason as Gravel did, except, the rep. debate buzz is still not over, so you still have more Ron Paul searches than Mike Gravel."

      "That added to the fact that as much as we would like to believe otherwise, digg.com is also giving the candidates a lot of buzz, and it doesn't mean they are getting a overall support from the majority of America (Although that can be reversed.)"

      And don't forget, those are just blogs that "mentioned" the candidates, being mentioned more or less doesn't mean you are a better candidate, just that you are getting more exposure. Bush is being mentioned more that almost all the candidates put together, does that means he won the e-vote? How can you distinguish blogs who are criticizing a candidate from blogs who are supporting them?

      This is actually a bunch of BS, and means nothing, the data could be interpreted in 1000 different ways.
    • darkciti, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Ron Paul the porn star or Ron Paul the 90's drag queen?
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14You know what else is being ignored? All these ***** Ron Paul stories, most of them are also being buried as the being the same ***** thing I saw 2 hours ago.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5no offense to you guys, but you guys are doing nothing but hurting this man. youre being whiny little bitches who only take action when a post makes it to the front page. you guys are a bunch of sheep when it comes to the politicians you support. first it was obama, then gravel, now paul. if anything, youre annoying the piss out of people because everyone knows why there is a sudden paul popularity "surge" (lafffff). personally, ive emailed as many MSM people as possible to tell them where this is coming from because its pathetic. i'm all for making this ***** fair, but you guys are like little 5th graders who whine and cry when you don't get your way. this site is a perfect example of how harmful group think mentality can be. grow the hell up and understand that at some point, you'll have to leave your computers to make some real change.
    • had3l, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ me

      OMG, I didn't even notice that he searched for "Paul" and not "Ron Paul"

      That is pretty stupid and has gone too far, are we as biased as the mainstream media but to the opposite extreme?
    • nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Although Ron Paul says he is against trade barriers and protectionism, he voted "No" on NAFTA etc. apparently because the legal mechanisms of it would infringe on national sovereign rights. Ok, I guess that's understandable.

      However, even though Ron Paul voted NO on the Patriot act, he apparently voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

      Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

      How do you feel about that?
    • fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ nostoppingus

      "you guys are a bunch of sheep when it comes to the politicians you support. first it was obama, then gravel, now paul" Sorry, i didn't know I was not allowed to change my mind. I guess I should have never supported obama. But wait, what if another candidate enters the race and he is even a more ideal candidate to represent my interests? I guess I'll have to ask you if it is ok for me to change my mind again. I would really hate to accidentally annoying the piss out of you once again.

      Do me a favor and stop waisting your time trying to convince people they are waisting their time hyping their preferred candidate.
    • tkinnun0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you're bored at work, it wouldn't hurt to look at http://digg.com/view/world_business/upcoming/cloud and bury this Ron Paul-spam every couple of hours.
  • Ulisses, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Spam AND stupid.

    "Paul" - Almost half a million messages listed.
    "Ron Paul" - 15466 messages found

    Conclusion: You are either very stupid OR the scum of the earth.
    • Ulisses, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10And by the way, despite all your spam, Obama still leads Ron Paul on the blogpulse metric with tripe the number of results.
    • sacr3dc0w, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3And yet he won't win cause the south still hates blacks. He's wasting his time/peoples money.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40Digg needs a "Life is Unfair to Ron Paul" section.
    • Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20haha, maybe they should embed some violin music.

      Seriously, Digg's Ron Paul spambots are getting as annoying as the Truthers...
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"And yet he won't win cause the south still hates blacks. He's wasting his time/peoples money."

      That is a great reason not to run...you might lose. You are a madman risk taker aren't you?
  • thunt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15This article is the perfect example of the intersection of laziness and subterfuge...

    Proper Graphs:

    McCain vs. Giuliani vs. Paul - Note the huge bump for Ron Paul on May 2nd. This is a newsworthy development. How did this unknown suddenly move into competition with his better known and well funded rivals?

    http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Ron+Paul%22&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0

    Clinton vs. Obama vs. Gravel - Note the huge bump for Mike Gravel on April 25th. How did this happen? How did this unknown suddenly begin polling so well on the Internet?

    http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Hillary+Clinton%22&label1=&query2=%22Barack+Obama%22&label2=&query3=%22Mike+Gravel%22&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0

    Gravel vs. Paul - Who are these unknown candidates and why are they generating so much buzz? This is the question that the media needs to ask, but won't ask. We need to continue reminding them that we the people choose the candidates and that we have chosen Paul and Gravel.

    http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Mike+Gravel%22&label1=&query2=%22Ron+Paul%22&label2=&query3=&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0

    But the real lie comes when you examine their source. Instead of using the industry standard (Technorati) they used BlogPulse which is owned by the old fashioned Nielsen company. (you may remember them for their brilliant plan to measure TV ratings by making users fill out diaries and then "sampling" those users to tell them what we all watch. An idea that seems truly ancient when you think of the useful realistic statistics that a modern company like Tivo can deliver)

    This choice allows them to have this entire faux conversation about the "front-runners" without mentioning Paul or Gravel. Even a simple visit to Technorati's front page shows the true problem with this article. Ron Paul is not unknown. He is only #1 on Top Searches. On the front page. Not a lot of digging or journalistic work involved.

    http://technorati.com/


    Thunt
    http://thunt.net/

    An open letter regarding the 2008 Presidential Election (Gravel vs. Paul)
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/An_open_letter_regarding_the_2008_Presidential_Election_Gravel_vs_Paul

    • wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Pity that positive comments on blogs mean squat when it comes to representing overall public opinion. Call me when Paul polls over 3% in a national poll.
    • loof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have an astonishing;y low chance of even getting 2% of the vote nevermind actually winning an election. If Obama, Cliton, McCain and Giulani all have horrible accidents they *might* have a chance. They could be the perfect canidates and have solutions to the world's problems, it doesn't matter they will never get the coverage because they don't have the cash to compete.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 What kind of sheep mentality is this? "It's only worth voting for the candidate that's more likely to win". Isn't it other way around?

      Then again, the majority of people do put up with lousy election results and presidents they hate, cause that relieves them of personal responsibility. They get to blame someone else for their problems.

      I do agree that Ron Paul is unlikely to get elected. He rejects government bailouts and gives freedom back to the people. But freedom is responsibility and most of you simply can't handle it. You're too used to pointing fingers and crying like babies. Bush is bad! Bush is this! Bush is that! You keep electing the same president over and over, cause fulfills your victim fetish. Cause you're weak, dumb and insecure.

      Unfortunately, you are the majority...
    • loof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People need to vote for who they support. Complaining about the state of things gets people no where and neither does calling people sheep and insulting them. The canidate who wins is the one who can get their name out to the general public and convince them they're worthy of a vote. Unfortunately there are only a few canidates who can raise the money needed to do that.
  • AmericaProper, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Help force our National Public Radio into covering this outrage... this story is HOT but we have to act fast and now to make it known to all.

    EVERYONE should go to this link and submit "suggestion" to NPR.org to follow Ron Paul and this blantant omission of his presence at the debate.

    http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html

    Even if you dont support Dr. Paul, you must have the cherry picking media EXPOSED!!!!
    • torifile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This Ron Paul spam is getting absolutely ridiculous. STOP PLEASE.
  • morrislevy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19DON'T CARE!
    • Bossy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4yah, be an ass now... and then whine and bitch when you don't like the 'president' or how the media sucks.

      Your faith is in your hands.
    • ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@bossy (#6582454)
      Man i always vote for myself when I vote. One day I swear I'll win.
  • morrislevy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11DON'T CARE
  • bunk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+25Digg = Ron Paul orgy, it's disgusting.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's called the economic primary. Who ever got the most money will be given more media coverage again giving an election advantage to the wealthy. Surprise.
  • System84, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Who the hell gives a crap about these two they have no chance of winning anyway, so why is their a persistent flood of articles regarding them? Lame...
  • luvpuss84, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2If you want 3rd party candidates heard, you must fight the consolidation of media corporations. they have been allowed to consolidate because of the right wing's insistence on deregulation and removal of oversight. unfortunately, the digg lemmings on here haven't studied up on their "religion" enough to realize that their master paul and his party support this movement to an extreme, and would allow even further consolidation of all corporations, including the media.

    after all it doesn't state in the constitution that you can't have a corporate monopoly right? morons.
    • bradspangler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@luvpuss84 -- under statist capitalism, regulation *promotes* industry cartelization rather than thwarting it -- refer to the work of independent Marxist / New Left scholars like Gabriel Kolko and his "The Triumph of Conservatism" -- and yes, Kolko is a man of the left and considers conservatism triumphing a BadThing[tm].
  • theda3g0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Regardless of whether or not you support Ron or Mike, it is still crooked and disreputable to cover the debate and not include all the candidates.
  • avoidance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"This user searched for the terms "Gravel," "Paul" and "Obama" and received these results. However, that search is different than our method, which searched for a candidate's full name. Using our method, the same three name yields this result."

    "Paul" is an extremely popular name. Using it as a search tool is ridiculous. It does not reflect accurate results. It includes everyone with "Paul" as a first or last name.

    Seriously, some of you are so freaking stupid.
  • crookdimwit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Jesus. Give it a rest. The media isn't going to focus much on novelty pseudo-candidates, nor should they.

    The media does a terrible job covering candidates as is -- focusing too much on the money chase and strategy than real issues and what the candidates are saying. The last thing they need to do is get distracted by sideshows like Mike Gravel...
  • tsoldrin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I'm starting to wonder about this whole election thing. While I'd love to see Ron Paul win... what makes people think that King George will actually step down? I mean seriously... it'd mean an end to neocon politics, because nobody will ever elect a neocon or support their insane agenda again. What does Dubya have to look forward to after public office? Anywhere he goes in America, people will throw rotten vegatable at him out of hate and disgust. He won't be able to leave America because so many countries he'd have to fly over or land in will have warrants out for his arrest for war crimes and crimes against humanity. No, I don't see Georgie relinquishing the throne... not without a fight.
    • mglukhovsky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow. I think a lot of brain cells in my head died after reading that. I kind of miss them... :-(
    • robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hilarious! thanks for the laugh. seriously.
    • jordanwlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Georgie" will have to step down because the Constitution says his terms are up, therefore, your whole theory about neocons destroying planet earth will have to wait until the year 2032 when robots take over.
  • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1In regards to the article, I think that US news+world report has gotten it fairly accurate. I've read US News and World Report for years, they do an ok job, though its hard to get past their conservative slant. Nowadays i only read it for the satisfaction i get from tearing apart Mortimer Zuckerman's (lol with that name you gotta be conservative) op-eds. did anyone read this weeks? his rhetoric is garbage!
  • partytimeloser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6There is a reason they are being ignored. It's because nobody cares.
  • robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Mike Gravel and Ron Paul Still Being Ignored"

    ...as should any Digg post with their names, FFS.
  • rationalthinker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6What is the freakin' infatuation with Paul and Gravel and you diggers?... jesus h christ.. give it a rest. Ok... so according to you diggers, they are the second coming of politics, the holy grail that will rescue the world...understand one thing you ***** morons.... They will never be nominated, they will never be elected beyond they're position, they will never be president, they will never be dogcatcher of *****, New York.... get over it and give it a flippin' rest.
  • fugularity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This dump I just took has a better chance of winning the presidency than Sean Paul... you should see it, actually, it's about a foot long and looks like a saxaphone!
  • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I, for one, am still ignoring Mike Gravel and Ron Paul.
    It's because nobody gives a ***** about them.
    They have as much chance of winning as a piece of ***** in a brown paper bag.
    May as well throw Kucinich in there as well.
    They are fringe candidates.

    The Nader voters thought they were making great strides with their candidate as well. Look where that got us.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I swear the Republicans are funding opposition candidates (look at the Texas gubernatorial elections) to split the opposition vote.
    • Bossy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what the ***** do you suggest we do about this country then? Tell me *****, because according to you and others here.... there is no such thing as equal opportunity in this country.

      ***** you and digg me down you losers.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you're blaming people that voted for Ralph Nader for getting us stuck with Bush, you obviously got that infamous brown paper bag for brains.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bossy
      Move to a libertarian country!


      Oh....
  • otter111a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Hmmm Online polls show otherwise unknown candidates to be leading the field. Digg is flooded by diggers claiming its a conspiracy.

    I wonder {sarcasm] if there's any possible way that a group of determined individuals could manipulate the polls and manipulate digg at the same time.

    I also wonder if it has occurred to these same individuals that by manipulating the results they could in fact harm their candidate. Let's say he/she does well in a debate and legitimately increases their standing by 5%. The media might think that this is worth mentioning. Now, however, any true bump at any point in the future is going to be perceived as more manipulation.

    You can't just "will" a nobody into 1st place
  • punkbyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They updated to article.
    But maybe they should have shown these results...

    http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Mitt+Romney%22&label3=&query4=%22Ron+Paul%22&label4=&query5=%22Barack+Obama%22&label5=&days=3&x=39&y=12
    • phibre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh that blogpulse graphic is superb. Look at the crappy trends for everyone but Ron Paul and extrapolate 2 years out. ( Ron Paul W1N5 )

  • jlj1958, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Headline says it all ...
  • Eilarais, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good update on the USNews page, I don't know how you could look at chart #1 and think it was accurate. Get your damn stories straight, and remember that the people you are appealing to are the people who are sick of being screwed with.

    Buried as inaccurate.
  • Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What's sad is that when Ron Paul and Mike Gravel lose (which he will, sure as you're born), a vast number of "Ron Paul Truthers" will be convinced there was a sort of Byzantine conspiracy in play. Because, of course, if someone is popular on the interwebs, he's popular everywhere!!

    I'm not against fringe candidates, but I'm tired of Texas Republicans who believe in the rapture...

    I also don't support candidates that appealed to my hyper-individualistic nature when I was in high school. The world's not filled with geeks, who are brought up in reclusive societies where libertarianism appeals to them.
    • phibre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Democrat base is against the war, but they get more war despite voting in Democrats.
      The Republican base is against taxes and welfare, but they get more of both despite 6 years of Republican Gov.

      We're all fed up. This goes beyond Digg but Digg is the carrier wave, pilot fish thingy. The trend is set, so why don't you want the Fed Gov put back in it's Constitutional cage? What's your conflict of interest with Liberty and Freedom?

      Ron Paul is my kind of Fundy : a Constitutional Fundamentalist.

      Ron Paul is not a Rapture Conservative. In fact, the John Hagee Zionist Fundy Left Behind Moonbots HATE RON PAUL WITH A PASSION. They think Iseral is the Womb of New Baby Jeebus and " He cain't be bern a'gin iff'n them thar moozlims git tuh have all the baybees they want in Palistine. "

      Jesse, why don't you move to Venezuala or Cuba if you have limited central Gov so much ?
  • jodofashodo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Looks like USNews pwned your ass anyways.
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/
    Tough ***** hippy, looks like you won't be smoking your weed in a year and a half after all.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I watched the debates the other night and what is sad is that any of the people who are up on the podium represent the best of a party, same in fact for the democrats.
    The saddest thing about the forum was C. Matthews was put in the position of a moderator.
    Politico.com has been brought along as a blog of substance but it is still the same old media using a new format.
    This is a sad state of affairs when our political system has sunk to this type of non event and people eat it up.
    When are we going to see men and women of substance debate each other instead of talking head pundits asking stupid and obnoxious questions?
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Politico isn't a case of old media using new media. It's a case of old politicians using new media. Politico was founded by Frederick Ryan. Who worked as a staffer for Reagan and is chairman at the Reagan Library. That's why all the questions were along the lines of "We think Reagan's great, don't you think he's great? How great do you think Reagan is? What was the greatest thing Reagan did?"

      Hardly what I'd call a blog of substance. Comparatively the Democrats actually got some hardball questions.
  • w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Ron+Paul%22&label3=&days=60&x=30&y=7
    • phibre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Good Doctor dominates the trendometer on blogpulse. And I thought I was the last freedom loving person left in America.

      We are being economically geonocided and will vote for change. Look at the price of gold, housing, food, gas, education.
      The Elites have squeezed a little too much blood from their cash cows once again. Madame Guillotine awaits her dinner.

      Hillary, Guiliani, or regime change? The polls are speaking, shouting "Ron Paul" from the rooftops!
    • w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@phibre

      Amen and amen. We need someone like Ron Paul in there, if only to give us a few more years of freedom, in order to right our lives for the oncoming storm.
  • pgiessel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Gary Bauer led the grassroots buzz in the 2000 Republican primary and had about the same chance of getting the nomination as Ron Paul. U.S. Snooze realizes this, and ignores the irrelevant candidates.
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't know who these 2 guys are or what their platform is.

    Dugg for more coverage needed of non-preordained candidates.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2sorry R.Paul just seemed like a doddering old man.
    But then again maybe that's what the country needs.
  • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've tried to tell people, what the conservative media is doing now is normal behavior. It's a protection strategy on the part of the GOP to keep from losing the election. Paul has potential to pull enough Republicans away that it could mean a Democratic win, and the party is scrambling to stop it. They lose however it's played, so they are just trying to do damage control now. Paul wins nominations(by the longest shot in history) and they are stuck with just about the most extreme opposite they could possibly obtain in terms of party loyalty. Paul loses, runs as an Indie, or under the Libertarian ticket and manages to bring some Republicans with him. Paul loses, younger, more internet savvy voters vote Democratic. Essentially, all that they can hope to do is a) shut him out of future debates, kill his public image, and distance themselves dramatically from him(you'll notice how all these conservative news sites claim Paul is really a Libertarian, rather than taking credit for any and all support he has), and....most importantly, b) they have to ensure that the uproar caused by blocking him out and essentially ignoring him as a prospect(while keeping just-as-unlikely 2nd-tier candidate on the polls) is so inaudible that the alienated Republicans don't kill their chance next November.

    The only way to change it all is to kick up the dust, and make sure that Paul gets as much coverage as possible until the primaries. It means that whomever does win will have to re-examine Paul's stances to see how they can keep from alienating that voter bloc in the future.
    • phibre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2good points gandi2!
      Dr Paul is now in the kingmaker spot. The GOP has 0% chance of winning if he goes back to the Libertarians, or Trent Reznors' Resistance Party.

      "Paul - Reznor '08
      Resist and Party!"
    • gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@phibre
      That isn't exactly what I said, now is it?

      The GOP has just as much chance with Paul as it does without him...which unfortunately is not much. The voters want change, they don't want a Bush administration again, candidates are RUNNING to create distance from the current presidency. Approval ratings BELOW 30%, general discontent on the war, foreign policy snafus abound, and the leader of the free world is losing his clout. These current candidates can't ***** stay on topic, and I can sense a growing ennui among Republicans. The next Republican candidate would have to be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, after all the ***** that's hit the fan on the war and personal liberties violations that's come from it. No other candidate besides Paul seems to satiate that need. Of COURSE he's not going to get the nomination, but he could be a very key player depending on how widespread his message becomes. Tie in this fact with the fact that his stance is pretty damned close to both Libertarian and Constitution Party, and you've got somebody that can control a larger swing voter group.

      The '08 election is too damn close to ignore it, and so I can see why the GOP is doing what needs to be done NOW, so it doesn't swing the wrong way. It happened in '92 with Perot, and the Republicans did *****-all to counter it, and it lost them the presidency. Well...that and the fact that Bush Sr. had succeeded in pissing off the conservatives by spending money and getting us into an ass-godly war in the Middle East....what's French for "I recognize this *****?" It'll happen again in '08, only the Republicans can't do much about it even now, except what they are currently doing: trying to keep the room quiet.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1However, even though Ron Paul voted NO on the Patriot act, he apparently voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

    Did you read the bill, or are you just reading what is posted on this website? Why don't you actually read the bill, and then tell me what you think he did that was wrong. This is just an appropriations bill and doesn't specially authorize anything, other than spending $1 billion.
  • punkbyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to these results I think we all know who the next president will be...

    http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Ron+Paul%22&label1=&query2=%22Barack+Obama%22&label2=&query3=%22spiderman%22&label3=&days=30&x=23&y=9
  • xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
    • mempko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they make such good food! If you ignore the cooks, who will make all the new recipes?
  • diffraction, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The only people who are getting sick of the so called "Ron Paul Spam" are communists and neocons.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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