What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- danm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39Nicely written article.
Not a 'U-Rah Rah' piece for, or against, either of the candidates, but a 'day in the life of' kind of thing.- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I've got mixed feelings about the article.
While it's good to see that folks like Gravel and Paul (though I would have liked to see Kucinich mentioned as well) are getting some positive press, I really wouldn't call the article well written. Instead of bringing to the public's eye the real key issues they stand for, we learned that Mike Gravel likes eggs for breakfast and that he flew economy in the middle seat of row 25.
A fascinating topic, I'm sure we'll all agree.- mickrussom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is a military industrial complex drive by piece meant to make up lies about polls.
#1 , He won the Fox news debate. (Fox is lying about
this, but was caught doing so several times)
#2
Be very careful about sand bagging Ron Paul. This is the same disenfranchisement they tried to pull on HRoss Perot. This guy is a powerhouse a a certain threat against the yes-men to the military industrial complex and the controlled media.
They should look on Digg, facebook, youtube, meetup,
http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
UNITED STATES Votes for:
16474 votes for Ron Paul
7432 votes for Barack Obama
2750 votes for Dennis Kucinich
1265 votes for Hillary Clinton
1185 votes for Mike Gravel
691 votes for John Edwards
568 votes for Fred Thompson
522 votes for Rudy Giuliani
395 votes for Mitt Romney
321 votes for John McCain
300 votes for Bill Richardson
215 votes for Joe Biden
149 votes for Mike Huckabee
116 votes for Duncan Hunter
109 votes for Tom Tancredo
68 votes for Chris Dodd
54 votes for Sam Brownback
You name it, he is a strong contender.
The educated computer using types doing this stuff love the guy.
now they try and ruin Ron Paul further by saying his minions are Paul-bots, droning along making the polls out of whack with the real distribution, and to this I say to you:
Do you trust this government?
Do you trust the media?
Do you trust the company you work for?
Are there hidden agendas and ulterior motives? Can
these polls and the way Ron Paul is being covered bye
manipulated to suppress him?
I think if I was a journalist, I would err on the side of letting the little guy get a word in edgewise. He has more money than McCain, so please, lets not pretend he doesn't register.
- mickrussom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is a military industrial complex drive by piece meant to make up lies about polls.
- clo2400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Digg this up if you want to hear more from MIKE GRAVEL, vote on CNN.COM----
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Gravel_Interview
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I've got mixed feelings about the article.
- Conwaysb0718, on 10/10/2007, -5/+58Every article I have ever read from any mainstream news source always ends in a sour note.
- gwss76, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36The MSM cannot believe their importance is fading. Thank goodness for the internet.
- understudy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24I think it's more telling that they continue to link the two. While that may have been more appropriate a few months ago, and while I like both, Ron Paul has had exponentially greater success than Mike Gravel (to date).
Associating the two at this point seems like a subtle attempt negate that success.
_ - UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Holy democracy, Batman. I saw VERY little of this guy in the debates, but Gravel just won my vote without question.
All men are created equal... Power to the people... These are words that seem to be lost on everyone except Mike Gravel. God bless this man (even though I don't really believe in God, I will say that).
Give me a vote that matters, one on the issues themselves. Not just a vote on which political leaders will screw me next. If America be damned, we should be damning it ourselves rather than let others do it for us. At least, that way, we can only blame ourselves.
Vote Gravel in 08.- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What I did see of Gravel in the debate was that he said something about being able to find a Baskin-Robbins in Vietnam and that's not what the men who fought in Vietnam died for and they therefore died in vain. I don't understand, if we had won in Vietnam, surely there would be plenty of Baskin-Robbins to go to.
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Gravel's crazy.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2His point was that you CAN get Baskin-Robbins, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, etc in Hanoi right now. Just like China, Vietnam is quickly becoming a modern, free-market economy. We brutally fought these people as if they were our worst enemies, yet, currently, we do a lot of business with them and gave them the "Favored Nation" trade status. There was never any point of fighting them in the first place.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What I did see of Gravel in the debate was that he said something about being able to find a Baskin-Robbins in Vietnam and that's not what the men who fought in Vietnam died for and they therefore died in vain. I don't understand, if we had won in Vietnam, surely there would be plenty of Baskin-Robbins to go to.
- apexim, on 10/10/2007, -19/+14Ron Paul will win in a landslide from what I can derive seeing all my friends not just in US but here in Vancouver Canada and as far as Portugal New Zeland becoming all flaming souls for Ron...
- skjede, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34Make sure all your friends in New Zeland get out and rock the vote!
- mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+42004 there was a world vote and Kerry won it, but that didn't matter. America cannot be predicted from world opinion, or even a subset of your friends in the US. Ron Paul will not win because he will not receive the Republican nomination, therefore damning his chances to become president.
- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He could still run as an Independent. I know that he has said he has no plans to do so, but he also didn't plan on running for president until his close supporters talked him in to it. Now he has a few million 'close supporters'...
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2When's the last time an independent won the presidential election?
- Dp462090, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11792
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1An Independent candidacy would only ensure that the Democrats win the election, because he'll split the votes for the Republican party in most states like Perot did. He knows this, and being a Republican, will not run as an Independent because it will destroy his party's chances.
- caferrell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe, maybe not. If it were Giuliani against Obama, he'd run
- texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"He could still run as an Independent."
How about all of us RP supporters just do a WRITE IN vote, eh? Screw the establishment, the Dems, Reps and their cronies in the FEC. We still have the ability and right to write in candidates, so why don't we?
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2When's the last time an independent won the presidential election?
- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He could still run as an Independent. I know that he has said he has no plans to do so, but he also didn't plan on running for president until his close supporters talked him in to it. Now he has a few million 'close supporters'...
- lesty420, on 10/10/2007, -37/+7Ron is a big racist and i don't know about you but another person from Texas is the last thing America wants.
- PhantomBantam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I won't bother refuting your ridiculous statement, but I will say this:
He is for ending the drug war (he's the best chance, too). Judging by your name, that is a subject important to you. - understudy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Right, because it's TEXAS that's to blame.
/sarcasm
_ - FactaNonVerba7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Ron Paul is actually originally from Pennsylvania, not Texas. Two totally different states. Check out a map every once in awhile.
- mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Bush was born in Connecticut...
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Non-Socialist != Racist
- caferrell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What does socialism have to do with race?
- caferrell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What does socialism have to do with race?
- PhantomBantam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I won't bother refuting your ridiculous statement, but I will say this:
- AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -26/+11While I don't plan to vote for Paul or Gravel, and I think the Paulites are the most irritating people on the internet (to Paul's detriment), it is nice to have these two in the race to mix things up a bit and throw out some new ideas.
As an aside, if McCain drops out (his media team resigned today) I think Paul will start creeping up in the polls and get some more publicity. Of course, it doesn't help that the pollsters keep throwing Newt and Thompson on the list, otherwise Paul would be in the top 4.- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I wish you would vote for Ron Paul...why won't you?
- AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm dissatisfied with his decision to vote against Katrina aid. I understand his political views, and actually agree with many of them, but I don't feel like they address the needs of our country as it stands today. If the U.S. had a "reset" switch, I'd say that Paul's plan would be highly implementable. However, going back to Katrina as an example, after the hurricane hit a huge number of very impoverished people were completely helpless. This was one situation where Paul should have looked beyond his ideological beliefs and focused on the reality of the situation. The people in the Gulf needed help, and it was too late to suggest that they should have helped themselves. Once things were squared away (relatively speaking), then he could have said something like, "The situation demanded that we provide aid for these folks, but from now on they must provide for themselves in the face of the next disaster."
Further along these lines, Paul supports a border fence, which is fine, but I fail to see how undocumented farm workers present a greater national security threat than the potential of having tens of thousands of displaced American citizens rioting because they've received no federal aid.- round427, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Tens of thousands of displaced citizens vs. 20 million illegals? I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but the fact that there's millions of people here unlawfully is a HUGE security issue.
- AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I guess my point was that each are a threat to national security, and I don't understand the rationale behind spending federal dollars to address one while completely ignoring the other.
- round427, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Tens of thousands of displaced citizens vs. 20 million illegals? I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but the fact that there's millions of people here unlawfully is a HUGE security issue.
- AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm dissatisfied with his decision to vote against Katrina aid. I understand his political views, and actually agree with many of them, but I don't feel like they address the needs of our country as it stands today. If the U.S. had a "reset" switch, I'd say that Paul's plan would be highly implementable. However, going back to Katrina as an example, after the hurricane hit a huge number of very impoverished people were completely helpless. This was one situation where Paul should have looked beyond his ideological beliefs and focused on the reality of the situation. The people in the Gulf needed help, and it was too late to suggest that they should have helped themselves. Once things were squared away (relatively speaking), then he could have said something like, "The situation demanded that we provide aid for these folks, but from now on they must provide for themselves in the face of the next disaster."
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I wish you would vote for Ron Paul...why won't you?
- jhumps, on 10/10/2007, -7/+61these two are the only ones I'd consider voting for...
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4looks like you'll be voting for a write-in candidate this cycle...
- RoflcopterFUEL, on 10/10/2007, -13/+13You do realize that their ideas are pretty much opposite of each other?
I'd personally go for gravel. I find Paul's laissez faire approach to the economy to be somewhat dangerous. Looks like he didn't learn anything from the money barons of the early 1900s.- specs10, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25if you had studied the federal reserve, or the laws and subsidies that allowed many of those "robber-barons" to gain their monopolies, you would know that the socialization of the United States is not the cure--it's the source of the problem.
- ernkush, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I suggest you take an American History from the Gilded age to the Progressive era. It was not subsidies nor the reserve the brought the growth of the trusts. It was the laissez-faire approach of government and the impotence of the Shermann Anti-trust act which was used against labor unions rather than the abusive corporations. Standard Oil, the sugar trust, and others wreaked misery upon consumers and controlled much of congress through corrupt practices until the advent of the progressive era and the subsequent Clayton Anti-trust act.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1While I don't agree with your views on what brought it about, those Acts constitute government regulation, something Dr. Paul is also against.
- TruthWillWin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Freedom&total=47892&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
That's the f*cking problem.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i agree
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1explain?
- ernkush, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I suggest you take an American History from the Gilded age to the Progressive era. It was not subsidies nor the reserve the brought the growth of the trusts. It was the laissez-faire approach of government and the impotence of the Shermann Anti-trust act which was used against labor unions rather than the abusive corporations. Standard Oil, the sugar trust, and others wreaked misery upon consumers and controlled much of congress through corrupt practices until the advent of the progressive era and the subsequent Clayton Anti-trust act.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2the real robber barons http://www.usavsus.info/
- specs10, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25if you had studied the federal reserve, or the laws and subsidies that allowed many of those "robber-barons" to gain their monopolies, you would know that the socialization of the United States is not the cure--it's the source of the problem.
- Coolerman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If everyone registers and votes in the republican primary we can get him on the ballot
- goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd encourage you to just take a look at Kucinich as well. He's politically very similar to Gravel, but without so much of the anger.
Plus, I love him because he would introduce instant-runoff voting (Which Wikipedia has a very fine article on) and end our involvement in the WTO.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign
(P.S. I do, however, disagree with him on his gun control policies, which I think will likely not work. Just a side note, however...)
- soulmist, on 10/10/2007, -18/+13Don't know who Ron Paul is yet? You can check him out on the Colbert report here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs
In my opinion, he is America's last shred of hope.- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18I think pretty much everyone here knows who Ron Paul is by now.
- BTime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Everyone on Digg anyhow
- anillop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think from some of the comments I have seen here a lot of people on Digg are getting sick of hearing about Paul in articles that have nothing to do with him.
- 9Digits, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Neiby is right. STFU already about him, you're annoying normal people.
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I agree mate.
- Coolerman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you don't like Ron Paul, why go through the effort to look at a post about him and make a negative comment, just ignore it and move on no one is forcing you to read this
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I agree mate.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18I think pretty much everyone here knows who Ron Paul is by now.
- Urzeitlich, on 10/10/2007, -5/+92Don't just write these guys off because you don't think they'll win.
If you like them, show your support! The only reason underdogs like this don't win, is because the average joe assumes it's a lost cause and moves on! Don't let this happen!- theRIAA, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1they wont win because americans are stupid. and by "they", i mean gravel.
- binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1@Urzeitlich
For the first time in my life, I donated to a politician this week. That politician was Gravel. - plgonzalez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1problem is... everyone who is Independent (IND) or have no party affiliation (NPA) needs to switch to the Republican party to really help them out. Too many people who are non primary voters on here... DIgg's and stars on youtube are not going to elect anyone!
- JLGatsby, on 10/10/2007, -23/+10Fact: All intelligent people will vote for Ron Paul.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Fact: Only a dick would consider his OPINION a benchmark of intelligence.
You're doing you're guy a disservice by talking like that. It isnt going to win any fans...- JLGatsby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Fact: All intelligent people agree with me.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I wonder if 100% of mensa members have pledged to support Ron Paul. I'd bet that a higher percentage of moron troofers support Ron Paul than Mensa members.
- JLGatsby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Fact: All intelligent people agree with me.
- rancemo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Fact: I'm using the chicken to measure it!
- 9Digits, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Get *****, JLGatsby.
- anillop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Fact: you are not one of those intelligent people.
- knelto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fact: Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Fact: Only a dick would consider his OPINION a benchmark of intelligence.
- mrhaines, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10Gore/Gravel President/Vice President 2008
- GoodOldJacob, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Gravel - Manbearpig 2008
- dmh11686, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Moore/Gore 2008
"The streets will run with blood!"- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6It isn't too often that you hear 'Moore' and 'Gore' in the same phrase as 'run'.
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Gravel/Gore : President/Vice President 2008
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2or Kucinich/Gravel?
- dagnome1984, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In that case the gore will be covered up by a dump truck full of gravel.
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Tubgirl/Ceiling Cat 2008
- anillop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why would you bring gravel down with that looser.
- cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1no ty
- dayull, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22*****. I get to the fourth page of the article and it asks me to register. No thanks.
- RavenBladeX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yea, that's absolute BS that they make you register.
Does anyone have those fake login things (like they have for NY Times.com)?- Snazzy42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Two options: view as single page as mentioned, or try the bugmenot extension for firefox which comes up with logins for sites like this so you don't have to register. Cheers.
- RavenBladeX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Never mind, there is a workaround. Just click on single page on the top toolbar above the article.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8really? That ddn't happen to me.
Here's the last page:
In 20 minutes of oration, Paul tells not a single joke. True to form, he mentions the Constitution frequently. "Almost every problem we have is because we didn't follow the advice of the founding fathers and the Constitution." Bigger applause. "What we want is noninterference by the government in our personal lives." Standing ovation.
On the stage, he displays no tendency to grandstand, no attempt to be winsome or even likable, although his sincerity seems to compensate. Paul's charisma seems to be that he has none. Charm, in this circle, equates to phoniness.
"The media say about me, 'He did all right but, boy, he's not very charismatic,' " Paul says. "Maybe I should take classes."
Outside the theater, under a scorching summer sun, a handful of supporters wave Ron Paul placards to endless passing cars.
The latest CNN poll shows Paul at about 2% nationally among registered Republicans.
"Go, John Paul!" someone screams from a pickup.
"It's Ron!" a sidewalk supporter screams back.
The revolution has a ways to go. - archlich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dayull, use bugmenot firefox extension
- RavenBladeX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yea, that's absolute BS that they make you register.
- Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36We should be inspired by Libertarianism... for world's peace.
Q: Who support Ron Paul?
A: Anyone who support the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. In essence, this includes everyone who wants to cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more. Put in a positive way, most support policies such as abolition of all income taxes, elimination of regulatory bureaucracies, repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws, complete free trade, decentralization of government, and wide-scale privatization. People of this disposition may go by many names: "classical liberals" (not the same as modern liberals at all, but followers of Thomas Jefferson and similar thinkers), libertarians, paleoconservatives, constitutionalists, voluntarists, etc., etc.
I would add,
Make the "Decision makers" of corporations punishable by law when the corporation is guilty.
Avoid monopoles and lets say lobby wouldn't have a government...- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Who support correctly phrased English?
- Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9hey, it's my third language... thumb down for your comment...
- Dracker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Poorly written native English is pretty easy to distinguish from an honest attempt by a foreigner. Mistaking the latter for the former, or not caring, is worthy of burying.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1No its not.
- Erectile, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2How do you plan to clear your massive foreign debt?
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1he he he
- sugablonde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0once the american people start saving money because taxes are extremely low (and gov't doesn't spend it on wars, etc.), they'll be spending more, therefore pumping money into the economy. paying off such a huge debt would take a while, it's not a quick fix ya know.
- plgonzalez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mr. Dysfunction ... get a life... this guy is a digger not a politician... he does not have any plans for anything.
- Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think we should ask Ron Paul :)
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Who support correctly phrased English?
- Toloran, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Although I personally hate having to hear all the stupid political advertisements already (way to early, in my opinion) but this actually will be a good thing for this election.
With a shorter span, only candidates with huge initial recognition will win. This is done generally by being a major elected official already and with lots of money for advertising. Grassroot initiatives simply cannot compete with that since they work too slowly.
However since it is starting so early this year, the grassroot initiatives (ie, the ones favoring Ron Paul and Mike Gravel) might actually have a chance. Even with the media fighting against it, both of these candidates have been getting far more attention then they would have otherwise. Although I don't have high hopes for Gravel, Ron Paul might have a chance.- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Gravel tends to shoot his mouth off a hell of a lot, and he's a bit of a drama queen. I can't imagine a loose cannon like him (or for that matter, Rudy Giuliani) getting anywhere near the presidency.
- dertykevin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16With Google supporting Ron you'd think he'd get more hype. Paul and Gravel IMO have the only good drug policies to offer, and are the only candidates to even address the problem. Although they are both extremists, they both understand that outlawing a harmless drug isn't going to benefit society, it's going to make it worse. I hate how our tax money goes towards paying cops to arrest marijuana abusers and taking up prison space to house them.
Ron or Gravel for President. Either is fine by me.- blankoboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Well if Google is officially supporting Ron Paul they need to put some thunder behind him. Get him on the front page of "www.google.com" to raise awareness.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't think Google IS supporting anyone yet...Ron Paul's web page said no corporate sponsors that I knew of.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Ron wouldn't accept corporate sponsorship, it would be a conflict of interest.
- stoanhart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hmm. Given how the lack of mainstream media representation has a severe impact on Ron Paul's polls, I wonder if Google could really, in effect, seat whomever they like in the whitehouse by using their main page to push their candidate of choice.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They could do a lot, but I think they're smart enough not to. If they bet on the wrong horse, they're sunk. If they bet on any horse, it is likely that all of the other horses would get together to curtail their speech in some way. There are several other reasons why that would be a bad idea.
- archlich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think an anonymous donation of several hundred million dollars would go a long way.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They could do a lot, but I think they're smart enough not to. If they bet on the wrong horse, they're sunk. If they bet on any horse, it is likely that all of the other horses would get together to curtail their speech in some way. There are several other reasons why that would be a bad idea.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't think Google IS supporting anyone yet...Ron Paul's web page said no corporate sponsors that I knew of.
- kryond, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Pot users are rarely "arrested" and put in jail unless they also did something else stupid like driving while they're high. They are given a citation just like you get for speeding and pay a fine. They do get their dope and pipes seized.
Calling any addictive drug harmless is debatable at best.- Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Calling Marijuana addictive is like calling ice cream addictive.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1hey now, just because you cant act civilized on pot doesnt mean many of us other stoners can't! i passed my drivers test stoned, didnt miss a single point, it makes me more aware and alert. the only thing i dont like about weed is when you accidentally eat a small brownie not knowing how potent it is, ive had some bad experiences with eating too much pot food, but the right amount is just perfect. here, ill take a bong hit for you...
- Coolerman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1rarely arrested and put in jail? then how come over 40% of inmates are serving time for non violent drug offenses? And marijuana is not addicting, PEOPLE are addicts and they will be addicted to one thing or another no matter what it is.
I'll take a bong hit for you, too.....
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Paul and Gravel IMO have the only good drug policies to offer, and are the only candidates to even address the problem."
Ever heard of Dennis Kucinich? No?- dertykevin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, I haven't. I learned all about the candidates by going to their websites and his isn't even up yet. I also haven't seen him talk about any issues on TV (then again I don't watch CNN or Faux News that much). Do you know of a site that gives his opinions on each issue?
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sure. http://www2.kucinich.us/issues
- dertykevin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, I haven't. I learned all about the candidates by going to their websites and his isn't even up yet. I also haven't seen him talk about any issues on TV (then again I don't watch CNN or Faux News that much). Do you know of a site that gives his opinions on each issue?
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Google is not 'supporting' Ron Paul. Ron Paul was part of a series of candidates visiting Google to give their viewpoints. Many candidates have visited.
- blankoboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Well if Google is officially supporting Ron Paul they need to put some thunder behind him. Get him on the front page of "www.google.com" to raise awareness.
- danconia, on 10/10/2007, -15/+12I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't like Paul being compared with Gravel. Sure they challenge their party leaders but RP has 15x more contributions and his stances are the best out there. Gravel's stances are bat-***** crazy.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2He also used all the money he had for his run and then some already. Granted Gravel got like 5% what Ron Paul did in money.
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13You're not a liberal. We get it. As someone who is a liberal, quite open-minded, and objective, I will now reply with my 'liberal perspective.' Gravel's stances are, beyond any doubt, the most sane, thoughtful, and liberty-loving out of all of the candidates. I as well can respect RP for his likeness to Gravel in not being afraid to take a strong stand. RP's actual positions on a lot issues aren't that great; however, he's certainly the best that the republicans have got so I hope he gets the republican nomination. On that note...
Gravel 2008- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4oops, meant to digg you up, maybe pot is bad for you hehe. +1 to you. btw i would take gravel and kucinich over paul but paul over the rest of them (dems and cons). Jello Biafra for president!
- Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16if by "Bat ***** Crazy" you mean "Thoughtful and Enlightened" then yes.
What would you rather have, the same namby-pamby ***** from Obama and Hillary? - Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Gravel is great because he actually speaks what he ***** believes. I'm a liberal Democrat and I every time I listen to Hillary or Obama talk I can just see through their *****. They will say what you want to hear to get your vote. Gravel sticks behind what he says. He is the only honest guy up there.
- control7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Right on.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7i know exactly what you mean, it's almost like you can see the millions of corporate lobbying bucks flying out their duplicitous smiles.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Exactly. That's why I support both Gravel and Paul. They are the only two who could actively engage in a meaningful policy debate. I personally think Paul wins that debate by a longshot, but you can't see a meaningful discussion with the frontrunners because they can't be honest about what has happened, what is happening, and what might happen in the future. Pretty much, they're full of ***** 99% of the time about anything.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about Kucinich?
- RadicalRon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4And Ron Paul's chances are. . . 1-in-125 million???
- drd6000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Putting them in the same article was intentional, just as ABC had them on the same show a few weeks ago -- "look at the two old anti-war guys with no money and no chance, now move along, we've covered all the candidates, haven't we?"
The problem with trying to link them is that Gravel is clearly in 8th place out of the 8 Democrats, in money, polling, and organization. Ron Paul is in the top tier of the Republican field however, placing 4th in fundraising (out of 10 candidates), 1st in volunteers (25,000 and growing on Meetup), and generally 5th or 6th in polling.
Gravel is a fringe candidate who deserves our respect for his past contributions to liberty and his courage to speak the truth to his fellow Democrats. Ron Paul is a real contender for the Republican nomination, or soon will be. - steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Gravel is a total loon compared to Ron Paul's rational take on just about everything.
- blankoboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36These are only two guys (Ron Paul and Mike Gravel) out of the pack that I'd even consider voting for.They are a breath of fresh air in what otherwise is a room of used car salesmen (lying, cheating bastards who would knife you in the back to rape your dog if given half the chance).
I find it completely depressing that the vast majority of Americans are so blinded and essentially hypnotized by mass media and their party ties that they want to vote for a lying/cheating bastard (or bitch in one case). Wake up you freaking country of retards!- RadicalRon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1A Lieberman/Gravel ticket is electable. Ron Paul/Cindy Sheehan is not.
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why would Lieberman and Gravel run together? Lieberman is a borderline neo-con. That son of a bitch should be run out of D.C. as fast as possible.
- Jenniferwillow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1OK, looking at http://www.gravel2008.us/issues (Gravel for president site) and http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ (Ron Paul for president site), these two guys are not entirely incompatible. both agree on immediate Iraq war pullout (ASAP), no war on Iran, decriminalize minor drugs (some differences, some similarities in the plan), taxing via tariff (Gravel has a "fair tax" plan, Paul wants to eliminate/cut back the IRS). Rights issues for minorities are once again somewhat similar if stated in a different way: Paul sates no specialized minority rights that segment Americans, but not to constrict rights of Americans either, Gravel seems to want to give all Americans equal rights, but by addressing each group separately) And then there are the differences that will appear. still, for a bucket load of independent 'crazy', how about a Paul - Gravel ticket?
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hasn't any body here heard of Dennis Kucinich?
- RadicalRon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1A Lieberman/Gravel ticket is electable. Ron Paul/Cindy Sheehan is not.
- jron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Page 4: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ronmike25jul25,0,667006.story?page=4&coll=la-politics-campaign
- shieldsikebana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Why can't the good people ever have power or money?
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10because then they wouldn't be good people
- sugablonde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1just because you have money doesn't make you a bad person.
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10because then they wouldn't be good people
- fyredragon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4@Toloran.."Although I don't have high hopes for Gravel, Ron Paul might have a chance."
Yeah, dude, just like Mama Moonbat does in her run against Kommisar Pelosi. ROTFLMFAO- dragonDC, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Ron Paul has more than a chance, he will be the next president of the United States.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2...and your obviously from Florida, if you can't find the reply button here. So your vote won't count anyway. Good luck!
- TheTruthOnly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Reply button? WGAF about that?
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2007/07/so-you-want-to-advertise.html
- TheTruthOnly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Reply button? WGAF about that?
- snoolyagain, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1best news i've heard all day. life sux and people are stupid. please comment on this, let me ask you something.
i've been in a bickering match with a chick over a person that installed Microsoft Access for a database
and agave it a fancy name and claimed they wrote a custom software installation. On the bid they have $5,000. for accepting the job and say they did 1750 hrs., a year of labor, at $40. an hour and the total cost that was paid was $70,000. ! Chick says I am a moonbat for questioning this. This was using organization money and I think a scam occured.- TheTruthOnly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Contact the Evil Empire and see if they offer a bounty. Regardless, let them know. Chickie-poo has told you that someone's committed a fraud -- and the amount of money involved gives it a felony classification. Because it's software piracy, the US Attorney's office for your region might be *very* interested, too. The *programmer" could've adapted open source software -- if he or she actually is a programmer -- chose to steal instead. Whatever comes of it legal-wise is because of choices *they* made.
- PueSi, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11I like Gravel better than Ron Paul for two reasons:
1. Gravel fans don't spam digg.
2. Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality.- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8ron paul also wants the states to be able to take away a woman's right to choose.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9No he doesn't. He wants the states to make the decision not the federal government. The reason Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality is that it constitutes government regulation, something he is very strongly against.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3why would you want the states to decide what citizens can do? current, all women have the right to choose for themselves. why change that? what other rights should the states be allowed to take away from people? aren't individual rights more important than states rights?
- JustAZombie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's the same thing dude. If he wants the states to make the decision, it means he wants the states to be able to take away a woman's right to choose if they decide that's best. This is, incidentally, a terrible idea, given that it will simply lead to people driving from states where it is illegal to have an abortion to states where it is legal.
As to net neutrality, yeah, it's government regulation, and yeah ron paul is against government regulation in pretty much any form. This is exactly why he's a bad candidate. Sometimes government regulation is a good thing. - dagnome1984, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"why would you want the states to decide what citizens can do?" Have you been paying attention to the federal drug raids of legal California medical marijuana outfits? The state says people can have legal medical weed, but the federal government comes in and jails people. The issue is that the federal government has too much power and abuses what the people of the state voted for.
- jbennett1128, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4To be honest, the issue of abortion isn't really a hotbed for me here. My own civil rights are. His pro-life stance is merely a testament to the amount he thinks ALL liberty should be protected. What Ron Paul has said on abortion is, he doesn't think the -federal- government has the right to choose pro-life or pro-choice for the entire country. The Constitution was founded on the basis that each state was Sovereign in its own right. Likewise, the Federal Gov't has no jurisdiction in a right-to-life situation. So he merely advocates letting each state decide for itself, and if you don't like your State's laws, its a lot easier to vote for change there, or move to another State whose laws you agree with.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In case you can't find the energy to look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9No he doesn't. He wants the states to make the decision not the federal government. The reason Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality is that it constitutes government regulation, something he is very strongly against.
- TheTruthOnly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6I like Gravel because he's not Ron Paul (Moonbat-Texas).
- macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Ron Paul is against all regulation of the internet. If the government has the authority to regulate net neutrality then it is the foot in the door to regulating MUCH more! Stop letting the government give monopolies to corporations and free competition will force ISPs to be fair.
Judging a candidate based upon his "supporters" is weak.
ron paul also wants the states to be able to completely legalize abortion! Playing with BIG government is like playing with fire. Issues like abortion are "small" compared to everything else going on in our country!- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Stop letting the government give monopolies to corporations and free competition will force ISPs to be fair."
Only in your "free market" utopia dream world.
"Issues like abortion are "small" compared to everything else going on in our country!"
It's not ***** small when you're a woman and some one want to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Stop letting the government give monopolies to corporations and free competition will force ISPs to be fair."
- F1R3DUP, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3why do people continually get this mixed up? Ron Paul is FOR Net Neutrality...
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4No, he's not for Net Neutrality.
- NikhilPK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I don't understand how people justify the RP's net neutrality stance by saying he is against all regulation of the internet. From my understanding, Ron Paul doesn't want any government regulation of the internet which allows the telcos to put in place a tiered-system and basically ***** up the internet because they own the networks. Personally, I find the RP's staunch opposition to any sort of government involvement kind of dangerous and I find myself really liking Gravel's platform much more.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Lets look at this logically for a second. If we give the power to "regulate" the Internet to the government and yes I mean regulate; even if they say "Yay yay net neutrality" that is still a regulation. Anyway, if we give the government this ability and then it goes awry as our government tends to do, then what?
By giving the power to the telco YES they may impose these restrictions but here is where our power lies, we can boycott! IF we cut off their money flow they will be forced to either A. change their tune or B. go out of business. If we give this power to the government what are we going to do? Send mean e-mails? Not pay our taxes?
The power of free market is choice, and yes while some times the choices may be few or almost none you have the ability to say no to a company. I would much rather fight the Telco's with companies like google and Microsoft on my side, don't forget were in this with them, then hope the government doesn't become corrupt as they tend to do.- b1gm1ke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've been swept up in the revolution (even though I'm not from the US and so am just hopeful that the sane americans outweigh the retards). However, one question about RP's policies that I have not seen addressed is the issue of corporate monopolies and how would a RP presidency ensure against price fixing and the stifling of competition in the marketplace?
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No, because in the case of telecoms, people don't have choice. there is no free market or other options so that you can boycott a particular company. In most areas, there is only one phone co., one cable co., and that's it. If you don't like what Comcast is doing to you: too ***** bad becasue no one else services your area. That's the situation that I am in. I dispise Charter for my cable and internet; it's ***** service and they're bastards. But I have no option whatsoever. If I don't like what they give me, then I get no internet at all. I don't even have a company in my area that would provide DSL. It's Charter or nothing.
There is no free market with telecom companies. They have local monopolies that will preven any sort of customer revolt. They have us by the balls and they know it. That's why Neutrality is needed because we will have no other recourse. - NikhilPK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I see what you're trying to say, but I have to agree with arbulus; it's almost impossible to boycott those companies. Telecoms are corporations whose soul purpose is to make money, which is why they don't want net neutrality at all. But, the government's purpose is to serve the people. They should ensure that telcos uphold net neutrality.
In reference to your point about the government being corrupt: Freedom of Speech is our right and if they censor the internet, they're violating that right. However, if the telcos have complete control, they can do whatever the hell they want. - steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Re: "I see what you're trying to say, but I have to agree with arbulus; it's almost impossible to boycott those companies."
Understand that is why alternatives spring up, such as WiMax to upstarts like Clearwire.
Re: "Telecoms are corporations whose soul purpose is to make money, which is why they don't want net neutrality at all."
Corporations do exist to make money...for it's shareholders! Become a shareholder in these companies! Learn something about it. If the shareholders insist that the company behave in certain ways, the company must comply.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Lets look at this logically for a second. If we give the power to "regulate" the Internet to the government and yes I mean regulate; even if they say "Yay yay net neutrality" that is still a regulation. Anyway, if we give the government this ability and then it goes awry as our government tends to do, then what?
- Larofeticus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Net Neutrality" legislation is as accurately named as "The Patriot Act"
The internet is the only thing right now that the powers that be can't control. And "Net Neutrality" is how they are going to get their foot in the door.
Look at how ASK.com is changing their privacy policy to meet the demand for more privacy in search engines. The same thing will happen with ISP's; someone will start a company to meet the demand for neutral internet access.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8ron paul also wants the states to be able to take away a woman's right to choose.
- adrenaline33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I was a big fan of the article, although it is hard to believe Ron Paul once ran a 9.7 100 which is a world class time.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5it was a 100 yard, not the 100 meter that we do today, but it is still pretty good
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow. I have even more respect for the guy than before! What a competitor.
- adrenaline33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The NY Times and the L.A. Times have now both covered Dr. Paul in the span of week. He has almost doubled his numbers in the polls in the last few months, granted they are still low but they aren't entirely accurate either. Politics are all about momentum and it is hard to say that Ron Paul isn't generating the most momentum right now. Articles like these help get his name out there and usually when people hear his message they like it.
- kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8the LA times had a wonderful article covering Mike Gravel campaign videos recently. Didnt make it to front page but was more interesting than 90% of the stuff that hits digg frontpage
- koreth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Politics are all about momentum?" I don't agree. Howard Dean had tons of momentum in 2004... until the first actual primary vote took place and he gave everyone a nice demonstration of the fact that conservation of energy does not apply to poll numbers.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The media slaughtered Dean as soon as they had the chance. His "scream" wasn't all that crazy for the environment he was in. Granted, it would be crazy at the grocery store. If Paul or Gravel start making any real headway, they'll do the same or worse.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't think these guys will give them the ammunition. I mean the media had a HARD time finding anything on DEAN.
- kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5gravel is the man! balls of steel!
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Acting like a lunatic doesn't mean you have balls of steel.
- buff01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I love how they paint Ron as being an old geezer. He says he goes running every morning, which is more than I can say!
For some reason they just cannot tell the truth about this man. - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Finally some candidates that dont suck corporate penis, or steal power from the people.
- kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3and look how one of those was treated in that CNN/Gloria Vanderbilt son, Anderson Cooper the-corporate-muppet, produced event, THE HILLARY AND OBAMA SHOW.
a disgrace, worthy of a 3rd world dictatorship court.
a scandal in any true democracy (US couldnt be further away from having one)
- kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3and look how one of those was treated in that CNN/Gloria Vanderbilt son, Anderson Cooper the-corporate-muppet, produced event, THE HILLARY AND OBAMA SHOW.
- Guitarzan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Good article. I had no idea Mike Gravel was so broke. Looks like he'll be geting a few bucks from me this week. John Paul already has. :)
John Paul 4 Pres! ... excuse me? ... oops- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Now all we need is Ringo right?
- arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nope, all you need is love.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Now all we need is Ringo right?
- smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I did that test from the main page a few days ago "who should I vote for" that scored and picked them for you and I got Gravel and Paul 1-2 and Kucinich 3rd.
I'm a libertarian and it doesn't bother me at all that my results came out that way because sometimes being truthful and having integrity are more important than partisanship. I feel a little bit of pride that it said my top 3 were the best men (women) as far as character and ethics go.- nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Same with me.
- nosajman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I contributed to Mike Gravel and you should too, he needs money he doesn't have huge deep pockets like all the other turncoats.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't mind Gravel but the good Doctor has all but empied my pockets.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thank you, Ron thanks you, and the founding fathers thank you.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't mind Gravel but the good Doctor has all but empied my pockets.
- Jasna2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2My email I sent to the author of the story...
Your article was quite good:
Paul, Gravel challenge parties' leaders
The Republican congressman and former Democratic senator barely register in polls but press on in their presidential bids.
By Tomas Alex Tizon, Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2007
until you spewed establishment BS:
The latest CNN poll shows Paul at about 2% nationally among registered Republicans.
There are MORE independents then "registered Republicans", why not include them in YOUR poll?
Either you are IGNORANT or a PART of the PROBLEM.
If its the first, I apologize.- LxRogue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You would have a point if he had already won the primary, but as of now, only registered repeblican votes count.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Like mine?
RON PAUL 2008!
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Like mine?
- LxRogue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You would have a point if he had already won the primary, but as of now, only registered repeblican votes count.
- nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Paul / Gravel '08!
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3-^ Uh do you realize they ARE on opposite "teams" that like ....well I don't know.
- yesimahuman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If only Ron was pro-choice...
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He is pro-state choice. So if your state is pro choice then you can kill babies legally. If its against aborting babies then you can drive to a state where its legal. Personally I'm against aborting babies but I'm not going to impose my beleifs on somone else. That said adoption is really popular these days.
- bonedead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1But who wants to adopt a baby that's destined to be a retard?
- Immij, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Foetus != baby - but dugg for being rational about it.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It should only be the woman's choice.
- Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Honestly there is no good middle road on abortion. Both sides have pro's and con's and neither should be a federal law. The only way to deal with this situation in a way that make sense is to allow the states to decide. The fact that people vote on the fact of if they can legally kill their children bothers me. How many times in your life are you going to think about having an abortion vs. lets say using your first amendment rights and paying taxes.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*****! No one should get to decide what a women can and cannot do with her body! Individual rights!
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well if you use a coat hanger and do it yourself its fine. I thinking your a fan of Jack Kevorkian. If you want to kill yourself or your baby do it yourself(just dont get caught practicing medicine w/out a license), and if your too scared dont do it.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Am I a fan of Jack Kevorkian? Abso-*****-lutely! IMO, The guy is a hero, martyr and a former political prisoner.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well if you use a coat hanger and do it yourself its fine. I thinking your a fan of Jack Kevorkian. If you want to kill yourself or your baby do it yourself(just dont get caught practicing medicine w/out a license), and if your too scared dont do it.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*****! No one should get to decide what a women can and cannot do with her body! Individual rights!
- Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ron wants the states to choose not the government that way you can talk to your local reps and get the law the way you want in your state.. he simply want the feds out of the issue.. besides is not really a issue in my book , but every thing ron paul stands for is fredom not opression in eiter a for or against stance.. freedome work both ways you have to aloow some people to do things you dont agree with if youd like to do thing that tyou want to do.. jst like freedom of speach , i may not agree with what you say but ill defen your right to say it.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He is pro-state choice. So if your state is pro choice then you can kill babies legally. If its against aborting babies then you can drive to a state where its legal. Personally I'm against aborting babies but I'm not going to impose my beleifs on somone else. That said adoption is really popular these days.
- MrThursty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The only thing that's going to give either of them any sort of chance is some serious cash. Get off you asses and donate some dough instead of wasting your time here and whining like the rest of the country.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good point. I contributed for the first time in my life to a campaign, and that was Ron Paul's, bless him.
- andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Vote Mike Gravel 2008! He may be old, but he's a wise guy and knows his stuff.
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gravel's older age, especially in his case, is a positive thing. Elders should start being respected more in US society like in some other cultures. Gravel isn't afraid of the powers-that-be and has nothing to lose. We have everything to gain from supporting him. The presidential campaign is still in the beginning stage, more than a year away. I hope America is strong enough to wake up, donate, and help Gravel make an impact.
- tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey, don't get me wrong, I like Mike Gravel. In terms of domestic policy I prefer him to Ron Paul, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him. Now, 73 isn't necessarily "old." Ron Paul is 71.Come on, does it look like they only have two years between them? Gravel looks like he's barely a step away from Alzheimer's. He's a great candidate, but I don't think he's in good enough shape to be president.
- tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I meant 77. and 6 years. I accidentally typed 73 and went from there.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Vote Kucinich then.
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2LOGIN:
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.latimes.com - morgino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I was going to vote for a democrat but then I heard what Ron Paul had to say. This country needs a political enema from a man on the outside and he is the man. Check his stance out and you will probably be impressed
- BowieX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From the article: "So who are these guys? Can two old men in rubber shoes win their parties' nomination to be leader of the free world?"
>> Ironically, neither candidate is running to be the leader of the free world; rather they are running for that quaint little task of being President of the United States of America... - Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4***** that article, mike gravel is a NWO shill, ron paul is a true american patriot. they shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentance, and they did it like a dozen times in that damn article. thats insulting to ron paul, i KNEW they were going to associate that NWO shill with ron paul and bring them both down and this article pretty well perfectly exemplifies that...
Mike gravel wants a new world order, and carbon taxes to fund it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9qCZvIuTWY#GU5U2spHI_4
they also say they are both at the bottom
Ron Paul is winning tons of polls, hes won almost every one is in
they try to associate them both, to either sway ron paul supporters into thinking NWO is good, even though Ron Paul is completely against it, or make people lose interest in both together......- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Congratulations on completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding Gravel. Let me guess. Despite your cavalier accusations about who's part of the NWO, you still voted for Bush. You probably also think that the whole global warming "thing" is just some "Earth cycle" and that humans don't play a heavy role. It reminds me of someone dropping the "communist" label to anything he/she disagrees with. The fact of the matter is that carbon emissions are one of the greatest problems the world faces.
A carbon tax would be great. It would make very real strides into funding and solving the epidemic crisis of global warming. Meanwhile, some of the biggest corporations in the world are able to pollute with absolutely no accountability. The problem doesn't fix itself.
Apparently, you have no understanding of what the NWO/neocon agenda is. Don't confuse the good (world unity and fair and global trade) with the bad (world domination and global, lawless free trade). Both are on the global scope. That's great. We're all Earth citizens. However, the two concepts are completely different with concern to humanity. The NWO/neocon shils are in the entire regime of Bush/Cheney/Republicans+a few Dems. Unless you have an agenda of your own, please do some research and understand the differences.- Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you sad sorry stupid little man
the carbon taxes will do NOTHING to stop the polution
FACT 1: scientists agree that man made carbon emission accounts for 3%-6% of the total emissions
FACT 2: carbon dioxide is used by plants , plants give of oxygen, carbon dioxide is not poison, its not dangerious, its not explosive, it is a very weak greenhouse gas
FACT 3: the earths geological history clearly shows there is a corelation between increased carbon dioxide, and increased temperature.. BUT the increased carbon dioxide levels come AFTER the temperatures by 50-800 YEARS. remind me house cause and effect work again? cause has to come BEFORE the effect, carbon is NOT THE CAUSE
FACT 4: the carbon tax is going to be ON YOU AND ME, not the on the companies that produce the carbon, it will go to funding a world government, NOT stopping global warming, its ***** *****, anyone who willingly says "more slavery would be great!"
and i voted Gore in 2000 (stupidly, didnt realize what a fraud he was yet) and didnt vote in 2004 cause all of the candidates were complete frauds
Ron Paul is the first real chance we have here to get a guy in the white house that doesnt want to completely screw everyone over
you just like being fooled dont you? if not look up the ***** im talking about, watch the damn video i posted. one world order, thats the same ***** george bush senior and bush jr wanted.. funny that gore and gravel and hilary, and giuliani, and mckane, and romney, thompson... also want it
the only one that doesnt is Ron Paul (maybe kucinich also)
- Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you sad sorry stupid little man
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Congratulations on completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding Gravel. Let me guess. Despite your cavalier accusations about who's part of the NWO, you still voted for Bush. You probably also think that the whole global warming "thing" is just some "Earth cycle" and that humans don't play a heavy role. It reminds me of someone dropping the "communist" label to anything he/she disagrees with. The fact of the matter is that carbon emissions are one of the greatest problems the world faces.
- caplist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What the hell is the LA Times? Never heard of it.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "Louisiana Times". What are you, some kind of ignoramus? ;)
- cftf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ha ha, clever LA Times article. They are trying to marginalize him by linking him with a loser like Gravel, and talking about his shoes.
That's OK. All publicity is good. The last laugh is on the LA Times; they just created a new regiment in Ron Pau's army. - libr3volution, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0Gravel and Paul are the only two candidates that had real solutions to the problems we face today!!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is