digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Please Ignore Ron Paul.

stealthfiction.com — An Open letter to ‘Old Media’ to please continue to ignore Republican Candidate Ron Paul.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Thanehand, on 12/02/2007, -68/+364I was about to post how un-American the author was, but then I read the awesome article. Thank you. Dugg.
    • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -89/+47So because someone doesn't support your candidate they are unamerican? I'm not particularly fond of chocolate ice cream, does that make me a racist?
      • Airforcefalco, on 12/02/2007, -11/+54I don't think it was because of who it is but rather what they were requesting, ignoring a candidate.
        • kingkilr, on 12/02/2007, -17/+14I kindly request the media ignore Alan Keyes, does that make me unamerican?
          • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -7/+7No, that's a reasonable request.
          • kingkilr, on 12/03/2007, -11/+8And I think ignoring Ron Paul is a reasonable request, see why thats a dumb position?
        • yodaj007, on 12/02/2007, -2/+20He's a candidate, so, yes.
      • heypetray, on 12/02/2007, -2/+13RTFA
      • tcell, on 12/02/2007, -1/+6Yeah yah non choclate loving hater.
      • fiestycrumbler, on 12/03/2007, -1/+10im fond of vanilla how dare you, I WILL DESTROY YOU, ....
      • ArthurSucks, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8Yes. Yes it does.
      • Laughto, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Is your concept of morality geographic?
    • DivisibleByZero, on 12/02/2007, -48/+21I was about to digg the article until I realized the same thing as you.
    • AlexLand, on 12/02/2007, -71/+31God you Paultards are crazy..
      • TopherT, on 12/02/2007, -44/+15Go submit an article on your own candidate and get the fuk off our comment thread.
        • IntoTheWired, on 12/02/2007, -6/+54That's not how it works, TopherT. This man has the right to say any thing he wants in this thread as much as you do. That is the majesty of Digg. If you don't like his comment or what he has to say, you have every right to ignore him, refute his claim, or "Digg him down." This person does NOT have to vacate a thread because his or her opinions are contrary to the general tone of the thread, and to demand that he do so runs contrary to the very ideals you claim to support. I'll not demand that you feel ashamed, but instead I'll let you search your own soul and determine what you truly value and where your ideals lie.
          • kingkilr, on 12/02/2007, -4/+21Be careful, he might find Jesus or a chicken sandwich or something.
          • latrosicarius, on 12/02/2007, -1/+15I agree with "free speech on digg", but by that logic, TopherT is also free to tell him to GTFO.
          • TopherT, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7You're right of course. I just don't understand where this guy is comming from. He's going out of his way to ridicule and belittle someone who has proved the strength of his convictions. He snipes from the background and offers nothing but his contempt.
            I am not a paultard, I am a patriot.
          • hobonetweaver, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2What are those the almighty etiquette standards and practices of online forums as prophesied in by some nerd in 1951?

            Or are you just making up rules?

            And you got dugg up to +41 too, that's ridiculous. I don't understand. Can someone explain?
        • jjacksonRIAB, on 12/02/2007, -4/+12I think TopherT has a right to tell him to GTFO. He doesn't have to do it though.
    • tybris, on 12/02/2007, -5/+62You really need to stop claiming things are (un-)American, the definition is completely subjective. Try anti-Democratic. At least Democracy is in the dictionary.
      • MWeather, on 12/02/2007, -8/+23It's a sad day when Democratic and American are no longer synonyms.
        • Pake, on 12/02/2007, -19/+17Except that we're a republic...
          • stevenb486, on 12/02/2007, -10/+12Democracy means rule by the people, stop trying to sound smart, everyone knows we're a "republic" or representative democracy
          • dmightx, on 09/21/2008, -2/+12Aren't we a Democratic Republic?
          • hobonetweaver, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7Who gives a ***** what we call it?

            It's not a democracy, it's not a republic, those both imply rule by the people. The whole point of the article is that major decisions are made by the media and anyone with enough money to influence the media.
          • asforme, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Democratic is not the same thing as a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. America is a democratic republic ruled first and foremost by a constitution. No amount of public sentiment can overrule the constitution, they can only hope to change it.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 12/02/2007, -3/+6If you capitalize "democratic" like that you are referring to the party, but I know what you meant.
          /grammar/usage police
      • Dustmuffins, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3American is in the dictionary too...
      • silveravnt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1By Un-American I think he means Anti-American. People think it's cool to dis America because we are so big bad and evil. People have short memories.
    • bariswheel, on 12/02/2007, -25/+3If you google Ron pa-a-oh-ul...if you google Ron Pa-ah-ah-ohl ...
    • Chongo, on 12/02/2007, -4/+25I'm not even a paul guy but I thought the article was well written and can be applied towards ANYTHING.
    • Nerfdude, on 12/02/2007, -20/+11so if people don't agree with your underdog candidate of choice, they're un-American? call me a commie then, i'm voting for john edwards >.>
      • EvilAirman, on 12/02/2007, -8/+5Have you seen that ambulance chasers house? How is he supposed to support the common man?
        • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -7/+6By getting rid of tax cuts for the rich and using that money to fund health care for poor people.
        • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -3/+5I love listening to Republicans tell Democrats that Edwards is unfit for office because he has a lot of money, but yet it's an admirable trait in a Republican.

          "He's not a Democrat! He doesn't get his hair done at Cost Cutters and drive a mini-van!"
        • tcpip4lyfe, on 12/02/2007, -9/+3Poor people can piss off. Go to college.
        • rarson, on 12/02/2007, -6/+2I don't support raising taxes for the rich because I don't think it's right to tax anyone's income at all.

          I support tax cuts for EVERYONE.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/02/2007, -3/+5Midoc, if we get healthcare no matter what taxes are applied the country will be bankrupt. Forget about healthcare for all because we cannot even pay for the healthcare and retirement benefits of those baby boomers now entering retirement. The Hispancs who account for more than 30% of all wealfare in the USA are not paying into the federal funds so who do you think is going to pay for them? Citizens will pay through taxes for themselves and for all illegals simultaneously. AND THAT MY FRIEND WILL BANKRUPT EVERY F*KER WITHIN A DECADE.
          • bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Yeah, it's just destroying Canada. And every other major industrialized nation in the world.
          • afruff23, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3@bjornski

            Damn those Mexicans coming to Canada
      • Scaryclouds, on 12/02/2007, -7/+3commie
      • latrosicarius, on 12/02/2007, -3/+2commie
        • Thefascist, on 12/03/2007, -4/+2Under communism you work as hard as possible and consume as little as possible, Ron Paul wants to force you to do the same only without all the oppression, the greatest man alive, I say.
      • Nerys, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2You know whats weird - if you got rid of income tax My income would increase by at least 30% you know suddenly affording health insurance would not be such a concern of mine any longer. Our government spends far to much money on pet projects that benefit no one but there own pockets which results in these massive budgets and taxes. Eliminate the CRAP spending and suddenly our "government" would need only a fraction of the money.

        Instead of figuring out how we can make MORE MONEY just so they can TAKE more of it from us every day HOW ABOUT letting us KEEP the money we make. SUDDENLY we would not HAVE to have families with both parents working sometimes both working multiple jobs JUST to make ends meet. The ECONOMIC BOOST ALONE of putting that much money BACK into the damned economy instead of the POCKETS of 2% of the greedy FRAKS would be enough to have an insanely dramatic effect on our society.

        Switch to LED bulbs and Electric cars on top of this and we would LITERALLY have another GOLDEN AGE in this country. Don't believe me? DO THE FREAKING MATH.

        ELIMINATE government health care except for those already dependant on it. Eliminate all but sales taxes and allow NO INCREASE in sales taxes.

        Eliminate Property Taxes and School Taxes. Eliminate Fee Simple Title and return property to the citizens.

        Eliminate lobbying. Eliminate all car manufacturers who do not make affordable electric cars a part of there line up.

        Eliminate ALL government projects not REQUIRED to operate this country. SHRINK all other programs to the MINIMUM needed to be lean and effective.

        the Increase in prosperity will be INCREDIBLE. NOW some will suffer. OH yes some will suffer. YUP that 2% that currently holds hostage 95% of the worlds wealth. YEAH there gonna suffer a bit. Boo Hoo I am so torn.
        • Nerfdude, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1that's all well and good, except for one thing.

          like anything, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS MONEY TO RUN. if you take away the government's funds, we have no government. and i know that probably sounds groovy to you, sitting in the back of mom's minivan, but in the real world, where us grown ups live, that's not at all groovy. sorry kitten.
    • kag4489, on 12/02/2007, -12/+5So you would post a moronic comment before actually reading the article and getting the facts for yourself? You, my friend, are another mindless sheep.
    • stillasleep00, on 12/02/2007, -3/+7I was about to get out my pitchfork... good thing I read it.
      • sarahdinzy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Shouldn't we be reading everything we Digg or Bury? Isn't that the point? I don't Digg headlines, I digg articles.
        • eShinn, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I buried this one based on the article. I come forth with my head down in shame for not reading the article. Thank goodness I surf with multiple tabs and didn't close the article and this 'comment' section. I've since read the article and dugg the article and made it a favorite. I just last night started looking up Ron Paul. I was going to vote for Obama to be honest. I'm voting for Ron Paul either as a republican or as an independent - I claim no party as home (more so because of the fact that I know little to nothing of Dem/Rep parties nor the left nor right or what they mean or stand for). But I know who I want as president. Thanks to all.
    • geejayb, on 12/02/2007, -18/+16wait, wait... un-American is a BAD thing??
      • Mizzike, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9...yeah, if you live in America.
      • stinger666, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3only in america
        • silveravnt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Or any of the countries we have bailed out of wars, fed, rebuilt, defended. Personally I think we should have left them to themselves. They would still hate us and we would still have all the money we gave them.
      • Dustmuffins, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2No, the us is a terrible country. If only the USSR had been the only superpower left then we wouldn't have to worry about this *****.
        • mcballz, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Thats true, because you'd be living in a small apartment housing unit and probably have radiation poisoning and genetic defect children. Every day you would go to work for mother Russia and earn the same paycheck as the 400 neighbors in your apartment complex. If you tried to bring up legitimate issues to your government they would send storm troopers to your house in the middle of the night. America is such a horrible country....
        • Boreras, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1you mean that you get your happiness from having earned more than 395 of those 400? And with all the respect, American politics is really bad. The statements that America will go fascistic tomorrow morning, may or may not be true, but a citizen lacks ANY protection from the government, unless the masses get really pissed (and you've been eating so much ***** from your government, that I guess you will, at most, grunt slightly after being told to work in a labor camp for the rest of your life (though I'm not necessarily stating you, as in singular, specifically take too much *****, and I'm a more revolting of characters, but my country has only smelled ***** comparable to yours, whereas you've been eating it for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and the traditional American snacks))
    • rekleiner, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Seems like 85% of the free world thinks that un-American is a good thing.
      • silveravnt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1define "free"
      • Dibou, on 12/04/2007, -0/+091% of statistics are made up on the spot.
      • SunnyinFLA, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I think this article summarizes what too many Americans have been thinking for quite a while. excellent!! Thank you!
    • FinalSword22, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7I wish I could dig it more than once.
      American isn't a bad thing, it's what we have done to make it bad in the first place. If we continue to think America is bad, nothing will ever get done to push us back to where we once were.
    • PRlME, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7I'm thinkin to hit the trains of new york with ron paul flyers and give a lil speech, hey its a shot in the dark but what the hell
    • ironlion37, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Take action and write letters to congress. We need to reinvigorate our government from the ground up. Get off your A#$ and make use of you representation in congress. In fact you don't even have to get off your a#$, it's easy: www.innerlightdesign.com/yourvoice
  • xexkxex, on 12/02/2007, -27/+135Wow..that was great!!!!
    • mwosh, on 12/02/2007, -57/+30I was sooo close to digging this story, then I realized what the guy meant.

      Digg me down, you damn spammers.

      Whenever I go to a Ron Paul story, I look for the most negatively ranked comments anyway. They're usually the most accurate.
      • neonfunk, on 12/02/2007, -12/+11and then suddenly, as though every moment in poor mwosh's life had neatly collapsed and was visible before him, he saw the now hollow vessel of his ego -- and he could hear the peoples' cry.
        /novel
        • mwosh, on 12/03/2007, -9/+3You need a new hobby. The dramatic narration of forums isn't working for you.

          Did you misunderstand my message? Ron Paul spammers digging me down confirms that you all digg and bury with blind faith.
          • Thefascist, on 12/03/2007, -8/+3shut the ***** up, all it confirms is your faggetness. I ***** your mama.
          • silveravnt, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3mwosh said "I was sooo close to digging this story, then I realized what the guy meant."
            You confirm that you were about to Digg with blind faith because of the title.

            lose
      • unloud, on 12/02/2007, -10/+2I love how everyone is leaving you at zero just to prove you are an imbecile.
      • Kamic, on 12/02/2007, -16/+10I agree with mwosh! the one true non-bot here. +1 friend
      • rarson, on 12/02/2007, -3/+10That's because people like you judge "accuracy" by how closely it matches your opinions.
      • Bing11, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6mwosh, could you please explain what it is you don't like about Ron Paul? I'm more interested in hearing the reason for your opinion than bashing you for it until you support it.
        • mwosh, on 12/03/2007, -5/+5Ron Paul Spammers. I don't like Ron Paul Spammers. I don't have anything wrong with Ron Paul. I just hate that people are digging anything with the words Ron Paul in it...
          • Bing11, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I agree, some of us may be a bit too pushy, but can you look past those people to the candidate at hand? I'm not trying to be rude, I'd just hate to have a perfectly good politician (a rare sight these days) get passed up because of his fans.
          • silveravnt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2So you dont care whats good news. You are just tired of hearing it. You don't want to be part of the solution but just complain about the method of delivery. Please get some perspective.
    • TacticalPenguin, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3I get that a lot.
  • Digg4This, on 12/02/2007, -24/+199I am hesitant to say this, but grassroots support sometimes has its limits. I am not talking about the internet savvy generation and its abilities to mobilize. Rather that MANY baby boomers, and certainly a large bunch of elder Americans are completely and unchangeably sold on MSM. Something someone close to me said one time that I can never forget when I was urging an adoption of Ron Paul brilliant economic ideas in the face piss poor current management:

    Mike, I am 60 years old. I don't want anything to change because I don't want to loose my nest egg.

    He is an Old Media person to the hilt. Unless fox, well maybe not fox hes a slighter smarter than that, CNN, begins to give credence(to which RP is due) to the economic idea's of RP he will not budge.

    What I am saying is Old Media, while obviously not a complete perquisite IS a valuable asset. Although I suppose the argument could be made since they are ignoring us it tends to create a much stronger movement- but I dont see how any amount of coverage or lack of MSM coverage (at this stage because the ball is rolling) could negatively affect people who know or learn about RP's ideas. In fact I think MSM coverage can only help; the message is pure!
    • mkrfctr, on 12/02/2007, -11/+129Sadly for him you need to tell him that unless things DO change, he won't have a nest egg left.
      • hiphoc, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3This fed. govt has trillions in unfunded liabilities coming due when the baby boomers retire. Where is the money going to come from for this? Print the money, then this eats out your nest egg with inflation. Closing our eyes and hoping this wont happen is silly. Banks have created bubbles for 200 of the past years in banking history. But now, this time we have the bubble to end all bubbles.
      • Cerebral, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1People don't understand that though; even if you tell them.
    • vat0r, on 12/02/2007, -2/+31You're right. Most people still trust the MSM unconditionally but, that's starting to change. It will literally take generations but the wheels are in motion. I'm not saying all MSM is bad just that they are ALL biased. Things like the internet allow us to seek out multiple viewpoints and form our opinions based on a broader scope of information. We no longer have to take the MSM's message as "written in stone" and it is empowering.
      • Coslenchip, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1When "MSM" started, or I guess I should say before they started, it was well known that all media was biased. It was normal for people to buy two or three newspapers because they were looking for the different viewpoints. Now, everyone claims to be "unbiased", but really aren't. Unfortunately, a lot of people have accepted this as gospel truth, listen to only one viewpoint of one MSM and assume everything is correct. If someone from 200 years ago came forward in time to see this they would be dumbfounded.
    • Devotia, on 12/02/2007, -1/+24It actually doesn't matter if Paul wins, depending on his supporters. If they manage to stick together for the senate elections, they could change the face of congress, which is arguably more powerful than a presidential win. Let President Whoever continue the war in Iraq, try to start a war in Iran, etc, without a dime going towards financing these things. Old Media is more than capable of supporting 1 or 2 candidates, but can they really do that for all the seats up for grabs in 08 and 10?
      • zagzagel, on 12/02/2007, -1/+3Personally, I don't believe that congress, whoever has the majority, will ever have the collective balls to cut off funding for the war. The label "doesn't support our troops" is a tough one to peel off.
        • nakani, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Just buy a few "support our troops" ribbons to balance it out (made in china)
      • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12It's becoming less important by day as congress signs off power to the executive branch
      • hiphoc, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Even more important are local elections. Local elections have only about a 5% turnout. Constitutionally minded folks could run for office as Dem or Repub through infiltration then have all the meet up groups vote for them. Its your local mayor and Gov. that need to be changed also. If localities dont go along with the feds its a wrap. That is the problem. The local gov't is bending over for the feds too much.
        • Coslenchip, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2That's because they way our current system is set up is that the Feds collect a LARGE majority of taxes and then choose how to distribute it to local locations. This is not how the Constitution formed our government. The Federal government was never supposed to have the power to collect anywhere near the amount of tax they currently do. Eliminate this and give the money directly to local government and the changes will happen, one city/county/state at a time. That is the point of getting RP elected.
      • dinsy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1They're afraid of being anthraxed.
    • patch6, on 12/02/2007, -1/+5Go into detail about how his social security earnings have been wiped out by the precious status quo already.
      • Syric, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Not quite: the system would've worked fine if it weren't for the imbalance of age ranges--which you could argue is a striking change to the expected status quo.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 12/02/2007, -2/+8Mmm, scrambled nest eggs with cheese.
      • Thefascist, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I want mine sunny side up with a tad of crippling arthritis.
    • juankovo, on 12/02/2007, -1/+14Your nest egg probably isn't going to be worth much in five years, if it's held in USD.
      • rarson, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6They don't understand this. They don't see how it could happen. Not only are they sold on the media, but the "American dream" as well.
        • BrapAllgood, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4If the 'American Dream' means waiting until you're 60 to HAVE a nest egg...well, it's just not very dreamy....
      • ChimpFlix, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Depends on where it's invested. A diverse portfolio that includes international stocks and funds is always smart.
    • Pulpfiction23, on 12/02/2007, -4/+6god wtf, the media has one agenda and that is to control your lives and the fact that some people agree that they aren't completely evil makes me laugh. just like this HA HA HA, and how is it a valuable asset?

      You know why they show so much war footage is because GE which has ties to CNN (and all mainstream media) makes the weapons that make this war possible and it's a circle of money for those bastards, it's just an advertisement for a product. I think they have some stations biased because it appears that there really are different agendas. When in reality it's smoke and mirrors. They have their plan laid out. Nancy Poloski, the person who was supposed to supposedly do something with the war has just sat on her ass. Why? is it higher orders? the man upstairs? I'm not privileged enough to know but ***** these assholes.
      • FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2What does the media gain by "controlling your life"? WTF are you even talking about?
      • Syric, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3You're a dumbass.
      • dinsy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. Notice all the gung-ho military commercials during televised sporting events. Investing in the death industry.
    • wakananda, on 12/02/2007, -1/+8The MSM is already caving in and giving Ron Paul credit for his "internet following" and spectacular fund raising. Old media is narcissistic and dull-witted. It cannot comprehend it's own obsolescence. It thinks "the world of the internet" is somehow unreal - much like those morons who discount an argument because the (valid) source is net based. It is so used to us lapping up it's swill, and dancing dutifully to it's tune, that it cannot comprehend an aroused, motivated and informed populace on the move. The more it squirms and side-steps the message of Ron Paul in favor of nattering on about "the Ron Paul phenomenon," the stupider they sound, and the more credibility they lose.
    • CannedMango, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9Explain to him that his selfishness is screwing the younger generation and that if his parents had thought like him then he'd have nothing right now.
    • Digg4This, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2sorry for this pitch BUT I just want to follow up and I doubt MSM can ignore this
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Official_Flight_ ...
  • marksmayo, on 12/02/2007, -102/+28Blast, I feel bad for burying it - it just really sounded like one of those "we're so sick of hearing about him" posts. Please digg it up so I don't feel so bad :)
    • whataboutdave, on 12/02/2007, -7/+52No big deal. Next time please just RTFA.
      • marksmayo, on 12/02/2007, -25/+3lol, usually the titles for articles are accurate. That's what makes you decide to read/not read them. :)
      • TantrooM, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Marksmayo:

        If you believe all the headlines without looking into the details, it's no wonder you bash Paul...
    • CanIGetAWitness, on 12/02/2007, -3/+40Just tell us you will start reading articles before reacting and all can be forgiven.
      • marksmayo, on 12/02/2007, -8/+6No worries, it reached front page. All my guilt is gone ;)
    • vade79, on 12/02/2007, -1/+29You made me curious and tested; You infact can undigg a story in your profile but not unbury one as far as I can tell, wtf?
      • marksmayo, on 12/02/2007, -3/+8Yeah, that's bothered me for a while. Frustrating.
    • KillaJazzBass, on 12/02/2007, -3/+7its all good
    • TantrooM, on 12/02/2007, -1/+18You based a book on its cover, that is why you fail.
  • mt066, on 12/02/2007, -87/+39Oh...I was hoping that title wasn't sarcastic
    • simpleid, on 12/02/2007, -5/+10I hope that you won't be sarcastic when you're thanking us for getting off our ass an acting out for you, to help build a better future for your family and loved ones. People are thinking about more than just terrorist here; we're considering our lively hood, our land, our lives and international friends. We don't need to put people in our debt, we don't need more power. We need a fair playing field so everyone may express their full potential. For everything good there must be sacrifice, and right now our sacrifice needs to be all the mistakes we've made. Ron Paul isn't a moron, he's willing to take the hits we need in order to change for the better, good doesn't happen fast, but in the long run we don't kill each other irrationally.
      • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -11/+3We the people will never thank the Ronbies for bringing down our nation with libertarian beliefs. We the people don't want your false prophet. We the people don't want his followers. Get the ***** out of our country.
        • jtmeyer, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2somehow the Paulites are all about doing whatever they can to help people like you (yup, even you) by doing what they think is right for the nation.
          what party/candidate/ideal do you espouse that tells you to kick everyone out of america who you don't agree with?
          • Midoc, on 12/03/2007, -4/+2No party/candidate/ideal tells me to kick people out of the country because they don't agree with me, anger that they think that they are some kind of chosen people sent from God himself to lead us to paradise is what leads me to say that. How are they going to help me and mine if they elect a man who is against everything I stand for?
          • Hamanu, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1so you stand for the government sanctioned slaughter of innocents in other countries, deletion of our god-given rights, progressive taxes against the ever shrinking working class & lord only knows what other communist ideals you hold close to your heart. if i missed anything, someone else will have to let me know. it's hard to hear you, way up on the pedestal you set yourself on. as a way of closing, I'd like to quote you......"Get the ***** out of our country."
    • podrag, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1MMmmmmmmMMMmmmm SAY IT BROTHER! AND WE SHALL WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH! AND WE SHALL FEAR NO EVIL! CAUSE WE ARE THE BADDEST ***** IN THE VALLEY! RON PAUL BITCHES! GET OUT THE WAY!
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -152/+16Wow, this is retarded. I remember seeing a few digg articles talking about how he was being interviewed on Fox and they were actually encouraging people to vote for him. Why do you think old media is ignoring him? Because you ignore the facts. They have to be fair to every candidate and give them airtime according to their popularity. Most of the American public has never heard of Ron Paul, so its understandable that they wouldn't want to see some old guy talking about states' rights on television. Take what you can get and stop bitching about it.

    Heck, why don't you look for yourself?
    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+i ...
    • Codename46, on 12/02/2007, -9/+26FAIL
    • orangefly, on 12/02/2007, -5/+11it's amazing how many times a day you can find comments about how unpopular RP is....for someone no one cares about he sure has a lot of people spending a lot of time trying to convince everyone that he is no one....
      • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -11/+2We are trying to educate the masses that haven't yet been infected by his virus. We're trying to save this nation from a monster who hides behind his followers instead of admitting to his horrid voting record.
    • tubeblender, on 12/02/2007, -7/+12FAIL miserably.

      "You have to be fair to every candidate and give them airtime according to their popularity"

      WTF? Fair =| according to popularity
      ASS
      *****

      "Most of the American Public has never heard of Ron Paul, so it's "understandable" they wouldn't want to see some old guy talking about states' rights on television..."

      So according to you, the most 'popular' person should win. Hey, let's vote in a very popular ***** MORON like the one we have today. How about that? I hope you are too young to vote.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -13/+3I didn't say that, *****. You have to draw the line somewhere. You wouldn't let some guy that lives in a forest be interviewed in CNN just because he's a presidential candidate, would you?
        • BamaMac, on 12/02/2007, -2/+7Yes
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -12/+5damn paulbots
          • adventchild08, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Thats all you ever say....you never attack the issues....you just attack the supporters....
        • MillionsLivio, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Yes, I'm not going to judge him just because he lives in a forest, that's like saying "let's not allow Hilary to be a candidate because she's a woman!". The media should give every candidate a chance, but they obviously don't. They want to encourage their own candidates that they have political ties to so they limit the exposure that the average American has to other candidates. X, you are a close minded idiot (to put it shortly), people like you are the very reason we are in the horrid shape we are in. Nonetheless, I still respect your right to have your opinion, even if I don't agree to it. You wouldn't say the same, because I support Ron Paul, would you?
        • str1fe, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4I would give a Presidential candidate an equal time on air because he is a Presidential candidate, not because he's Ron Paul.
        • adventchild08, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1What do you suggest? Its clear from your comment history that you are on the other side of the fence....so do you so readily comment against RP, is it because he is the only candidate who has a chance of beating a democratic candidate if he wins the primary? Is it cause he is libertarian?
          I am really just curious, I haven't seen any of his policies that you disagree with...it seems like you don't like the phenomenon, but do you really dislike his politics?
    • simpleid, on 12/02/2007, -1/+2time allocated by popularity? take what you can get?
    • InfamousAtheist, on 12/02/2007, -2/+10Your logic (if it can be called that) is faulty - while I won't deny that our elections have turned into little more than popularity contests, the media should never adjust their reporting based on poll results.

      Also, a quick look at your profile page tells me you're a RP hater with an agenda. You're full of *****.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -9/+4Then what the ***** should they base it on? They've give Ron Paul fair airtime. What more do you want? You want them to make CNN a 24/7 Ron Paul show where people suck his dick?
        • artemus, on 12/02/2007, -2/+5How much airtime compared to the other candidates, X? That's the point.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/03/2007, -6/+2They're not ignoring him. End of story.
        • str1fe, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6being given 6 minutes total in a 2 hour debate sounds similar to "ignoring" to me.
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Read my above link. This is not about the debate. Regardless of the debate, they give him airtime in that and in many other interviews.
        • looselips, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Equal airtime in the debates is what the sheeple use to judge candidates, based on the biased MSM recommendations.
          It does not matter if they make up for the time in other smaller interviews, because these do not matter as much as they think they do. If you disagree, check the ratings.
          I am seriously starting to believe X might be for RP, and is just trolling the opposite to cause more to get outraged, and passionate about the only logical choice. Thanks for supporting RP through proxy, by getting more people to research, and find out that RP is for the people, and is worthy of more support.
          Even if the research done, is only started to put a big troll in his place.
    • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -13/+4Sorry man, they just won't see reason at this point, the infection has taken hold. It's time to shotgun these Ron Paul zombies (Ronbies?)
      • n8glenn, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2So you will fight ideas with bullets? You will kill people for advocating the constitution? You will lose, you will always, ALWAYS lose that battle. You cannot overcome ideas with violence.
    • MillionsLivio, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3You are an idiot, stop spamming digg with your incoherent *****.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/03/2007, -6/+3I'm sorry. Let me put it in words a fifth-grader can understand. What makes up Digg? The people. What we see on digg is controlled by the popularity of the articles (in other words, the amount of diggs). Now, every article doesn't make the front page just because it was submitted, am I right? Why should it not work the same way for the presidential candidates?
    • n8glenn, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2X, you are a liar, or maybe you aren't paying attention. You really think you can convince ONE SINGLE PERSON that the mainstream media is unbiased? Oh man, you are alone on that sinking ship and you don't even know it...
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3Hey, dumbass. I'm not trying to convince people that mainstream media is unbiased. Of course they are. But the fact is, they're NOT ignoring Ron Paul. They've given him airtime, and you can't ignore that. That airtime, as short as you might think it is, is crucial to Ron Paul's campaign.
    • volonix, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Thank god i had you blocked :D still havent read what he said
  • lordterrin, on 12/02/2007, -20/+168"I could not care less because I did not care at all" - amazing line. I felt EXACTLY the same as this author until I discovered Ron Paul. Thank you for this article... amazingly written.
    • BrandonMills, on 12/02/2007, -21/+11"...until I discovered Ron Paul?" Gee, wanna throw a tankard of gasoline on the "Cult" bias going around?
      • TopherT, on 12/02/2007, -3/+13He is the only Libertarian we've had since Barry Goldwater, and generally an unknown. I'd call that a discovery, heck, maybe even a revelation.
        • liverj00, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5*****. Harry Brown ran in the last two elections. You just didn't get him force fed to you on the internet.
        • xJudahx, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1It's actually Harry Browne, I voted for him both times. Ron Paul is great, but his ties to one of the two major political parties it too much for my support. I don't see how supporting the current system will bring libertarian ideas into practice. His fellow Republicans and Democrats would not allow such a thing to happen.
      • organicanagram, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Any form of idealism in the political world is sure to rally the youth.
        • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -1/+2Isn't it sad that the youth are too blind to realize that idealism itself is not good, it is the nature of the ideas that is important.
    • ThisIsTheEnd, on 12/02/2007, -7/+35I was ready to leave the country before I found the perfect presidential candidate for me, Ron Paul. And its not so much cult mentality. Its the mentality that at last we we're excited to find a candidate that wasn't a douche bag or a turd sandwich.
      • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -15/+6EVERY CANDIDATE IS A DOUCHE BAG OR A TURD SANDWICH. For the love of god, why is it so hard for you people to admit this? Ron Pollster is nothing but the same asswipe that we've seen over and over and over and over and over and over again. He isn't anything special, he doesn't play against the rules.
        • Coslenchip, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1a) Midoc hasn't seen Ron Paul's record
          b) Midoc is an idiot
          c) All of the above
    • GMorgan, on 12/02/2007, -6/+14You Americans should be happy to have Ron Paul. In Britain we have three parties that are basically three shades of statism. Basically we are screwed up and people still believe that the state is the solution to it's own problems.

      The free market wing of the Conservative party here has been buried between the neo-con and insane nationalist wings. I can't remember the last time I heard from a real Conservative here. The sad thing is that people are more afraid of free market than they are of mildly disturbed nationalists (even though it was the insane nationalists who created the nasty side of Thatchers time in power, people equated that with Thatcherism when really it was a concession to the nutters to keep her in place).
      • chaosium, on 12/02/2007, -17/+8"You Americans should be happy to have Ron Paul"

        Oh great, another fundie pro-life creationist conservative who believes that secularity should be abolished.

        Thanks but no thanks to friends in the UK.
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -5/+9Do I detect a hint of desperation?
        • GMorgan, on 12/02/2007, -3/+4Did I say I was anti-abortion and a creationist?

          They are not my beliefs. As for secularism, it is unnecessary in a Libertarian government since they wouldn't consider themselves to have any right to fiddle with national religion in any case. Sort of a redundant concept in such a government. As long as Paul doesn't direct tax money to religious institutes, enforce religion on schools or penalise and elevate people based on their religion then there is no issue. The same goes for abortion, he is anti abortion but would not make a federal ruling to that effect. Paul would run the most secular government in effect that you could hope for by default.

          Compared this to the wars of aggression both America and Britain are involved with under statists and you realise it is trivial.
        • xJudahx, on 12/03/2007, -3/+1He's still a Republican, as soon as he joins the Libertarian party, I'm in.

          and I don't think he meant you, GMorgan.
        • Coslenchip, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1@ xJudahx
          He did join the Libertarian party. He ran as the libertarian presidential candidate in 1988 and came in third. He is running as Republican because 80% of Americans think they always have only 2 choices (R & D).
      • epj3, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1The problem, as I'm sure you already know - is that many American's are complete idiots. They live in their own little world that ends at the county-line. It's unbelievably sad, as I have to live amongst people like this. They pay attention to our (soon to be) worthless currency, Nascar, hollywood, gossip, and what is "in" at the moment. This is why Paris Hilton and jeans with holes in them are popular, and why the current state of the nation (world?) is how it is.

        Nothing will change, regardless of how "bloody" obvious the solution may be. I figured you would like that, an American using "bloody." :-) The next president will, in my opinion, ultimately decide the fate of this country. I'm not feeling too comfortable about that knowing who will be making the decision...
  • BrandonMills, on 12/02/2007, -87/+41*sigh* More Ron Paul non-news.
    • analogkid01, on 12/02/2007, -28/+19*sigh* Another anti-Paul comment with no facts or reasoning to back it up.
      • Patrikimo, on 12/02/2007, -4/+9Don't worry you all bury fact supported comments too. It's not that there is no one presenting good arguments against, it's that here on digg anyone can digg/bury as many comments a day as they want and there are too many people unwilling to listen to a reasoned argument so even comments backed up by fact are buried. I have seen threads here where meaningless pro-RP rhetoric with no substance gets dugg over well reasoned arguments against him.
        • dinsy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Yes those well-reasoned anti-Constitutional arguments are so helpful.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -11/+5http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Morons_ ...
        • Me1000, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4it isn't manipulating, it is how digg works!
      • mastaphoo, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1what facts are there to back up, that it's not news? did you RTFA? you should realize it's not news.
        and yes, some diggers are getting tired of the same old-same old. i went on a burying rampage with the iphone, and I'm not afraid to with RP too.
    • TopherT, on 12/02/2007, -10/+13Why are you even commenting BrandonMills, take a hike.
  • KillaJazzBass, on 12/02/2007, -38/+11Yes please keep ignoring Ron Paul and continue to add to your list of other egregious crimes against the American Public.
  • Skettalee, on 12/02/2007, -38/+152Man, i just want to say, that I believe in Ron Paul so much that if it turned into a USA vs Ron Paul war I would join and fight against the USA to make a new one on his side!
    • BrandonMills, on 12/02/2007, -42/+13Maybe inside the twisted minds of internet fanbois that gather together to stroke each other off. Digg is heavily, heavily, *heavily* biased towards fanboi news. Not real news. Just to make the point, look at the 'quality' news article we have above. Random blog post editorial != News.
      • KillaJazzBass, on 12/02/2007, -12/+3Maybe we just found the demographic that believes in something akin to Internet Sponcered Libertarianism.
        • Patrikimo, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Oh I see what you did there... Because fanbois can't spell right?
      • britishrob, on 12/02/2007, -0/+13And mainstream news is *heavily* biased to whatever crap they want to shove in your face - which is usually whatever the sponsors want
      • Coslenchip, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Digg is not a news site, it is a webpage site. I agree with you that a blog post != news, but it does equal webpage and it does = something people might want to read.
    • TopherT, on 12/02/2007, -2/+101According to HR 1955 you are a terrorist.
    • IntoTheWired, on 12/02/2007, -20/+11Skettalee, I would fight against you. Not because I support the policies of the administration, but because I don't believe in Ron Paul and those fanatics who would take up arms in his name.

      Besides, Ron Paul would never ask you to take up arms against your own people.
      • vanza001, on 12/02/2007, -3/+2maybe he should
      • obxjdt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Revolution!
      • Parapadrifter, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1It isn't about Ron Paul... our constitution needs to be restored as law of the land. This is ***** of what the current administration has accomplished, and we need somebody to will respect the rule of law.
        The war on terror can be fought without surrendering our rights!

        ~Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.~ Goldwater
    • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -2/+18The point Paul made in one of his most recent post-debate interviews (sorry, no link, forgot which one it was) is that he got into politics because he had hope that he could change things peacefully. He has a great sense of national pride, and he decided to run for congress, and then for president, in order to let his fight against a nanny state have the greatest impact. You're not going to make this country a better, stronger place through the barrel of a gun. Instead, you have to work on your debate skills, learn to convince people of your views, and get elected to public office (or help get people who share your views elected), where you can have a much more effective platform for your views to be expressed. If it turns out that you do have good ideas, and that you are able to articulate them convincingly, then you might just be successful in bringing some positive change to our government. If, on the other hand, you alienate a lot of people, and don't do a good job of bringing others on-board with your views, then you will die a quiet political death. This is how the marketplace of ideas works in this country. The best economic or civic policy plan in the world will not go anywhere if you can't convince people that it's in their interest. Guns are tools used by those who can't get people to follow them through peaceful, rational means, but they turn out to be much less powerful than some well-chosen words.
      • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -2/+4"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy. Peaceful revolution is impossible as evident by the last couple of years that I've spent protesting the war in Iraq, a week after the protests started against it no one was paying attention anymore.
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -1/+6Maybe you weren't going about it the right way, or maybe you were unable to convince others of your views for whatever reason. Your personal lack of political success is not evidence that such a movement is impossible. Picketing on some street corner is just not going to spread a political message, no matter how loud you yell, or how violently you wave your sign. You're just going to have to come up with more effective ways to get your message out.
    • Humptydank, on 12/02/2007, -14/+5You're supporting a candidate who's lying to you. His health care reform bill alone is one of the largest unfunded transfers of government wealth to a single industry in the history of politics.

      He submits legislation that doesn't have any provisions to pay for the huge spending he proposes, and then goes on TV talking about cutting spending and smaller government?

      He's lying to you because he knows the only thing you read are banners. Wake up.

      Actually, don't wake up, just read. I've already suggested in other threads that no Ron Paul flunky could defend H.R. 3343, his "Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2007" and sure enough, no one has. All I get are silent Diggs down, trying to pretend that he's the one making sense and I'm not.

      So please, go read H.R. 3343 and tell me why he doesn't even have the guts to tell you that his actual legislation is 100 percent opposite from his promises to you.
      • madwickedstiner, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Ok, Apparantly You haven't really understood this bill... It's giving you more of your own money back... How is that not what he preaches?? Plus, he supports the Fair Tax and the elimination of the IRS.... so under his presidency, this would be a moot point...
      • Humptydank, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3@madwickedstiner:

        And where has he detailed the spending cuts needed to offset the massive loss in revenues?

        Why is it a tax credit - the most regressive way to cut taxes? He's a friend of the wealthy?

        Why is the credit for health insurance premiums unlimited? As the bill is written now, if I have a $50,000 tax bill, my health insurance company can sell me a $50,000 insurance package -- weekly PET scans just to be on the safe side, and a special luxury hospital ward of my own should I need it, and the whole thing will be paid for by the government through a tax credit that goes directly into the insurance industry's pocket. They can write their own ticket. Is that the "privatization" Ron Paul talks about? Transferring all the government's money to the insurance industry?

        Oh wait, how about if I have a $100,000 tax bill, can I buy a $100,000 insurance plan from Oxford that flies me to a different city in Europe twice a year where I get my checkup with the finest private physicians, and then have a week to kick around? And maybe it covers all sorts of cosmetic surgery as well? That will be paid for 100% by the government too under the Ron Paul bill, only the money won't be returned to me, just the trip and my health coverage and my face lift will be returned to me. Most of it will be returned to the insurance companies in the form of government guaranteed profit.

        He has the economics exactly backwards. He's managed to create an incentive for insurance companies to raise their premiums as high as citizen's tax liability will support, and he's managed to incentivize taxpayers to go along, because he's subsidized them both with government dollars.

        December's going to be a helluva month for the insurance companies, when everyone figures out their tax liabilities for 2007, and then goes to the insurance companies for "custom packages" that just happen to work out to make sure they don't have to pay a penny in taxes. Well, it won't be quite as fun for people who don't own any taxes, but the super-rich will have fun and that seems to be what matters to Ron Paul, right?

        Seriously, is this the candidate that you're chanting for at the rallies? If this was a Clinton or Obama bill it would have 5,000 outraged diggs by now, screaming about corporate welfare and unfunded spending.

        And again, where are the spending cuts detailed to offset this loss in revenue? He's "Dr. No," he says he can cut at least 25% off the federal budget. Did he just forget? Or is unfunded spending okay if he's doing it?

        So he would figure out a way to eliminate the IRS during his presidency, but he can't even get a two page bill trying to reform health care right? I think we're seeing what would happen under his presidency -- results that are either incompetent, disingenuous, or a long string of "we'll yeah, that was the plan, but..."

        But by all means keep going, I'm happy to "understand" this bill line-by-line if you want.
      • madwickedstiner, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2It's nice to actually see an adult reply when you have a disagreement.... most posts on Digg are childish and unsubstantiated personal attacks... You, sir, have risen above that.... Now, on to my rebuttal:

        It's YOUR money... Not the government's... That's the basis of what he preaches. Get government out of your lives. And one way to help solve the "health care crisis" in America is to offer a tax credit (i.e. getting your OWN money back) for health care benefits... That's what this bill is doing.
        I'm not trying to be insulting, but I think you're stuck in the mindset of current government structure, where if there is a problem in the world, just get more taxes and create a program to fix it... Instead of letting people solve their own problems. Our society seems to have degenerated down to a "what can government do for me" attitude instead of a "what can I do for me and my friends and family" attitude.

        Now, the point you make I think is valid though, How can he, a man of Ideals and principles, many of which those in his party disagree with, and many of those in the opposing party disagree with, get anything done in Congress? How can he go into the den of wolves as a sheep and not get eaten... or at the very least, get exactly "jack *****" accomplished? That is a question that remains to be answered, but I truly believe that if he gets a large majority of the votes, and in his first two years in office he's "obstructed" by most members of congress, most members of congress will be losing their jobs in the next elections... We the people control the government, as it should be, not the other way around.

        Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to your reply.
      • Humptydank, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2@madwickedstiner:

        I agree, thanks very much for the reasoned response. I almost forgot where I was for a minute.

        You're right that it starts out your money, but the minute you calculate your tax liability it's not your money anymore. I know RP wants to eliminate all that, but in the here-and-now: The easy way to think about it is that without the Ron Paul bill, the government is simply saying "take $20,000 of your money and give it to us." That's your tax liability. The RP bill leaves us in a situation where the government says "take $20,000 of your money and either give it to us, or give it to the insurance industry, or divide it between us however you want, we don't care." It's not giving you your money back, it's just saying that you're allowed to pay some or all of it to someone else.

        It creates an enormous special class out of the insurance industry, making them the beneficiary of a unique government rule that gives them special claim to existing government revenues. If you give your tax liability to the government you don't get anything back, except the ethereal "services" that none of us really appreciates. The insurance industry, however, will find all kinds of much less ethereal ways to entice you to give your whole tax check to them, and few of them are likely to have any effect on quality of care. If you need an angioplasty, it might as well be from one of the top five heart specialists in the world, who now operates from a state-of-the-art facility in the Cayman Islands with recovery cabanas on the beach, all paid for by the U.S. government.

        And no one minds because the incentive is upside-down. You'll actually have wealthy consumers asking insurance companies to introduce higher-priced packages, so they can buy them with their tax bill. That's technically encouraging competition, but not exactly the kind we want.

        As I say, if Clinton had introduced a bill like this the screams about her being "in the pocket" of the insurance lobby, and "trying to buy the White House" would be enormous. RP seems to be above such accusations, because he does seem to be ethical and, let's face it, he doesn't have enough juice for anyone to even consider buying him off, but the effect is the same. It's the government saying you don't have to give any money to us as long as you give to the insurance guys. If I were an insurance guy I would kiss RP hard on the lips.

        Also, my point wasn't questioning what he could actually get done if he were elected President, my opinions on that are beyond the scope of this document. :-) Only "what could we possibly expect from what we've seen?"

        Either he knows his bills will die in committee and he's submitting them to make a point, or he's an eternal optimist and expects them to get through. In either case, why can't they be exactly what he wants? Why is his *overwhelming* core value always been to return to a government that isn't borrowing money, paying interest, and can actually ask much less or even zero from its people in taxes, yet he introduces a bill that would result in an enormous reduction in revenue without specifying any corresponding cuts in spending? That's the same as introducing a huge spending bill without a way to pay for it.

        That's why the Ron Paul campaign bothers me so much. Because this is not by any means a lone example of hypocrisy (or incompetence, or a willingness to shave his values so far down in legislation that they're unrecognizable, whatever your preferred interpretation is), and because so many people have deified him without actually taking a look at what he's done they don't even know that. They just listen to the slogans, listen to other people talk and repeat what they say, and have no idea that Ron Paul is saying he'll do one thing but is actually doing another.

        I've spent a lot of time asking his followers for answers, and they run out fast, and that's okay. But I've also asked the campaign for answers, asked them to expand on how they will do some of the more complex ideas they've proposed, and I've just gotten pleasant form responses. It's been at least six months now with several requests and no change.

        So I'm afraid I've had no other choice, in the "walks-like/quacks-like a duck" category, to accuse him of being a populist demagogue. I think he knows the details hurt him. I think he knows that the more he actually has to talk in detail about the effects of cutting the various departments he's thrown out the more it hurts him. I think he knows that ten minutes of competent questioning on the elimination of the FDA would sink any hopes he has of a mainstream campaign. So I think he's made a conscious decision to run an anti-intellectual "throw the bums out!" campaign. I'm not saying he doesn't want the bums out, I'm saying he knows that he'll have much wider following if they make sure that the exclamation points stay large and the facts stay thin.

        So honestly, if it were just about Ron Paul I wouldn't take the time. His campaign may, at most, be an interesting footnote depending on how much money is raised. But it's populist demagoguery that I really have to take a stand against. If people get used to that as an acceptable standard for political campaigns, then both U.S. and European history have shown us how useful that tool is in disaster.
      • noahhoward, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1What you are missing though is the money they are taking is not money they would be spending anyway. Social Security taxes are taken to be gien back, ideally anyway. The government isn't losing any revenue because they don't spend SS money anyway.
        • Humptydank, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1IT'S NOT JUST SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES. READ THE BILL.

          It's income taxes as well. Taxpayers would, under this bill, be allowed to pay their entire tax liability, SS & income, to the insurance industry instead of the government.

          How could I possibly think that someone who submitted that bill isn't in the pocket of the health insurance industry, especially since he's a doctor?
    • raymore, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7Yeah...you just violated the Patriot Act in four different articles.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4The Unconstitutional Patriot Act you mean...
    • mastaphoo, on 12/03/2007, -5/+4Man, I just wanna say I'm tired of Ron Paul! I'm voting for him, I know who he is and what he believes! Enough already!
    • Saiing, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Ron Paul IS America. He is the constitution. He is the country the founding fathers dreamed of. Anyone fighting against him is fighting everything that America was built for.
    • DrPaulFTW, on 12/03/2007, -4/+1I would be prepared to execute people who didn't vote for Paul if it came down to it!
      • Dibou, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Not surprising. I am sure you are typical of the "tolerant".
      • StarofTroy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Then you aren't even about Ron Paul. Don't post so much *****. You'll be the one quoted in the next Glen Beck "Ron Paul advocates are taking Revolution too seriously" piece.
        • Parapadrifter, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1I fight to restore integrity of the constitution.... Rights are like sand, once you lose them, you don't or is hard to get them back. I prefer the peaceful revolution, but, ***** needs to change TODAY.
  • stephbangm, on 12/02/2007, -14/+93Lamestream media and the establishment are getting scared; They have no choice but to ignore and censor Ron Paul. So let's counteract this by flooding the Primaries with Ron Paul voters!
    If the majority of Ron Paul supporters actually vote in the Primaries, we would most likely win. Even if only 5-8% of the public support Ron Paul like the official polls say, only about 5-10% of the population vote in the Republican Primary! That's why it's critical that we have to work hard right now. Just a few people could make or break this election!
    ====================================
    • stoanhart, on 12/02/2007, -4/+2This is kindof OT (and likely to be buried),

      but what happened last Friday (Nov 30)? There was a huge spike in the RP donations (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com). Did I miss something?
      • dicerandom, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6The following message went out to Ron Paul supporters on the 29th. As a result Paulites donated about $530,000 on the 30th.

        The message:

        Thanks to your continued support, we are closing in on three important fundraising milestones for the fourth quarter:

        -- During the third quarter, Fred Thompson raised $9,750,821 to be used during the primary election cycle.

        -- Not counting money that he loaned to his own campaign, Mitt Romney raised $9,896,719.

        -- Rudy Giuliani finished with $10,258,019.

        Ron Paul is currently at $9,708,791 for the fourth quarter.

        We are within reach of passing Fred Thompson today! Will you help us storm past these fundraising totals over a month sooner than they did?

        Please make your most generous donation: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

        And don’t forget to watch the live counter on our website as we meet these marks! http://www.ronpaul2008.com

        Jonathan Bydlak
        Fundraising Director
        Ron Paul 2008
      • stoanhart, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1thanks
    • juankovo, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7That is assuming that all of the caucuses and primaries will be conducted ethically. There is much corruption in the process.
    • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/02/2007, -1/+12Those who cast the Votes, they decide nothing. Those who count the votes, they decide everything.

      --Josef Stalin
      • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -11/+2Thank god Ron Paultards won't be counting the votes.
        • looselips, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1They are signing up in droves as delegates, and the victory will be a landslide when he gets the republican nomination.
          I hope we can count on you crawling into a hole, when it is ruled that a final count will not even be necessary.
  • MikeFallopian, on 12/02/2007, -55/+16Ron Paul has gotten a huge amount of media coverage considering his actual support - much more than Huckabee or Kucinich or any of the other fringe candidates. It's simply not practical for the media for give equal airtime to a candidate that has such little mass appeal, despite the cult of personality that seems to have sprung up around him.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -24/+6i said the same thing and got buried for it.
    • arcooke, on 12/02/2007, -1/+20That's the problem. Huckabee and Kucinich deserve the same amount of air time as everyone else.. REGARDLESS of how much or how little appeal they have.. or how unfavorable they may be. Most people get their news from the major networks. If the major networks are not telling their viewers about the "lesser" candidates, they are the reason those candidates are lesser in the first place. They don't give everyone a fair chance. I understand they can't cram all candidates into every time slot every day, but they should at least make it a note to start mentioning them so people can at least recognize their names as candidates.

      When was the last time you heard about Gravel on the news? There's a lot of people out there that would prefer his views over everyone elses.. but the problem is, they don't know about him because the news never talks about him. I'm not saying I want him as president (because I don't), but he deserves just as much attention as Hillary and Obama do.
      • MikeFallopian, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1But that just doesn't make practical sense. If you or I were to announce a run for president, should CNN give us equal airtime to Hillary and Romney?
        • arcooke, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Yes, absolutely (assuming we had a background in politics). Why not?

          What makes Hillary and Romney so special?
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -6/+2They're FRONTRUNNERS. People want to hear about them if they're already popular. You know how it works? You work your way up to television status. You don't just announce that you're running for president and expect to be interviewed on television in the next five minutes. You establish your credibility and popularity by holding public speeches, fundraisers, do whatever it takes at the low level to establish at least some popularity. You can't expect the major news organizations to give equal airtime to everyone. It's not practical, and no one is definitely going to watch it.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1sigh. Ok? What does this have to do with anything?
    • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -1/+3The problem is that the selection process is based on factors which don't work in our best interest. Things like the amount of money in the campaign (a valuable bit of information to be sure, but not always indicative of existing public support), or the results of polling as determined and funded by the two political parties, who may have an agenda that doesn't match the public's. The problem with the way elections are covered in the media is that it strongly favors entrenched candidates, and doesn't really give people a fair chance to compete based on their ideas. This works against our interest, as the political parties are able to exert so much control over the outcome of elections. In a true independent media, unaffiliated with the major political parties, candidates would have to actually compete for support and coverage based on their performance in getting people onboard with their campaign platform.

      I don't claim to have the perfect solution to this problem. Maybe something like runoff eliminations (ie. American Idol), where you gradually eliminate the least popular candidates (including the majors if they're voted out) from coverage as the viewers make known which candidates they favor. You start off with relatively brief coverage of a large number of candidates, and let the particular news network's viewers determine which candidates that network will continue to cover. Different media networks might reach different demographics, and the results of those eliminations might be different for the various networks. Such a system would certainly be more fair than the current setup, for the media networks, and their viewers, and the population at large. It might cause issues where big candidates (like Clinton and Giuliani) might be eliminated in short order despite their large campaign funds, but I guess they'll always have the Authoritarian News Network (Fox), whose viewers can't get enough authority... : P
    • dimitrisokolov, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1That's because Huckabee is some religious nut. A name like Huckabee is unelectable.
  • MrFunions, on 12/02/2007, -13/+155The ultimate irony is that Ron Paul is the beginning of the end of these news organizations. I find out about things on Digg days before the news reports them. Their laziness and tepidness to change will ultimately be their demise.
    • solarsavior, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4The Wall Street Journal used to lead the mass media by about a week, but I haven't read it in years. Who know what Rupert asshat has done?
      • KillaJazzBass, on 12/02/2007, -5/+5Newscorp owns both the wall street journal and digg.com meaning your reading it by Proxy. I fear for the future of this site because Rupert Murdoch cannot be trusted. Then again, there will always be an independant outlet in this New Media. Its like trying to play that old school Chuck E Cheese game with the groundhogs, hit one down and 3 more spring up!
        • zachshmack, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Whack-a-Mole
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6The advertising and shared content deal Digg made with the WSJ is not the same thing as Digg being owned by them, or by News Corp. Digg is still independently owned and operated for now.
    • TantrooM, on 12/02/2007, -2/+4But Digg is not a journalist site, it's a series of these news reports!
      • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -0/+11But Digg doesn't favor one source over another, so the story and angle selection is much more balanced to what readers find interesting. We're just as likely to have stories sourced from random blogs as from a major news publication.
        • Scorpy2643, on 12/02/2007, -11/+3If you think Digg, with it's community of lefticts and nutjobs doesn't favor one side over another, you must seriously be lacking in the brains department. There is absolutely NO balance on Digg.

          Someone with a view from the other side gets Dugg down so fast it scary. The left has absolutley none of this "tollerance" they are always preaching.
          • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -2/+5If antisocial jerks like yourself don't like it, we must be doing something right... : P
          • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -1/+5Digg doesn't have an "equal time for all viewpoints" mindset. It's a popularity contest. And the "left-leaning" bias you keep complaining about shows that there are more people who think "left" than there are that think "right".

            Your viewpoints are in the minority. And with good reason.

            Deal with it.

            /and quit with the "oh look! the liberals aren't being nice wussies!" crap. It makes you look like a pussy.
      • TantrooM, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1I take back my previous statement, it is not a series of news reports that are dumped into the site... it's a series of snarling comments about bias.
    • Patrikimo, on 12/02/2007, -4/+6That's about the dumbest thing I have heard yet. Trusting the blogosphere for all your news is just completely stupid. First off, there is zero accountability, and while MSM might not have as much accountability as we'd like, there are some amount of laws to keep at least a little sanity. MSM will print retractions or wait to confirm whereas blogs generally don't. Second, you're always going to read biased sources all news is biased but now your picking and choosing each author for the most completely biased outlook you can find. For instance, even now, how many blogs have you actually researched to find out the cons of RPs platforms? Probably not too many. You trade speed for accuracy and choose your bias and loose a more complete view.

      If you're really going to use the internet for all your news needs force yourself to read differing viewpoints. Add Red State and Kos to your feeds, add Drudge and Democracy Now, don't just read RP articles and blogs, read some that hate him too.

      Unfortunately Digg's comment system and to a similar extent the story system truly minimizes the hope of ever reading anything but pro-RP stories and comments (and unfortunately the comments tend to be polarizing but empty rhetoric).
      • MrFunions, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8First off, I never said I trust the blogosphere for all my news. Actually I usually use Google News in conjunction with Digg. I don't particularly trust any of Red State, Kos, Drudge, or Democracy Now (the least offensive in my opinion). My statement was meant to point out that the bias of these news organizations is made strikingly clear by those people who frequent sites like the ones you mentioned. Objective news sources are very rare nowadays and the ***** can be lit up for everyone to see relatively quickly by the blogosphere. It's almost laughable how biased some of these news entertainment shows are.
    • WaterDragon, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2And don't forget, under a Paul administration, that actually FOLLOWS the Constitution...what do you think would happen to the FCC, that in its present form acts favoring the corporations it ought to be regulating, instead of PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS, by assuring a fair use of OUR public airwaves!?

      (In these days of 'cable', it is not so much the 'airwaves', but the available BANDWIDTH and frequencies(wavelengths?) of transmissions, of both TV and radio, that BELONG to the PUBLIC and NOT the corporations.)
    • gavin422, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2"Beginning of the end"? Wow. Digg is really going off the deep end with their idealism. Even if Ron Paul does extremely well in the primaries or, hell, even the elections, you're not going to suddenly create a whole new media paradigm.
    • virtualball, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3I laugh at your hopefulness. There are many problems with what you just said, but I'll explain two. One; NONE of this stuff is fact checked, so you can read that Hillary Clinton shot a baby penguin and not know for sure if it's true or not. This is a huge problem because, as you have said, if you get your news from here only, it might be false and has a high chance of being biased. Second, Digg will NEVER replace the newspapers, at least not now. Case in point: I can read about Ron Paul, but if I look two stories down, I see a guy in a speedo fall off a diving board...
    • donttaseme, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1rtfa it says no one cares, and as long as no one cares, the media stays. I still don't care politically, but i keep an eye out on the unfolding drama. 'cus I like watching underdog movies.
  • colincornaby, on 12/02/2007, -48/+26Seriously? Ron Paul has gotten a fair amount of coverage in the "old media." I can't believe the Ron Paul supporters gleefully post Ron Paul interviews on Faux News and CNN one moment, and then in the next they post how the old media ignores Ron Paul. What do you people want? A 24 hour Ron Paul news network?
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/02/2007, -41/+10paulbots will bury this.
      • cherwilco, on 12/02/2007, -5/+22im not a paulbot but I still buried your dumb ass
        • toro913, on 12/02/2007, -20/+5a paulbot isn't smart enough to know he's a paulbot
    • skinturtle, on 12/02/2007, -6/+4Yes..as a matter of fact we do.
    • voisine, on 12/02/2007, -4/+2The main gripe is that he doesn't get coverage as one of the front runners. If anything it was the debates on the MSM that propelled him to Internet stardom.
      • Wetzilla, on 12/02/2007, -2/+3He doesn't get coverage as one of the front runners because he's not one of the front runners. He doesn't have the polling numbers to warrant that much coverage of him.
        • Mageling, on 12/02/2007, -1/+2He has the numbers in money... which literally reflects support for the candidate.. And, oh wait... from more people.

          What does that mean............?
          • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2So he should be buying access, and buying his way to the front of the pack.

            The idea of libertarians buying their way into office just cracks me up.

            Want to reform politics, but think that because he's making an assload of money, he should have the rights of the frontrunners. Talking about term limits, and supporting a 20 year officeholder.

            *shakes head and walks away*
          • chaosium, on 12/02/2007, -2/+3"He has the numbers in money... which literally reflects support for the candidate.. And, oh wait... from more people.

            What does that mean............?"

            Ron Paul has neither more backers than the mainstream candidates, nor anywhere near as much money. Stop lying.
      • gerbil20, on 12/02/2007, -8/+2Why don't I get as much air time as RP? I have about the same chance of winning the elections as he does.
        • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -1/+2If you had registered as a candidate, you should get as much air-time.

          But you didn't. Did you?
    • WiseWeasel, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4It's called YouTube... : P
    • geezas, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4I don't know if you saw, but there was a study done on media coverage of the candidates, and it was mentioned that RP was mentioned less than ten thousand times while McCain was mention about a million times. Does that seem equal to you? I can't even imagine how many more times Rudy and Hilllary was mentioned...
      • chaosium, on 12/02/2007, -2/+2McCain was somewhat popular and has RAN FOR PRESIDENT BEFORE.
        • Brokatha, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Dr. Ron Paul is somewhat popular and HAS RAN FOR PRESIDENT BEFORE. But of course you don't know this because no one is reporting it.
    • terminal157, on 12/02/2007, -2/+3The article acknowledges that he is sometimes mentioned, but the point is that it nearly always comes with a wink to the viewers that he has No Chance and his ideas are silly. Lord knows personal liberty and the constitution are silly concepts in the mainstream press these days.
      • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -6/+2The whole "let's gut the government and every man for himself!" mind-set IS silly. And he has no chance.
    • shedmyskin, on 01/15/2008, -0/+2lol most of the msm coverage he gets is about how he is a loon or not a real candidate...grow up
  • stephbangm, on 12/02/2007, -19/+80We have to become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination; As delegates, we'll be picking the GOP nominee just like the electors in the electoral college pick the President; Delegates determine and decide who the GOP nominee is---it's that critical!

    Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President

    http://delegate.notlong.com
    ^
    Approved by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee: Jeff Greenspan, Regional Coordinator
    • toro913, on 12/02/2007, -17/+12stop spamming this *****
    • Midoc, on 12/02/2007, -8/+4This undermines the entire voting process, as a delegate you are responsible for a group of people, you are supposed to vote with what they want, not what you personally want.
      • glide256, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1This is the reason why civics should actually be taught in schools again...
  • modularsky, on 12/02/2007, -48/+15buried for ron paul spam. can't you find some other jesus-figure to latch on to? Libertarianism is SO 1980's....
    • GMorgan, on 12/02/2007, -6/+71980's? Do you mean one of the strongest periods of American economic growth in history? Wouldn't want that to return now would you?
      • OreosRgood4me, on 12/02/2007, -3/+3Yes, because the economic growth was not only accompanied by huge economic debt, but also was not a result of the Libetarian movement, seeing as how they gained no real political power or influence.
        • emmeron, on 12/02/2007, -3/+1Wrong, it was accompanied by huge economic debt. Just not as huge as now.
    • chaosium, on 12/02/2007, -4/+41880s?
      • emmeron, on 12/02/2007, -2/+21780s. :P
        Too bad it's been fringe since.
    • acidbass, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6some of us dont "latch on to daddy figures" like you do for your political choices, some of us read and then base our decisions on what we read and from where we read it.
    • dinsy, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Yeah freedom would suck.
  • jgambleii, on 12/02/2007, -11/+63The best thing MSM could have ever done was ignore Ron Paul... And now you see spontaneous support sprout up all over the place... The Ron Paul Blimp (http://ronpaulblimp.com), the Tea Party Money Bomb (http://teaparty07.com), and Ron Paulapalooza (http://www.ronpaulapalooza.com/)... Then don't forget things like Ron Paul Graphs (http://ronpaulgraphs.com), the Ron Paul Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/) and Daily Paul (http://dailypaul.com).

    All of these web sites are run by supporters... every single one. The campaign has nothing to do with any of them. You just can't find that kind of support among the other presidential candidates.
    • BrandonMills, on 12/02/2007, -12/+11Btw, those domains will be going at bargain prices in 2009.
      • Dongvid, on 12/02/2007, -3/+15Better links:
        http://ronpaulblimp.com
        http://teaparty07.com
        http://www.ronpaulapalooza.com
        http://ronpaulgraphs.com
        http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
        http://dailypaul.com
      • OreosRgood4me, on 12/02/2007, -3/+4Very true, whether you want him to win or now, you do have to realize that even if he gets the nomination, his policies are so radical in comparison with a majority of the Democratic mainstream candidates, that the public will feel so intimidated that he definitely won't get enough votes.
        • adrenaline33, on 12/03/2007, -1/+4Thats a pretty bold statement considering Hillary is almost certainly going to win on that side and she was a huge 'Will Never Vote For" percentage that most likely derives from being a woman. I do believe he would beat Hillary.
        • doronster195, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3Yeah, socialized health care isn't radical? Attacking Iran.. again, not radical? I wonder how your thought processes work?
        • FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2It's funny - the same assholes who voted for Bush not once, but twice, knowing full-well that we'd be going to war with terrorist in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, are suddenyl hyper-opposed to war with another country. What's the matter guys, get cold feet? You don't want another 10 years to show your "support the troops" bumper stickers, and American flag pins?

          Gah, and on top of all that, Hillary hasn't come out and said she wants war with Iran - she just sidestepped the issue because she understands how to stand on the line of issues to get elected. Those who are afraid of her becoming president spin this into a desire for war with Iran - completely and arrogantly wrong.
        • glide256, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1In by radical you mean revolutionary and by revolutionary you mean "1776" then yes I guess he is...
    • bjornski, on 12/02/2007, -5/+6The Ron Paul blimp is one of the stupidest ideas and biggest wastes of money I've heard of in years.

      You people crack me up.
      • feb420, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2Stupid like a fox.
        • bjornski, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Once the "stunt" hysteria wears down, it's going to look like a pretty damned stupid investment.
    • rrobster, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1OK, you actually had me clicking on a few of those.
  • toro913, on 12/02/2007, -23/+4710 bucks says if Ron Paul loses there will be conspiracy theories popping up left, right and centre. My money's on the secret group that wants to start the NAU being behind Paul losing the primaries.
    • BrandonMills, on 12/02/2007, -10/+7Oh, I'm sure they have some working editorial posts that say "It's not over" for once he loses. That same load of horse **** that every organization dies with. In reality, once he's out, it's pretty much over. Factions of political parties only flourish when their candidate has done wrong, and you're going into the election to replace that candidate. ( See Green Party & Bill Clinton ) By 2012, this group will be so sick of Hillary that they'll make another deal with the Devil to get her out of office.
    • Protonz, on 12/02/2007, -5/+17Lizard people.
    • specs10, on 12/02/2007, -9/+1Secret group? last I checked, the US government wasn't a secret group. secretive, yes, but not secret.
    • apologeticus, on 12/02/2007, -6/+17Sadly, I think you're right. I'm a supporter of Dr. Paul and plan to vote for him, but I sometimes find myself in strange company. The 9/11 truthers and other tin foil hat types that support Paul freak me out and I'm sure turn others off from taking him seriously.
    • Humptydank, on 12/02/2007, -5/+8To all the "gaining steam" and "juggernaut" and "Tea Party" Ron Paul followers: My offer to bet $1,000 on the outcome of the race is still open. And just to make sure it's Ron Paul approved, we can transfer the funds through e-gold!

      If you really have confidence in your candidate there would be no better way to show it, although I'm a little surprised that the offers haven't been flying in since I announced this yesterday. After all, some among you have been talking like he's a sure thing...
      • philr8, on 12/02/2007, -3/+5What's the saying? "If you bet on the stupidity of the American people, you'll win every time." Or something like that.
        • Humptydank, on 12/02/2007, -4/+4Shhhh...
        • tehbishop, on 12/02/2007, -3/+4Americans voted Worst in 2 times in a row, they're surely not enlightened enough to actually have wisdom. Not until the Greatest generation and about 50% of the baby boomers die off will we see a change in things -- if we survive through the Baby Boom Days of Doom.
          • chaosium, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4We'll certainly get rid of some problems, but a generation raised on Rand and Prisonplanet opens up a whole new set of problems.
          • nakani, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1At least my baby boomer parents listen when I tell them of how RP is the only candidate that won't ***** up our futures
      • n8glenn, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1No thanks. I am not at all sure that Ron Paul will win, but neither are you sure that Giuliani or Romney or whoever you are supporting will win either, but wait, it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as "Not Ron Paul" wins, the war and killing and fascism will continue, and therefore you will win. Not only that, but maybe you can get someone who actually loves freedom to take up your bet and you can profit from the destruction of everything that this country has stood for for over 200 years, and the