Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Ron Paul Money Bombing has Begun!
ronpaulosopher.blogspot.com — Last week many of you heard about the RonPaulMoneyBomb. Well this week you can catch a first glimpse of your generosity. Tens of thousands of dollars was donated in a matter of minutes and thousands of individuals have pledged to continue to donate $25 a week. I cant wait to see next weeks results.
Russellk30- 344 diggs
- digg it
- Reiher, on 10/22/2007, -6/+31I loved it! So glad I heard about this in time! At 12:59 PM, just before it was to begin, it was at $23,917.42. Now, at 4:22 PM it is at $91,846.76. (You know someone just did another $17.76 donation! I love it!).
- Russellk30, on 10/26/2007, -4/+33I figure $25 bucks a week for the Moneybomb and a $100 donation on November 5 wont set me back to much. Im not rich by any measure of the word, but a week of my labor is a small price to pay for the sake of liberty.
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -3/+12agree. I wish i could give more. So thank you.
- Ajajadude, on 10/21/2007, -13/+1Sooo, you'd rather give your money to a politician than to a *worthy* cause?
- Fragowell, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Define worthy.
- Russellk30, on 10/26/2007, -4/+33I figure $25 bucks a week for the Moneybomb and a $100 donation on November 5 wont set me back to much. Im not rich by any measure of the word, but a week of my labor is a small price to pay for the sake of liberty.
- moneymooster, on 10/21/2007, -20/+9Why is everybody is so excited about donating on one day? If anything, it just averages out overtime anyway. If I was to donate today it might take away a donation I would have given at some other date, but the total amount would be the same?!?!
- ncairns, on 10/22/2007, -24/+8Maybe I can explain.
You see, Ron Paul supporters have a very tenuous grasp on even basic mathematics. It's why they think Paul actually has a chance of winning the election.- annienyc4, on 10/22/2007, -3/+16i have, and I don't think he'll win the election, but i certainly think he should be heard. No one wants people to hear the truth, and all those who expect to win are horse-***** their way through. And if he wakes up a million people, which he obviously has already, then I'm happy to give so that more can hear it.
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -3/+14It could be trying to show how much people support him. It's noteworthy when a bunch of people will show support like that.
- Ajajadude, on 10/21/2007, -10/+2If this was some sort of animal humane society or some kind of save the african aids kids drive, then ok, it's a worthy cause. This is politics. There's nothing worthy about giving your money to a politician.
- Kacela, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul is anything but politics as usual. Just listen to the man - you can tangibly sense he is telling the truth. He is what our country needs right now. That's why he is among the worthiest of all causes.
- Ajajadude, on 10/21/2007, -10/+2If this was some sort of animal humane society or some kind of save the african aids kids drive, then ok, it's a worthy cause. This is politics. There's nothing worthy about giving your money to a politician.
- bfeagan, on 10/21/2007, -1/+10It's a group thing. This 1 group pledges to do this, and they feel good when the money graph goes berserk. True, it will average out over time, but it's a group of people with a goal of contributing money, and a method to do it.
- greves, on 10/22/2007, -2/+15I think "moneybomb" style events encourage people to contribute that might normally not. I wouldn't have donated today if it weren't for the moneybomb, and I probably wouldn't be donating on November 5th if not for that campaign either. That puts me at probably $200 or so over what I would have donated if not for this sort of encouragement - it's a great thing to help RP but it's also nice to know that you're not the only one willing to give hard earned cash.
- ncairns, on 10/22/2007, -24/+8Maybe I can explain.
- annienyc4, on 10/22/2007, -10/+47Not a republican, and not a libertarian, but i donated $5. I just love his talking about why we were actually bombed, and not pretending it came out of nowhere. I hope people hear this all over the the U.S. and stop burying their head in the sand. It's PATHETIC that Giuliani got great applause for suggesting Ron Paul should shut his mouth up about the truth. F you giuliani and all the morons who have no idea why we got bombed and who go on the offense to anyone who says the truth, and f you all the people who buy that we're in iraq because we got bombed. I'm glad that Ron Paul speaks the truth and that he is bringing attention to the constitution that has been ignored. Sorry for my ramblings, but even though i'm a democrat, i love watching Ron Paul speak the truth.
- greves, on 10/21/2007, -3/+11Ron Paul speaks the truth, but you're not going to vote for him? That makes a lot of sense...
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -2/+121. There is nothing in that statement that I said "I wouldn't". 2, I'm a registered democrat, i can't vote for him in the primary. 3, I could want to hear him speak the truth and not necessarily want him to be president.
- feckineejit, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6SWITCH TO REPUBLICAN?
- nick111, on 10/21/2007, -4/+1But Republicans are always so corrupt.
- jhodapp, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7Are how do Democrats differ? Two sides to the same coin, they're both the same.
- Kacela, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3I switched to Republican so that I can support Dr. Pau in the primaries. When Ron Paul wins the nomination, I might actually remain a Republican, as I never knew what true Republican values actually were before Ron Paul came into my life.
- feckineejit, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6SWITCH TO REPUBLICAN?
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -2/+121. There is nothing in that statement that I said "I wouldn't". 2, I'm a registered democrat, i can't vote for him in the primary. 3, I could want to hear him speak the truth and not necessarily want him to be president.
- patrickHenry23, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8bro ..come on board the Ron Paul train. Drop the left/right, conservative/liberal mindset! Come on board!
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1hmmm. ok, i'll look into switching so i can vote for paul. i'll look into the cut off dates.
- annienyc4, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Shoot, i just checked. Cutoff was last week, i can't switch. :(. thanks though patrick. :).
- annienyc4, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1 ..
- annienyc4, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Shoot, i just checked. Cutoff was last week, i can't switch. :(. thanks though patrick. :).
- annienyc4, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1hmmm. ok, i'll look into switching so i can vote for paul. i'll look into the cut off dates.
- greves, on 10/21/2007, -3/+11Ron Paul speaks the truth, but you're not going to vote for him? That makes a lot of sense...
- jamaster5243, on 10/22/2007, -7/+31DIGG vs. mainstream media. Finally, a way the DIGG effect can directly help Ron Paul win! Help Ron Pauls message spread by Digging the "5th of November" movement. Even if you cant donate, DIGG it. Its time we decided who is heard, not the wealthy elite!
The Idea: 100,000 Ron Paul supporters donate $100 on November 5th. Giving him enough money at a critical time to get on the main stream media bandwagon and spread his message to ALL voters - not just those on the internet.
DIGG THIS!
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Digg_Effect_ ... - deadbaby, on 10/21/2007, -21/+8I like some of the things Ron Paul is saying but I find his positions on abortion and flag burning to be completely hypocritical. How can he claim to be a supporter of the constitution and personal freedom at the same time he wants to impose government control on women's bodies and free speech? He's not getting a cent from me. (but I sure do hope he runs as a third party and screws the Republican candidate)
- Birdoftruth, on 10/21/2007, -2/+19NO HE DOESN'T. Stop being so ignorant. He wants to control nothing at the Federal level. He wants YOU to decide (at the state level) what should happen. How can you blame him wanting you to decide on these issues.
- reed311, on 10/21/2007, -7/+3Ron Paul voted twice to ban abortion on a federal level. There goes that 'states rights' theory.
http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm- vinwal, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5He was an obstetrician that delivered over 4,000 babies, now what would you expect his position on abortion to be. I myself believe in pro-choice however I also believe that all the other issues that we are facing as a nation at this moment FAR outweigh the argument of abortion. Dr. Paul will definitely lead us into the direction towards a better future for our nation and future generations.
- TheNeptune, on 10/21/2007, -6/+0Oh, so he believes in the constitution when it's convenient for his motives? Ah I see - and how's this different than all the other candidates and presidents? He screams louder? Makes more promises?
Keep digging these comments down, but that doesn't make it any less true - you just like believing he's the amazing flawless candidate to guide us to freedom! The only people that can take us to freedom is ourselves, and RP can be a good president without being perfect, don't digg down a perfectly valid and correct comment out of denial - that's rather hypocritical and displays the same type of actions you blast Bush for. - Fragowell, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8How can you people keep making these claims? He voted to ban partial-birth abortions, which is hardly a ban on abortion on a federal level. Moreover, that hardly paints a complete picture of his stance on abortion. I don't know what's worse: the possibility that you KNOW this already and actively choose to be dishonest or the possibility that you really could be that ignorant.
From the very same list you got your info from at the link you provided, you can clearly see that he:
- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
Talk about blatant cherry picking of facts to distort the truth of a situation. - Xuvious, on 10/21/2007, -3/+4He voted to ban Partial Birth abortions. Which, btw, the SCOTUS has upheld.
So, the SCOTUS is wrong about this, but right about Roe v Wade?
See why it's murder: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
- reed311, on 10/21/2007, -7/+3Ron Paul voted twice to ban abortion on a federal level. There goes that 'states rights' theory.
- NightVortez, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7Well he, as a doctor, considers abortion to be murder, should that be in the hands of the woman?
Perhaps, perhaps not but that's why he wants to make it a state issue.- TheNeptune, on 10/21/2007, -5/+1I'll echo reed311:
"Ron Paul voted twice to ban abortion on a federal level. There goes that 'states rights' theory."
My two cents: Oh, so he believes in the constitution when it's convenient for his motives? Ah I see - and how's this different than all the other candidates and presidents? He screams louder? Makes more promises?
Keep digging these comments down, but that doesn't make it any less true - you just like believing he's the amazing flawless candidate to guide us to freedom! The only people that can take us to freedom is ourselves, and RP can be a good president without being perfect, don't digg down a perfectly valid and correct comment out of denial - that's rather hypocritical and displays the same type of actions you blast Bush for.- maxtangent, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1He believes that abortion is an assault on the fetus. She can abort a fetus one minute before birth, yet also sue the doctor if something goes wrong during the delivery.
A woman can do what she wants with her own body, but does that mean we stand around doing nothing if she wishes to cut her own arm off? We won't let her assault herself, but assaulting her fetus is all right? Who, exactly, is the one with hypocritical stances?
It seems YOU are the one who believes in the Constitution when it gives you rights, but not when it tries to protect the unborn.
- maxtangent, on 10/21/2007, -1/+1He believes that abortion is an assault on the fetus. She can abort a fetus one minute before birth, yet also sue the doctor if something goes wrong during the delivery.
- TheNeptune, on 10/21/2007, -5/+1I'll echo reed311:
- auzziedigger, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1If you didn't keep your head in the sand you'd realize that Ron Paul believes in state's rights for abortion, and concludes the constitution gives the Federal branch no right to either support or oppose abortion. Although Ron Paul personally opposes abortion (which is entirely understandable as he's worked as an OB/GYN all his life), he believes it's up to the states to decide on their laws.
- Birdoftruth, on 10/21/2007, -2/+19NO HE DOESN'T. Stop being so ignorant. He wants to control nothing at the Federal level. He wants YOU to decide (at the state level) what should happen. How can you blame him wanting you to decide on these issues.
- conceptkid, on 10/22/2007, -5/+15Heads up Dr. Paul, MONEY BOMB INCOMING!!!
- EndersGame, on 10/22/2007, -6/+19Expect donations to skyrocket if Fox still doesn't give Ron Paul the MUCH deserved top-tier candidate status at tomorrow's debate. That will be the last straw for me, instead of donating 100 dollars here and there I will donate my entire two weeks of pay, even if it ain't much. You hear that Fox? Get your act together.
- OffPiste, on 10/22/2007, -9/+20Who is Ron Paul?
- petefortunato, on 10/22/2007, -7/+13Ron Paul is a principled candidate for president.
I am excited to be able to vote for him.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.- OffPiste, on 10/22/2007, -6/+6This guy is awesome! We should try to get him to run for President in some future election. Do you thinks there a chance he will run? He probably doesn't stand a chance of winning though.
- Xill, on 10/22/2007, -4/+10 He's running for president right now and its the best chance you got to save America.
- rpi22, on 10/22/2007, -5/+8If Ron Paul doesn't win, there may never be another election in police state america...
- vinwal, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5I don't doubt that one bit.
- maxtangent, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4Oh, there will be elections with amazing Diebold efficiency and results that equal the recent Pakistan election where the winner received 98% of the vote.
- Herkimer56, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] –noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
- saqer, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2he's running for the 08 candidacy
- nick111, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2"Against regulating the internet" isn't what it seems.
He's against regulation Telcos who want to create a tiered internet - and thus impose restrictions of their own.
Libertarianism is Anarchy for the Rich. The impact of "Liberty" for individuals is fairly illusory in the face of de-regulated corporatism. People are grabbing hold of this idea with about the same level of thought/insiste that they used to vote for Bush in the first place.
If you make a gradient of what works/what doesn't clearly visible in the rest of the world... Libertarianism involves implementing policies that move down the slope, not up it.
- OffPiste, on 10/22/2007, -6/+6This guy is awesome! We should try to get him to run for President in some future election. Do you thinks there a chance he will run? He probably doesn't stand a chance of winning though.
- sinn98, on 10/22/2007, -5/+4i dunno some guy i guess
- petefortunato, on 10/22/2007, -7/+13Ron Paul is a principled candidate for president.
- reed311, on 10/22/2007, -21/+7Spam. Blog Spam link. And Digg shouldn't be used push the agenda of one candidate.
- SiNN4R, on 10/22/2007, -11/+1Mitt Romney for president!
- Crossmenjeff, on 10/22/2007, -3/+5while i'm not a fan of the "spam" aspect of it, why shouldn't a candidate use a new medium to help with his campaign? at least he is aware of the entire generation of people who use the internet as opposed to his other counterparts. And the fact we don't see any other headlines from other candidates tells me that no one from those campaigns recognize the users of digg as a worthy voting subsection. This to me is no different than handing out buttons, and we're at least lucky enough that every now and then we get in depth explanations of what the candidate thinks, how he votes, and what we could expect if we saw fit to make him president. this specific article shows that we do make a difference to the candidate, and in turn he will work to make a difference for us.
- maxtangent, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4Digg is used for whatever its community decides it is used for (within TOS and TOC).
- Graemebru, on 10/22/2007, -5/+19If you don't vote for Ron Paul, you probably don't deserve to live in a great country like America.
/Canadian- Herkimer56, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] –noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
- Herkimer56, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee] –noun Rhetoric.
- assmonger, on 10/22/2007, -3/+20http://thisnovember5th.com/
- Japan1, on 10/22/2007, -5/+13I love Ron Paul!
- Oronar, on 10/22/2007, -4/+8Oh my god! It's so obvious now! Ron Paul is V!
- KbuPlatinum, on 10/22/2007, -5/+4A man like Ron Paul is not cunning, cruel, or opportunistic enough to be elected president.
- maxtangent, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1Are you saying JFK was cruel? Some may consider that blasphemy.
- gjscds, on 10/22/2007, -9/+2I'd actually like to see this guy get in the race (i.e., truly competitive in the race). But I've gotta laugh--If anyone here thinks that 130k means anything in a national prez. election--you've got another thing coming.
- fluffyturtle, on 10/22/2007, -8/+4Sorry folks but he isn't going to be president.
I am not saying he shouldn't be but I will match whatever money he raises if he wins and donate it to charity.*
*No I won't because that would require selling my house and I won't be doing that. I felt like saying it anyways just because I felt like being as silly as anyone who believes enough of America will vote for this guy. - greves, on 10/22/2007, -4/+11WHY ISN'T THIS ON THE FRONT PAGE - "made popular 1 hr 4 min ago" means it ought to be on the "Popular" section. Did the Bury Brigade get this one too, or is Digg just that corrupt and run by the CIA these days? This is ridiculous!!!
- bamapachyderm, on 10/22/2007, -3/+5"is Digg just that corrupt and run by the CIA these days?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You owe me a keyboard!
- bamapachyderm, on 10/22/2007, -3/+5"is Digg just that corrupt and run by the CIA these days?"
- Russellk30, on 10/22/2007, -4/+8It would seem Digg has started a program of aggressive Ron Paul Censorship. Not one Ron Paul story that was made popular over the past week has managed to not get buried. I highly doubt the "bury brigade" could bury stories that were already made popular for an entire week without exception. Digg should be grateful that the Ron Paul campaign has brought them so many new users, but they show there gratitude with censorship.
- gjscds, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5Dang. You are Crazy. Seriously. Crazy.
Ever think about the reality that people are burying these stories because they're spam? He's irrelevant. You're irrelevant. Sorry. Deal with it.
- gjscds, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5Dang. You are Crazy. Seriously. Crazy.
- conceptkid, on 10/22/2007, -5/+7I emailed feedback@digg.com about this article and why it was immediately taken off the FP once it hit popular (I was watching it right as it hit popular and then it was instantly gone from the FP)and here is what they had to say.
"That article was reported by the community and subsequently buried.
Remember Digg is a democracy, and as such is subject to the democracy.
---Digg Support
Apparently one or two idiots who report the article override hundreds of diggs the article was recieving. I watched it get 100 diggs in 10 minutes. He/she did not say which violation this article was reported for, but I imagine it was 'spam' or some *****. I responded to their email, and havent heard back. I agree, if they want more traffic at this site, they should embrace Paul rather than censor him.- onetimer, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1one or two? Enjoy pulling figures out of your ass much? The algorithm takes into account the sockpuppet accounts that digg nothing but RP stories (look under users who dugg this story, you will find them), and the meaningful buries of users with actual credibility. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble that all your diggs are weighted the same.
For the record, I buried it under spam, because this is "article" is basically a ***** advert for ronpaulmoneybomb and is in no way actual news. It seems the majority agreed with me.
- onetimer, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1one or two? Enjoy pulling figures out of your ass much? The algorithm takes into account the sockpuppet accounts that digg nothing but RP stories (look under users who dugg this story, you will find them), and the meaningful buries of users with actual credibility. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble that all your diggs are weighted the same.
- Russellk30, on 10/22/2007, -5/+9Some people claim that Ron Paul stories are mostly Spam, but the beauty of Digg is that true Spam is actually buried. Ron Paul supporters often bury Ron Paul stories that are truly Spam as I also have done on many occasions. The very definition of online Spam states that it has to be unwanted by the vast majority of its recipients, but that is clearly not the case here.
It would be a fairly simple task for Digg to allow its users to filter out key words so those that do not want to hear about "Ron Paul" could filter out “Ron” and “Paul.” Digg should be grateful that our campaign has brought them so many new users, but they show their gratitude through direct censorship instead of fair treatment.
I suggest we start an email campaign asking Digg to treat Ron Paul stories just like any other stories and not let up until we get a response from them. Here are the contact emails for Digg. Let them know that we do not appreciate censorship.
feedback@digg.com
abuse@digg.com
press@digg.com
partners@digg.com - jasoo24, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0November 5th.
By the way, here's a simple site which basically keeps track of everything we can do to help Ron Paul win. Check it out and pass it on. Get the word out!
http://www.HelpRonPaul2008.com
Ron Paul 2008.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by