digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Under-Estimating Ron Paul?

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com — Ron Paul online popularity analysis

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -20/+129It will be interesting to see how the second half of the year goes campaign-wise for him. He's certainly in for the long haul as he hasn't been wasting much campaign money. I don't doubt the second half of his campaign will be a lot more exciting than the first.
    • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -71/+24Because we all know how accurate online statistics are.
    • PatNolan, on 10/11/2007, -75/+20The problem is that as great as we agree Ron Paul is, no way is he getting the Republican ticket. He has to be ready to declare as an independent.
    • submitted, on 10/11/2007, -65/+23Internet polls are useless, internet hype does you nothing.
      Case in point: Snakes on a plane.
      Ugh
      Memes on an internet!
    • AnotherCanadian, on 10/11/2007, -97/+27im canadian (and left wing), but i can see that ron paul has almost no support in the general public. this internet movement will no doubt fail
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -31/+139Why should we care what the general public in Canada thinks about our Presidential candidates?
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -51/+15As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul make it, he simply wont. The internet crowd (Diggers, Farkers, /.ers, etc) is a tiny, tiny part of the voting public. Guess what? All the Digg campaigns will not save Rons own campaign, because Digg is a tiny fleck of sand in the grand scheme of politics. He's simply not party-line enough to get the nomination no matter how much e-hype or money he has.
    • hoppdawg, on 10/11/2007, -26/+113Support his campaign by sending him a few bucks @ ronpaul2008.com
    • MrSpontaneous, on 10/11/2007, -36/+17Based on what kind of sampling?


      Thats like going to MormonsOnline.com (site unchecked), and noting that Romney will win the presidential race in a landslide.
    • torched, on 10/11/2007, -20/+167Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

      Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

      The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning to ask about; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, then called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us this morning that Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.

      Contact Information

      Edward Failor
      Iowans for Tax Relief
      2610 Park Avenue
      Muscatine, Iowa 52761
      Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
      Fax: 563-264-2413
      E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org

      Steve Sheffler, President
      Iowa Christian Alliance
      939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
      West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
      Phone: 515-225-1515
      Fax: 515-225-1826
      E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -60/+12Whoops, looks like some Diggers don't like being told that this site wont make more than the tiniest impact on the polls. I guess some Diggers don't like it when they don't feel big and important. Guess what, guys? This site is just one of a billion gunning for a particular candidate. Obviously, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the favorites on this one. I like Ron Paul, but he really doesn't have a chance.

      I think a lot of Diggers are disconnected from reality. Get away from the screen and live in the real world.
      • nicholai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Why don't YOU get away from the computer you ***** hypocrite? You sit here typing a long ass comment while you tell us to go live in the real world? You have no clue how retarded you look. At the time this comment was typed you had -46 diggs, go kill yourself.
        http://www.libertarianempire.com
    • keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -26/+48And why is a liar like Juliani getting so much support? Because he is corrupt like the rest of them.
    • swiftekho, on 10/11/2007, -14/+84Ron Paul is showing us how a campaign should be run.
    • Kazbaeden, on 10/11/2007, -28/+79Leave it to digg to think the Internet is indicative of the real world.
    • victoitor, on 10/11/2007, -6/+28@ jcm267

      You might not care, but it certainly does matter. If the US wants to bully the entire world, everyone should look closely into this election. We don't want another Bush causing so much instability in the world.

      You still might not care, but it is good for others to voice their opinion. More support for the right candidates can make a difference, even if it was not originated inside the US. That specially since the media outside your little world tends to be much better than the American one. Voicing an opinion is a good way to contribute.
    • emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -8/+60@TheFinaleofSeem

      I would love to see Ron Paul in office but I'm aware he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican different. Given this though, why should my support be any different? Am I only supposed to support the candidates perceived as likely winners? It kind of takes the point out of an election. If we ALL make our votes on who has the best shot at winning, none of us really has a choice. Whoever the media shows as "top-tier" on day one will end up winning.

      You make the assertion that Ron Paul supporters on Digg are out of touch with reality, and then go on to say you like Ron Paul. It's your kind of awful attitude that makes me so certain Ron Paul can win, because no matter how much support he has, people like you are always going to vote for the candidates they're steered towards. YOU get real. Everybody always complains about having to pick from the lesser of two evils when THEY'RE the ones that put them there. I don't care if you think it's wasting your vote, nobody serious about a change will vote based on who they're told is popular.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+55I just donated $100 dollars so apparently hes doing something right given I didn't donate to any candidate during the last election. Maybe its because I don't get the feeling that everything is sugar coated like when I hear democrats speak and maybe its because he told us that he would keep his personal faith away from politics because it has no place in it and because his foreign policy actually has reason and logic in it.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11@victoitor

      I'll give the British press respect, but the rest of the world's press? I don't think they're better than our's at all. I wish our press was more like Britain's, in that there's diversity of opinion, some of the best journalists in the world both print and television, and their outlets openly say what their editorial slant is. Compare of what we have which is a bunch of center-left and far left wing outlets who claim to be objective, and a handful of right wing outlets who claim to be objective.
    • sketchydave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+46I read the first few sentences of the article:
      "I'm a passionate Ron Paul supporter, as are very many people approximately my age. I don't have a landline telephone, I’m not a registered Republican and I get practically all of my news from “alternative” resources (such as your blog). People like me are not on the pollsters’ radar. "

      Key words here are "not a registered Republican." The majority of primaries are closed primaries. Its difficult to find a consistent number as primaries vary by state and are continually changing. FairVote.org keeps a tally and 27 of the states are closed primaries, 18 are open, and 5 have certain restrictions on them:
      http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801

      If you live in a state that is closed you CANNOT participate in the party's primary. If you want to vote for Ron Paul, or another Republican candidate, or a Democratic candidate for that matter, you MUST REGISTER FOR THAT PARTY. Its not that you don't matter to pollsters, its that you simply don't matter at all.

      I really, really get irritated at people who are passionate about politics but then don't vote. If you want to help Ron Paul, or any other candidate, for Christ's sake register and show up to the Polls!!!
    • cobrabyte, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29@torched

      Very sorry to hear that R. Paul wasn't invited. I'm sure I'm not the only one who kicked off an email to the addresses provided to inquire about his forced absence.

      Sad ... the champion of tax reform won't be at this one.
    • benjpw, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10It would be REALLY interesting to get a demographic survey of the Ron Paul supporter crowd. I think it would match the extropian crowd of the early 90s .com bubble era - and by that I mean primarily white, male, heterosexual middle and upper class savvy tech users. While there is nothing wrong with this demographic it does not respresent the broad and dispirate interests of most of America, especially those who do not already have their piece of the pie and can not afford to partcipate in the market wins all strategy espoused by Paul and libertarians.

      Anyways good luck campaigning... at least you all give a damn, more then you can say for most people in our country. :)
    • victoitor, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3@ jcm267

      I lived in the US, Brazil and now Canada. The Brazilian press is much better. Don't know about the Canadian one yet.
    • sketchydave, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22@benjpw
      Dugg your comment, I am a Ron Paul supporter, white, middle-class and in my late 20s working in tech. My fiance is also a Ron Paul supporter. We both came from poorer working-class households that worked very hard to help us get a college education. She is a lifelong Republican, I am an Independent turned Republican. I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in a small federal government and think that the states should have more rights. The current administration is certainly not fulfilling that so I am trying to vote for a candidate that will. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination but makes a good showing in the primary; enough votes will show the Republican party that we are serious and take notice, maybe even get him in as a VP.

      In a two-party system your best hope is to be active in the primaries and bring about discussion on all sides. Like you said at least we give a damn and we're all talking. Thanks again.
    • Zarxrax, on 10/11/2007, -10/+29"Leave it to digg to think the Internet is indicative of the real world."

      Comments like this drive me bonkers by the sheer stupidity of the concept. What the hell do you think all the content on the internet is, just figments of everyone's imagination? Is it all just created by machines? The internet is made up of PEOPLE, and thus the internet *IS* the real world, moron. It's every bit as real as any church, school, college campus, or town hall meeting.
    • diggrific, on 10/11/2007, -27/+5Over 30 stories concerning Ron Paul were submitted today.

      That is a rabid fan base, and damned annoying.

      I bury all stories about Ron Paul.

      More Digg users need to also.
    • sicksb, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3it will be interesting to see if a man with two first names can get elected as mayor of crazytown.
    • wocket, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14@Zarxrax
      Thank you. I'm tired of hearing what the "general public" thinks. I have no idea who people think that the "general public" is made up of. WE are the general public. EVERYONE is part of one group or another, and we ALL make up a whole. That's why posts that say, "There is no support for a candidate in the 'general public,'" are dead wrong. People need to realize that the internet is posted to by PEOPLE from the "general public"

      fin
    • ratbear, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4Ron Paul = the next Howard Dean. A fervent but small contingent of online activists inflate his perceived popularity, only to see it come crashing dramatically down to earth in a spectacular and morbidly fascinating flame out when the actual primary voting takes place. Also, said supporters see any perceived slight against their candidate as a personal attack, and lash out appropriately.
    • danconia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8PS for those of you on Facebook, Ron Paul now has the largest GOP Facebook group. Click here to check it out and consider joining:
      http://usc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737
    • kylebrothert, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Hey ratbear,

      You don't get it. We're not concerned with picking the likely winner. Why?... Because there's no prize awarded.

      So instead, we pick the best candidate in our opinion. If you like the Constitution, civil rights, and low taxes; and don't like socialism and perpetual war: Ron Paul is the only game in town. Plus he's well qualified, consistent, and honest. So we don't really have a choice.
    • Netwarrior, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24Some people have researched info that may explain Paul's exclusion, I will cut and paste some below. First, Failor works for JOHN McCAIN 2008, INC. as a Senior Advisor in Iowa:

      http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2008/mccain/mccainorgia.html

      Senior Advisor Ed Failor, Jr.
      (announced Jan. 23, 2007) Executive Vice President of Iowans for Tax Relief. Senior political advisor to Gov. George Pataki's 21st Century Freedom PAC (announced June 14, 2006; part of initial leadership team; departure reported Nov. 21, 2006). During the 2004 presidential campaign Failor served as executive director of Iowa Victory 2004, helping Bush to carry the battleground state.

      In addition, he's a financial supporter of McCain:

      Edward Failor Contribution List in 2008
      Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
      Amount Date Primary/
      General Contibuted To
      Failor, Edward D Mr. Jr.
      MUSCATINE, IA
      52761 Iowans For Tax Relief/Executive Vic $250 03/31/2007 P JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican
      Failor, Edward D Mr. Jr.
      MUSCATINE, IA
      52761 Iowans For Tax Relief/Executive Vic $1,000 03/31/2007 P JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican

      Here's a letter someone's sent out about it to different news sources:

      Dear Editor,

      An organization called "Iowans for Tax Relief" is joining with the Iowa Christian Alliance to host a forum for Republican presidential candidates on June 30. All of the first and second tier Republican candidates were invited to attend, with one notable exception.

      Today it came to light that Representative Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, was not invited to attend. This seemed very odd, considering the fact that Dr. Paul has received the "Taxpayer's Friend Award" from the National Taxpayers Union, holds very strong positions on the constitutionality of the IRS, and has never voted to raise taxes during his ten terms in Congress. One would think that this kind of candidate would be ideal at a forum sponsored by the so-called Iowans for Tax Relief.

      When a columnist from LewRockwell.com contacted Mr. Ed Failor, Jr., the organization's executive vice president and the man in charge of the event, to ask why Dr. Paul had been excluded, Mr. Failor simply said that Ron Paul was not invited and would not be allowed to participate because he was not a "credible" candidate.

      Again, this didn't make sense. What made Mr. Failor decide that Dr. Paul is not a "credible" candidate, even as he invited such also-rans as Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter"? This merited a little more investigation.

      Some deeper digging has revealed the truth. It turns out that Mr. Failor has clear and selfish motives for excluding Dr. Paul from the forum. Mr Failor, you see, is a Senior Campaign Advisor for none other than John McCain. Perhaps he knows that Dr. Paul's clear-cut record on issues of taxation, accompanied by his persuasive oratory, would trump his own candidate's views on the issue. Mr Failor obviously views Dr. Paul as a threat to his own candidate's success, and so has opted to underhandedly exclude him from the forum.

      I believe that the people of Iowa, and particularly the members of Iowans for Tax Relief, need to be made aware that the executive vice president of this organization is clearly not acting in the best interests of the organization's members. If he truly cared about tax relief, and if he truly had the members' best interests at heart, he would allow them to hear from the candidate who has the strongest record, out of all the Republican hopefuls, of being on the taxpayers' side . It is clear, however, that Mr. Failor is more concerned about his political cronyism and supporting John McCain's presidential bid than he is with working for true tax relief for the Iowan taxpayers he claims to support.

      Please expose Mr. Failor's machiavellian scheming for what it is -- an underhanded attempt, at the expense of the members of his own organization, to marginalize a candidate who presents a clear threat to his own boss's presidential bid.

      Thank you in advance for publicizing this important matter.

      Most sincerely,

    • itsonlyme, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7slscheffler@iowachristian.com

      Mr. Sheffler,

      I hope you take the time to reconsider not issuing Dr. Paul an invitation to the Presidential Candidates Forum. Many undecided voters are interested in his positions. I won't consider the event anything more then a party booster meeting without Dr. Paul's attendance.

      Thank you

    • dictum, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0I live in New Jersey, New Jersey votes for democrat. End of story. Good luck though.
    • bobbknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Look more than half the voters in the USA are still not online enough to get exposure to Ron Paul, the MSM keeps him down and out.
      The first time the NYT give him a favorable article will be the turning of the USA to freedom of, by and for the people.
    • misconstrued, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3DIGG THIS: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_Ron_Paul_Censorship_Continues_Excluded_by_Iowans_for_Tax_Relief_WTF

      It's been buried as Spam by anti-Ron Paul people. 737 Diggs so far and it's never made the main page! Let's get it to 1,000. KEEP DIGGING!

      DIGG THIS: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_Ron_Paul_Censorship_Continues_Excluded_by_Iowans_for_Tax_Relief_WTF

      Ron Paul was banned by the Iowans for Tax Relief forum! ALL OTHER CANDIDATES WERE INVITED! The forum is run by one of McCain's campaign guys in Iowa!

      DIGG THIS: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_Ron_Paul_Censorship_Continues_Excluded_by_Iowans_for_Tax_Relief_WTF
    • mickrussom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I love Ron Paul, the last hope for America. Ron PAUL!
  • wintermd, on 10/29/2007, -157/+18spam, dugg down
    • greves, on 10/11/2007, -14/+73Do you just go around posting this on all the Ron Paul digg articles?
    • foofighter20x, on 10/11/2007, -25/+20@greves

      Because his opinion holds some weight around here...

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... I'm just jokin'.
    • keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -23/+8http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/How_do_you_make_FOX_pay_attention_to_Ron_Paul

      I dont care if you go to the blog or not, I just want fox to hear what the people think!
    • emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26@dougless

      It may seem a bit out of proportion online, but in the greater scope of exposure as a whole, I think it's close to being balanced out. The mainstream media disproportionately mentions candidates that they consider to be frontrunners, so Ron Paul supporters are really just making up for it. You can't expect something as uncontrollable as the Internet to be "fair" when our news outlets - who have a DUTY to the public to be honest and fair - aren't.
  • seeversjm, on 10/11/2007, -10/+20Unfortunately its not always about the money that can be given, its about the vote that is cast and we can only cast one.
    • yamyogurt, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19@seeversjm

      In a way you are right but statistically the person the spends the most money on their campaign goes the furthest in the polls.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+46you vote with your wallet, thats the way capitalism works
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9yamyogurt, where's your statistics?
      the most well liked candidates can underspend the other and win.
      ref: freakonomics.
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18@seeversjm

      Then get the message out and be heard. Lots of people only think that they should vote for "viable" candidates and feel that voting for the little guy is throwing away their vote (don't even get me into the maddening circular-trap that this causes... in summation, most people are sheep)... so we need to help build the support so that by the time people are ready to cast their vote, Ron Paul's campaign is at full speed. If he's going to be elected, he needs to keep making the news and keep being heard. How else will that happen if his supporters quit before he even starts.
    • sonochamp, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Unfortunately, the only thing standing in Ron Paul's way right now is the Republican Primaries.... voted on by registered Republicans. Truth is, right now, the popular vote or even the popular public opinion of Ron Paul is almost unimportant. The real question is how popular is Ron Paul amongst republicans. Something tells me that most of the support he's getting isn't from the Republican Party. The price of being honest in a dishonest game, unfortunately.
      But, I still have hope.
    • atheinostic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5"you vote with your wallet, thats the way capitalism works"

      ballot != marketplace

      Voting with your wallet might be the way capitalism works, but it sure as hell isn't the way democracy works.
  • NachoBusiness, on 10/11/2007, -49/+70Now if only his rabid Digg base can get rides from their moms to vote on election day... he could climb as high as 2% in "real world" support.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -45/+27No perhaps you would like a ride in my 07 Porsche boxer which proudly displays my Ron Paul 2008 Bumper sticker. Or perhaps you would like a ride in my 05 Hummer which has a huge Ron Paul Tire Cover? Which one can I drive you to work in and educate you on the facts of Ron Paul's anti-tax stand, freedom and liberty stand, Anti-NAFTA stand or anti- Real Id Act. Because you may not have taken the time to understand the real issues we face our children face.

      Ron Paul has supporters from all levels of life. From college students and he may be the first candidate which will actually inspire them to vote. He is supported by small business owners who are millionaires and during the last debate I had over 121 people at my home.

      I think it's rather important to note. I asked the question regarding party support and this is what we counted.

      I asked how many republicans are here? Seventy five raised their hands

      How many democrats? 31

      How many other? 7

      How many are not registered to vote? 8.

      So apart what some people may think Paul may garner more cross party votes then any other former republican while appealing to the true conservatives.

      By the way Paul is on the cover of "The American Conservative" the headlines read: The Ron Paul moment The Debate the Republican Party Wants to Avoid.

      Also, I noticed Newsmax stated yesterday from a Poll that the only person who could beat Hillary was Ron Paul.

    • brianbb98, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18@darel99

      you have 2 cars. we get it.




      but yeah.... GO RON PAUL!!!
    • PowerLlama, on 10/11/2007, -9/+45Wow, you put a bumper sticker on a 45 thousand dollar car, and you don't even spell the name of it correctly.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -26/+4Hey Powerliama,

      Good point I don't have my reading glasses to post... So I made a mistake the point is the person I offered a repplied to wanted to suggest Paul supporters are poor college kids. Get it?
    • jcarrion1976, on 10/11/2007, -10/+12Gees, you're one pessimistic prick.

      Even if he doesn't get the presidency at least he is helping to awaken people. The discussion amidst Americans about their liberty and government is priceless. The people have been asleep to long.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Ah, so darel99, you're a rich, spoiled college kid. Gotcha.

      If you are in college, you're acting like a child.
      • ferosh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I don't understand. Nacho claims all Ron Paul supporters would need a ride from their mother in a way to imply they're all poor and should be looked down upon. Darel offers much evidence against this claim in a calm way and he's accused of being rich, spoiled, and a child. I guess disdain of the poor and envy of the rich is alive and well.
    • Mellowchimp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11'during the last debate I had over 121 people at my home. '
      122?
    • mikasaur, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Yeah...the problem with Ron Paul support is that a lot of it is coming from younger people, probably most of which aren't registered Republicans. The only way he'd have a chance is if all of his supporters voted en mass in the primary. Problem is most of them probably can't even vote in the Republican primary.

      I joined Republican so I can vote for folk like Dr. Paul. I'll do my part, but I'm afraid it won't be much good....
    • mixelplfft, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8someone needs to do a step by step break down on PRECISELY what one needs to go through to register as a republican. i'm talking really simple 1, 2, 3 - simple...

      action needs to be taken and it all starts with getting organized. break it down into small bitesized pieces and keep the ball rolling...

      nothing is impossible if you want it bad enough...not even change.
    • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I love how people think that 'everyone else' on the internet is 14. Do you really think 14 year olds care about politics? Of course not. Your ad hominem argument is weak. I am 26 and, for the first time in my life, I am excited about a political candidate. You know why? It's because, up to this point, all I've witnessed was corrupt businessmen using their financial backing to gain political power. I can't wait till the 'television' generations die off, so that the more informed generations can make decisions that won't send our country further down the downward spiral. Television is so far from the truth and most people get all of their information from it. Stupid *****. Ohh and I re-registered as a Republican, specifically for the primaries.
    • vmjarvis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're a tard there are millions of people who are pumped about Ron Paul and I am one of them almost all of us are car owning colleges students and young professionals.
  • taylbx3, on 10/11/2007, -37/+7@Nacho

    do you understand how inflation is killing our country?

    You are a fool or an agent.

    • NachoBusiness, on 10/11/2007, -21/+18Wow thanks for proving my point about his rabid base. Accusing anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you of being an idiot or an FBI agent is exactly why his supporters can't get any traction. Act like kids and people will treat you like kids.
    • ncairns, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18That's right - he is an agent, Mr. Anderson.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8Hear hear. I'm getting sick to death of polarized idiots (who are not confined to any part of the political spectrum) getting indignant and claiming that if you don't agree with them, you're either an agent of the Big Evil Guys™ or an idiot.

      And what Nacho said in his initial post is correct. Digg is nothing in the grand scheme of politics. All the Diggers clambering for Ron Paul or Mike Gravel wont amount to .1% in the polls, assuming they actually vote.
    • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5what i am sick of is how if i say i don't agree with Paul suddenly i suck and i dint know *****.

      Give me the day when a intelligent conversation about politics can happen here.

      Is it that bad that i don't think he is a good candidate.
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19@catfish

      No, there have been plenty of times I've seen opposing sides in the comments of a digg article being dugg up. It's not about opposition, it's about having a valid argument... which coincidentally is why you feel the way you do--you just say "i dont like ron paul" and leave it at that, then are shocked when people digg you down. C'mon man.
    • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2fivestarsoul

      There i posted a argument and i have already been dugg down.

      does that prove that pro Paul will digg down bad posts made by people who are not?
  • AnObserver, on 10/11/2007, -13/+39That's okay. Keep underestimating Ron Paul. The underdog has a way of doing the unexpected. You see, this way you get to be surprised when Ron Paul is successful. It'll be like getting caught with your pants down.
    • Platypus3333, on 10/11/2007, -14/+29There are underdogs, and then there are underdogs. At this point, I feel Ron Paul is basically a Republican Nader- he's great and interesting, but realistically does not have a significant chance.

      Before I am dug down, this is not an incendiary troll post and represents my honest appraisal of the situation.
    • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4yeah you will see. ron will go big! i say big!

      Ron paul will kick c norris ass
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6@catfish... and I'm also wondering why, just the next comment up, you said,

      "what i am sick of is how if i say i don't agree with Paul suddenly i suck and i dint know *****.

      Give me the day when a intelligent conversation about politics can happen here.

      Is it that bad that i don't think he is a good candidate."

      What the ***** is wrong with you?
    • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3fivestarsoul

      well this one was what i feel is how people act about him here. The other one is serious.

      I have said before that i feel that Ron Paul has not done anything to really set himself as a person of the people.
      I have said that i think that he says the things he does cause he knows that he will not get the nod to run for president for this party.
      But to one point if i say i don't like him do i have to prove myself?

      What if i don't like the feeling i get? What if no matter what i feel like i can not trust him?
      It would be hard to prove a feeling and for that i would get dugg down.

      I also feel these stories are planted half the time by people working for him. That many people here on Digg hate bush and cant stand the republican party but they want to vote for another republican? That isn't making a lot of sense to me, why would a person vote for a party that is positive that we should be at war? true you can say that not everyone feels the same as Adolf bush but when it comes down to it if you say you are a member of a political party then you are saying you support the views of the party. That is the point of joining one.

      I consider myself independent. I have voted for both parties many times and independents. I look at each candidate for what they offer and how they can help me and where i live. Sometimes, due to the 2 party system i feel, i have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils as its hard to know how some candidates feel. Its not the best way to look at things but it is a fact of life sometimes. So having Paul posts here on Digg is good as people can get to know him BUT if i don't like him then why will i get dugg down? cause i cant prove it? you are asking me why i post retarded ***** sometimes but not everyone thinks its retarded or else i would have a lot more digg downs.

      Now as for proof he isn't that great?

      bashibazouk + 0 diggs
      "Say what you will, but I took a look at his voting record in the house. He votes no on most items and when he does vote yes, the bill usually doesn't make it to a vote in the Senate. You may call that a conspiracy but I would say he’s a poor legislator. If you can’t make deals all the way through the process, you either suck at it or you are on the lunatic fringe. Either way it’s not exactly a recipe for a good President. "

      So what does he have to do now? go though each and ever vote to show or can we take him on his word that he is a intelligent person and he may have a point.

      So there a serious post. Will it matter? doubt it since i don't think Paul is that great and its that which will get me and others who don't like him dugg down. Now is that free speech from supporters for a guy that says free speech is what we need??

      Let me know what you think

      o and i dugg both your comments cuase i do agree with them :)
    • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3This all but proves my point.

      Can any of you wonderful Ron Paul Supporters show me a anti Paul comment that has been dugg up?

      its all ways a excuse as to why its dugg down. this but all proves that the so called freedom of speech advocate cant even make his own supporters respect people that don't agree with Paul. So what does that say of your candidate?
  • mastermind59, on 10/11/2007, -37/+14Ron Paul is full of *****, he claims that he is for the constitution but is against the separation of church and state.
    • AnObserver, on 10/11/2007, -6/+35What is your evidence he is against the separation of church and state. He is against all institutions. He is FOR the separation of the individual and all (church and state).
    • brianbb98, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22he thinks its for the states to decide.
    • ncairns, on 10/11/2007, -27/+10@brianbb98

      In other word; he's ***** stupid.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18@brianbb98
      I don't even know if that's his view, but absolutely not, the states do not get to decide on separation of church and state, just like they don't get to decide whether or not to have free speech or quartering of soldiers.
    • mikewhite314, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Here is evidence: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

      He goes along with the idea that separation of church and state was not really intended by the founders to be as strong as it is, and he is wrong. Until recently I was a supporter of his, and I thought I could live with his social conservatism (though it is troubling that he wants to leave abortion up to the states). But then I read that. Here is a good criticism of that piece: http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-on-seperation-of-church-and.html

      He clearly hasn't actually read the Constitution if he thinks it is "replete with references to God", when it actually has zero. He is too socially conservative for America, and I hope that his internet supporters, a lot of whom are probably liberal or moderate but like what he says about our government, will realize this. Any self-respecting secularist cannot vote for him.
    • foofighter20x, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13@Mike

      Where is Congress expressly given the power to legislate on abortion, hmm? After you fail to find where it is, read the 10th Amendment before you come back with an answer, ok?
    • mikewhite314, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2perhaps it is not, but In my personal opinion the right to choose is too important an issue to let strict constitutionalism (or even more moderate anti-judicial activism) get in the way of what is, IMO, the right outcome, and that is where I differ from Ron Paul or many of his supporters who I suspect have liberal social views.
  • juicebag, on 10/11/2007, -23/+47Look, it's a blog mentioning Ron Paul, lets post it on Digg!
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7

      Hey bag...

      Thats a great idea post the article. I'll vote it up if it's a great article and offers honest answers about paul. If not I will digg it down just as it should be.
  • digitallysick, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6I think he should stay on the republican ticket, even though he sounds like a great democrat or independent. Maybe half of the voters from the south that just go to the voting boots and just press republican for everything might accidently vote for him =) We should use this to our advantage
  • realwx, on 10/11/2007, -22/+6Digg me down, but I hate seeing Ron Paul stuff on the frontpage of digg. Ron Paul has some okay ideas, (and definitely smarter than Bush) but I'm sorry that the liberatarians had to side with the GOP.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Al Franken once said that Bush was the smartest man he had ever met. I don't have a link but it was on a CNBC discussion between Franken (pre radio show) and Tucker Carlson with Tim Russert moderating. Might've been a Meet the Press... might've been something else. I just know there were others watching it with me and I'm not the only one who remembers seeing this.
    • realwx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5jcm267:

      Which Bush was he talking about?
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6@jcm267

      That statement needs to be taken in its proper context, which is basically a slap against Bush's credibility. He's stating that Bush can fool the people into thinking he's more clueless than he is while doing whatever he wants behind closed doors. There's no way anyone that stupid would be president and Franken is respective of the skill it takes to pull off that deception on a daily basis.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4He said this sometime early in the presidency... I think in early 2002. He said he met Bush sometime in the late 90s and even said that the guy comes across a lot better in person when he's not giving prepared speeches. Remember the bullhorn speech? That was unscripted, and that's when he does best. The man has a learning disability, in case you people still haven't noticed....

      I don't think it was a slap at Bush's credibility, but I might be wrong. Thanks for responding with a real comment, BTW.
  • brianbb98, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25.06 cents or .06 dollars ???


    :)
    • CAPSLOCKISCOOL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2arent they the same thing?
    • jibbityjab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+60.06 cents (6/100ths of a cent)

      Isn't that how much coupons are redeemable for? They always say something like "Actual cash value 6/100 cent".
      • nicholai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Speaking of coupons, at least they are worth more than federal reserve notes! We need to go back to the gold standard.
    • Toupee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Oh, Verizon, hee hee.


      EDIT: ... *****, digg that ***** down. Verizon, tee hee? My bad.
    • joechip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1give the Fed enough time and they'll be the exact same thing.

      Ta,
      • nicholai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Their currency is already about 6 percent of what it originally was. The united states is going to die thanks to the fed.
  • booga1134, on 10/11/2007, -29/+3I saw Ron Paul on Fox News so he's alright now. He was on all those flaming Liberal shows like The Dairy Show and The Coldbear Report but now that he's made an appearance on FOX NEWS, he's not so bad.
    • Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12You do know that Ron Paul (a republican) was basically praised on the "flaming liberal shows" and smeared and badmouthed on the "fair and balanced" Fox News, don't you? Your automatic assumption that his appearance on Fox News gains him any more mainstream credibility is so wrong, because all they do when he's mentioned on Fox News is bash and smear him. I shudder when people like you decide to vote. Your ignorance speaks volumes about Fox News viewers.
    • nicholai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Booga is proof that retards should not be allowed to vote.
      http://www.libertarianempire.com/FOX.html
  • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Shouldn't the apostrophe come before the "08", not after?
  • chetchez, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22> Obama’s group can only muster .06 cents
    That's equal to 6/100th of a dollar in Verizon math!
  • knulpm, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Bleh, it's all about Romney now. And I, for one, welcome our new Mormon overlords.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Romney has that "electability" thing about him. I honestly think that, barring a Bloomberg spoiler, the race is for the Republicans to lose if the Democrats nominate Hillary or Obama.
    • ncairns, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3@jcm267

      That's interesting considering most polls show Obama beating any Republican candidate.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3That's because right now most of the publci is going 100% on his image. They don't know anything about him, and once they do a lot of people will be turned off. Besides, last I heard (this morning) Hillary was beating Obama by over 10 percentage points
    • Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I hope Mitt Romney loses and gets laughed at BECAUSE he's a Mormon. He'll get to see what it's like to be persecuted and not elected purely on his beliefs, just like us Atheists have been since the beginning of time. How does it feel now? Frustrating, isn't it?
      • nicholai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I hope Mitt Romney loses as well, but not for the same reason.
        Romney, Torture, and Teens
        The former governor's connections to abusive "tough love" camps

        When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he’d support doubling the size of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, he was trying to show voters that he’d be tough on terror. Two of his top fundraisers, however, have long supported using tactics that have been likened to torture for troubled teenagers.

        As The Hill noted last week, 133 plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Romney’s Utah finance co-chair, Robert Lichfield, and his various business entities involved in residential treatment programs for adolescents. The umbrella group for his organization is the World wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS, sometimes known as WWASP) and Lichfield is its founder and is on its board of directors.

        The suit alleges that teens were locked in outdoor dog cages, exercised to exhaustion, deprived of food and sleep, exposed to extreme temperatures without adequate clothing or water, severely beaten, emotionally brutalized, and sexually abused and humiliated. Some were even made to eat their own vomit.

        But the link to teen abuse goes far higher up in the Romney campaign. Romney’s national finance co-chair is a man named Mel Sembler. A long time friend of the Bushes, Sembler was campaign finance chair for the Republican party during the first election of George W. Bush, and a major fundraiser for his father.

        Like Lichfield, Sembler also founded a nationwide network of treatment programs for troubled youth. Known as Straight Inc., from 1976 to 1993, it variously operated nine programs in seven states. At all of Straight’s facilities, state investigators and/or civil lawsuits documented scores of abuses including teens being beaten, deprived of food and sleep for days, restrained by fellow youth for hours, bound, sexually humiliated, abused and spat upon.

        According to the L.A. Times, California investigators said that at Straight teens were “subjected to unusual punishment, infliction of pain, humiliation, intimidation, ridicule, coercion, threats, mental abuse… and interference with daily living functions such as eating, sleeping and toileting.”

        Through a spokesperson, Lichfield has dismissed the similar charges against WWASPS to The Hill as “ludicrous,” claiming that the teens who sued “have a long history of lying, fabricating and twisting the story around to their own benefit.”

        Straight would use virtually identical language in its denials: In the 1990 L.A. Times article cited above, a Straight counselor downplayed the California investigators’ report by saying, “Some kids get very upset and lie and some parents believe them.” Both Straight and WWASPS have repeatedly called their teen participants “liars” and “manipulators” who oppose the programs because they want to continue taking drugs or engage in other bad behavior.

        Curiously, however, both programs regularly admitted teens who did not actually have serious problems. In 1982, 18-year-old Fred Collins, a Virginia Tech student with excellent grades, went to visit his brother, who was in treatment for a drug problem at Straight in Orlando, Florida.

        A counselor determined that he was high on marijuana because his eyes were red (this would later turn out to have been due to swimming in a pool with contacts on). He did admit to occasional marijuana use, but insisted he was not high at the time, nor was he an addict. Nonetheless, he was barraged with hours of humiliating questions, strip-searched, and held against his will for months until he managed to escape.

        He won $220,000 in a lawsuit he filed against the program for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. Ultimately, Straight would pay out millions in settlements before it finally closed. However, to this day, there are at least eight programs operating that use Straight’s methods, often in former Straight buildings operated by former Straight staff. They include: Alberta Adolescent Recovery Center (Canada), Pathway Family Center (Michigan, Indiana, Ohio), Growing Together (Florida), Possibilities Unlimited (Kentucky), SAFE (Florida), and Phoenix Institute for Adolescents (Georgia).

        Sembler has never admitted to the problems with Straight's methods. In fact, when he recently served as Ambassador to Italy, he listed it among his accomplishments on his official State Department profile. Although all of the programs with the Straight name are closed, the nonprofit Straight Foundation that funded them still exists, though under a different name. It's now called the Drug Free America Foundation, and it lobbies for drug testing and in support of tougher policies in the war on drugs.

        One of the plaintiffs in the current case against WWASPS, 21-year-old Chelsea Filer, spoke to me when I was researching a TV segment on the industry. She told me that she was forced to walk for miles on a track in scorching desert heat with a 35-pound sandbag on her back. “You were not allowed to scratch your face, move your fingers, lick your lips, move your eyes from the ground,” she said. When she asked for a chapstick, “They put a piece of wood in my mouth and I had to hold it there for two weeks. I was bleeding on my tongue.”

        Why was Filer subject to such punishment? “I had less interest in school and more interest in boys and my mom was worried about me,” she says, explaining that her mother believed that the program was nothing more than a strict boarding school.

        Because she has attention deficit disorder, Filer was unable to consistently follow the exacting rules, and repeated small violations were seen as ongoing defiance. “It broke my heart that my mom had no belief in me,” she says, describing how, because WWASPS had told her mother to dismiss complaints as “manipulation,” her mother ignored her pleas to come home.

        “I’m not a bad kid,” she continued, “I never used drugs, I was never in trouble, I have no criminal record. I know my mom was worried about me—but so many times I told her that this is too much. I would gladly have gone to prison instead.”

        WWASPS is linked with facilities Academy at Ivy Ridge (New York), Carolina Springs Academy (South Carolina), Cross Creek Programs (Utah), Darrington Academy (Georgia), Horizon Academy (Nevada), Majestic Ranch Academy (Utah), MidWest Academy (Iowa), Respect Camp (Mississippi), Royal Gorge Academy (Colorado), Spring Creek Lodge (Montana), and Tranquility Bay (Jamaica).

        Although it has settled several lawsuits out of court, the organization has never publicly admitted wrong-doing. However, the U.S. State Department spurred Samoa to investigate its Paradise Cove program in 1998 after receiving “credible allegations of physical abuse,” including “beatings, isolation, food and water deprivation, choke-holds, kicking, punching, bondage, spraying with chemical agents, forced medication, verbal abuse and threats of further physical abuse.” Paradise Cove closed shortly thereafter. That same year, the Czech Republic forced the closure of WWASP-linked Morava Academy following employees’ allegations that teens were being abused.

        The former director of the Dundee Ranch Academy Program in Costa Rica went to local authorities after seeing medical neglect and other severe abuse, although human rights abuse charges were ultimately dropped against the owner, Robert Lichfield’s brother Narvin. That program closed in 2003.

        Police in Mexico have shut down three WWASP-linked facilities: Sunrise Beach (1996), Casa By The Sea (2004) and High Impact (where police videotaped the teens chained in dog cages).

        In 2005, New York’s Eliot Spitzer forced WWASP to return over $1 million to the parents of Academy at Ivy Ridge students, because the school had fraudulently claimed to provide legitimate New York high school diplomas. He fined Ivy Ridge $250,000, plus $2000 in court costs. A civil suit has been filed for educational fraud in New York as well, by a different law firm.

        Straight's Sembler currently heads the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, in addition to his work for Romney, and has worked tirelessly to keep the Vice President's former Chief of Staff out of prison, even after his conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. After all, if running programs that impose these kinds of "treatments" on American teenagers is not a prison-worthy offense, why should lying to a court be?

        The Romney campaign is aware of the WWASP suits, and should be familiar with the Straight suits. If not, it's worth asking: Does Romney support these types of tactics for at-risk youth? Or does he take the line the organizations founded by his fundraisers take—that these dozens of lawsuits are merely from bad kids who make up lies?

        Coming from the man who wants to double the size of Guantanamo, these aren't insignificant questions. If Romney doesn't believe the aggressive tactics he supports for use against enemy combatants ought to be used against troubled teens and youth drug users, he should say so, and show he means it by removing these men from his campaign.
        http://www.libertarianempire.com/Romney.html
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9wow, craig, you're a real *****.
    • Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0How am I an "*****"? Explain.
    • Monk22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5if you read the post you made before this you will discover what makes you and *****
  • headcase, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7The way I see it, it is up to us to get the message out of the online community. We need to make signs, bumper-stickers, talk to people, help spread the word in different mediums. Not only are the republican not going to support Ron, big media will ignore him until it's too late and they can't ignore him. We need to take actions, because Ron doesn't have the capital or the support or the attention to win the presidency. It's up to us to do more than cast a vote.
    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Big media is ignoring him on purpose. "Getting the message out" won't change that, unless the message includes hostile takeovers of media conglomerates.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Very true. The online community means dick in a general election. If you like the candidate, don't friggin' blog about him/her. Find a way to gain support without a computer screen, because you will get to a lot more people that way if you play your cards right.
    • Durinthal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@urusai:

      Okay, time to go V for Vendetta on them.
    • disgustedamused, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2To support Ron Paul Right Now, get him on your state's ballot. You won't vote for him if he isn't on the ballot. 1. If you find supporters in your neighborhood that are also enthusiastic about Paul, but aren't registered, do what it takes to get them registered -- as Republicans. Do it in time for your state's primary... find out when the deadline for registering for the primary is, and do it ASAP. 2. If you're not going to register Republican, there MAY be one other possibility: see if registered Libertarians in your state/ city are sympathetic to the idea of getting Paul on the Libertarian ballot (there may be some legal as well as political issues here, as well as questions about timing -- if possible, it may be better to let the LP route wait until after the Republican convention. Also, many states have restrictions on petition-level activity; you may not be allowed to personally sign or pass petitions in more than one party or campaign per election cycle. So make sure you don't disqualify any signatures you gather by working both Republican & LP this election. Paul should appeal to a huge fraction of old-line, Barry Goldwater-style conservatives. Strike up conversations with all the crotchety old men (especially in the Midwest and West) you can find. They may surprise you.
  • shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2The author of that story doesn't know English very well, the word is "Underestimating." "Under-estimating" doesn't even exist.
    • heaven3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0king bush cant talk either but you still lick his ass.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -14/+27"Paul’s supporters come from all over the political landscape and are almost universally intelligent"

    I'd be willing to say that the people screaming "RON PAUL 08!!!!!" and talking about how the "fascist Zionist elite" are "destroying America" are not in the upper echelons of intelligence. Not to say that he doesn't have many intelligent supporters, but that statement is dishonest.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Quite. When people start yanking themselves and their buddies off claiming how intelligent they all are, they just lost credibility. There are smart people gunning for Ron Paul, no doubt. There are also idiot drones gunning for him as well, just like any other political campaign. The blogger is an overstuffed, arrogant ass.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4look at how bush was elected.
      republicans have a below average intelligence base.
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4"I'd be willing to say that the people screaming 'RON PAUL 08!!!!!' and talking about how the 'fascist Zionist elite' are 'destroying America' are not in the upper echelons of intelligence."

      Actually, I've never see that correlation. Please give examples.

    • Kangalanatolian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Before I knew what they were talking about, I would agree with you. Before you can understand the truth, you have to realize that what you already think, may not be all there is.
  • bushesbitch, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5hes been banned from iowa straw poll ! unite and fight !
  • nysus, on 10/11/2007, -21/+18All you kiddies out there remember Ross Perot in '92. Oh, you were still in diapers? Well, go read a little history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot. Guys like Ron Paul and Ross Perot are of the same class; supposed "straight shooters" who "tell it like it is"---and have just about zero chance of winning.

    Regardless of whether or not you believe Ron Paul is the greatest leader since George Washington to come along, the fact is you need a political machine to move your candidacy forward. Populist sentiments about the evils of big government may win a few votes from disillusioned libertarians and the politically unconnected, but that and a spit shine will get you a one way ticket to Palookaville.
    • jcarrion1976, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23Why should we listen to you? Your generation has had no positive impact on this country, all the while continuing to steal and debase our future, leaving the mess for the younger generation to fix.
    • sonochamp, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3I'm sorry. You make a credible point, but why did you have to ruin it by using the word "Palookaville"?
    • derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote. If we could just get people over this whole "you're wasting your vote" nonsense....
    • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4derkaas -

      Perot had money. Money talks. I don't understand why everyone finds this so hard to comprehend.
    • Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This is what's wrong with the party system.

      There is no democracy if the only two choices who have a chance are the ones picked by parties.
    • disgustedamused, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Perot lost support for having a thin skin. Paul has been in politics a long time, while Perot was shooting for the Presidency in his first run for political office.
      Also, far more people are disgusted or disillusioned with the choices on both sides this time around, plus we all have many more years of experience with what the "realistic" choices have brought us.
      Perot was a gut-instinct vote for Constitutionalists; Paul is a real-live constitutional minimalist who knows the law and politics. People who never seriously considered Perot can support Paul without reservation.
    • maz2331, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Perot could well have run away with the election if he hadn't pulled out and then gotten back in. That was the death of his politcal career, as it appeared too "wishy washy" and showed a lack of commitment. The guy did a textbook example of what NOT to do in a political campaign with that one move.
    • vmjarvis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You are another anti Ron Paul tard. For one I wasn't in diapers in 92' second Ross Perot did quite well for running as an independent. Third the political weather is much different at this point in time which is the main deciding factor in elections.
  • dfekke, on 10/11/2007, -19/+13Ron who?
  • shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5Why would anybody read a story written by someone who can't spell the word "Underestimating?" How can I trust the story when the writer can't even spell?
    • tokyopimp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Because people make ***** mistakes... everyone! Judging ones opinion over a single misspelled word, is like going into the Ritz Carlton, and being pissed off because the bell hop took you to the wrong room on accident appologized and brought you to the proper room. ***** bell hop can't possibly do his job right since he made a slight mistake can he?

      Hi, and your a moron.
    • shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3tokyopimp wrote:
      "Hi, and your a moron."

      You meant "you're." Wow, and you had a whole 120 seconds to fix that mistake.

      By the way, he's a professional writer. He should at least have a spell checker on his computer.
  • FLUX, on 10/11/2007, -22/+5ELECT RON PAUL


    LORD KING OF THE MOON


    wacko idiot
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2

      Hey Flux,

      Provide the proof? Show us all the evidence? We all want to see
    • BashiBazouk, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2That's Dr wacho idiot to you...

      Say what you will, but I took a look at his voting record in the house. He votes no on most items and when he does vote yes, the bill usually doesn't make it to a vote in the Senate. You may call that a conspiracy but I would say he’s a poor legislator. If you can’t make deals all the way through the process, you either suck at it or you are on the lunatic fringe. Either way it’s not exactly a recipe for a good President.
  • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5My thing about Ron Paul is that, while I appreciate his love of the constitution, he is way too rabid about returning to the litteral meaning. I mean the man voted against a bill, that had unanimous support, that woulld strengthen background check laws to help ensure the mentally ill, such as the VA Tech shooter, would not be allowed to buy guns. Ron Paul opposed the measure because it wasn't constiutional.

    Now a lot of people suggested that if it was important, the due process should be followed and an Amdenment proposed. While that may be true to someone who is a pure constitutionalist, it is also inefficient. A good idea is a good idea no matter how it is implemented.
    • foofighter20x, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Shall not be infringed means jsut that, buddy. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
      • creektown, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@noah

        Damn it noah You are the reason we need a constitution.
        If it were up to you we would have no rights. I hate you for that.
        Grow some balls and stop being afraid of free people.
        Defend yourself and stop asking the damn government to protect you from the bad folks in the world.
        I'm not willing to pay the taxes required to make you feel safe from your neighbors.
        in short
        Live free or die --- I will not feel better as a safe slave.
        The problem this nation is facing are that the people in it are afraid to let their neighbors be free.
        I tell you what send all the undesirables crazy scary and armed people to my neighborhood and let us live free without your help. Im not afraid of freedom.
        I know the world will never be a safe pretty place and I could die tomorrow but while Im here I'd rather be free than protected by you.
        ***** PUSSY.
    • nebbo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of Congress.

      The amendment process is inefficient on purpose, so things aren't just added every other day. It has to be super important in order for it to gain momentum to be added as an amendment
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Now a lot of people suggested that if it was important, the due process should be followed and an Amdenment proposed. While that may be true to someone who is a pure constitutionalist, it is also inefficient. A good idea is a good idea no matter how it is implemented."

      Except that eroding the measures needed to countermand the constitution is - and I can't believe I'm saying this - the thin edge of the wedge as far as completely circumventing the constitution goes.
      • maz2331, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0And... we seem to forget that the Constition is the LAW, not just a wierd set of quaint archaic guidelines or a wierd Libertarian web page someplace. Actually, it is the capo-di-tutti-capi of Laws in the USA. It says what it means and means what it says. The only mistake the framers made was omitting in the treason definition "passing any law in violation of this Constitution".
    • flygirl62, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@noahhoward

      "Now a lot of people suggested that if it was important, the due process should be followed and an Amdenment proposed. While that may be true to someone who is a pure constitutionalist, it is also inefficient. A good idea is a good idea no matter how it is implemented."

      Sure, let's just ignore the ONLY document that is supposed to keep the government in control, supposed to be THE highest law in our land, and that most of our elected officials have to swear to defend and protect.... because it's inefficient.

      So, WHAT do you suppose will *then* keep the government in check?

      With all these comments about how useless our vote is against the parties and the popularity in the press, how can people assume that anything else will keep the government in check?

      The constitutions primary *purpose* was to be the RULES by which the government does not take away our freedoms and liberty. Allow the government to ignore it and you're on the road to a government with no checks and balances.
  • Camuswei, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0two words; ballot refusal
    Passive resistance !!
  • Drgn547, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Ron Paul has a solid, consistent platform whose foundations he's stuck to since the late 70's. I must say - even if he doesn't win, I'll feel a hell of a lot better voting for him than I felt trying to vote for the lesser of two evils last election.
    • jostheller, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20You are throwing your vote away if you vote for the lessor of two evils. My presidential voting record is as follows: Ross Perot in 1998, Harry Browne in 2000, and Michael Badnarik in 2004. This time I will be voting for Paul, even if I have to write his name in.
  • WINNX, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Ron Paul has not been invited to the Fair Tax Iowa debate. Now this is censorship and it is not right.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Include_Ron_Paul_in_the_Iowans_for_Tax_Relief_and_Iowa_Christian_Alliance
  • bduddy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Ummm... wait... someone is underestimating Ron Paul? Someone online no less?

    Is that even possible?
  • RonPaulPres2008, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13This is the most amazing presidential race ever IMO. Ron Paul is strong and with the rise of the internet, strong and truthful candidates finally have a chance. This race sets precedent to the idea that no longer will big corporate ***** play the only role in electing a politician. The time for truth and righteousness is now! Everyone needs to stop being pessimistic and start doing their part! In the past there was a slim to none chance, but the world is different today and as the years go by more people will be able to acquire the truth easily and so things shall change.

    Corporate scum and the media are losing their power to influence slowly but surely. They will bow down before advanced information technology and succumb to our will; not the other way around.
  • jacastillo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+21If Ron Paul looses, AMERICA looses!

  • AnObserver, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Thank you anti-Ron Paul people. The Ron Paul community is on fire now. It is galvanized. Censorship is wrong and it will not be tolerated anymore. It's time to topple the Nazi Squad.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Hey AnObserver,

      I agree 100%. No one should be censored I can't stand Rudy but I would never want him to be eliminated from a debate or other meetings. Why? It simply helps us all to understand why we should or should not vote for this or that person.

      So regardless who you vote for no one should support censorship. Not in our country but it is starting to happen.
  • grubesteak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Ron Paul's getting some press in my town. Check out the story from today's newspaper:

    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun/19/support_candidate_goes_through_roof/
    • senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Too bad your town isn't in Iowa or New Hampshire...
    • senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Oh. Uh... if you have an account on that site, maybe you should leave a message on that story where some guy says Ron Paul didn't know what UNICEF was. I think he's referring to the episode of the Colbert Report where some other guy (one of the congress interviews) didn't know.
  • worldinmyeyes, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Ron Paul fans, be sure not to miss the story the COINTELPRO spooks on digg don't want you to read:

    http://digg.com/world_news/Michael_Moore_9_11_Could_Be_Inside_Job

    "Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, if you know anything about flying a plane, when you're going 500 miles per hour, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. So, they hit a building that's only 5 stories high...[unclear] that expertly. I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and we should demand that that tape is released." - Michael Moore
  • Dolomite, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Ron Paul is the only candidate that cares about freedom. You will never hear this in the main stream press though because they are paid by lobbyists.
  • imdickie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3I think it was Nixon that said to get elected in a primary you need to be an extremist but to get elected in the general you needed to be a moderate. If Paul was serious about getting elected he would placate the party whose ticket he planned on running on and get the votes to win the nomination. Then he could work in the talking points that leaned the other direction to get the votes in the general. Once he gets elected he can do what he wants. At this juncture he is mostly likely trying to make a statement not get elected.

    That said, getting the Internet junkies off their collective asses to do anything other than click a mouse is near impossible. Find 10 people that you think are politically active and ask them when the last time they wrote an actual letter with regards towards their politics and mailed it. It is too easy to click and digg something so the value is nothing. All 300M people in the US could hop on digg and digg up Ron Paul but elections are won at the election booths. To convince people to get out and vote we have to get off our own collective asses first.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Hey Imdickie,

      I was in Texas at a Paul Rally with nearly 1,100 people... They are all very active. I attended the last debates and saw a lot of support outside. Paul has online support but the people who are online have boots on the ground as well. I was at a college campus at a paul function with about 20 people after he stated he would run then returned last week for and the meeting has grown to about 175 active members of a collge Ron Paul group.

      I was at a Tom Tancredo event two months ago and about 175 people were there. A Jim Gilmore function two weeks ago had about 60 people. I can tell you the people who were at Tom's meet and greet did mention Paul with postive points and both camps fear Ron Paul's supporters groud support.

      We are in a new age of communication and this election will be the test of how things progress by way of the net.

      Paul has an huge base which is growing online but off line as well.

      I have seen the evidence and I'm proud to support ron paul
    • kennon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4...and it is precisely because Dr. Paul DOESN'T change his campaign based on the whims of market research or party politics that so many of us are feeling so energized!

      I've contributed 2 x $100 so far and have sent in my absentee voter's registration (I live overseas), and registered Republican so I can vote for him in the primaries. Stop talking, and go register to vote!

      I don't care what his "chances" are - for the first time since I've been eligable as a voter, there is a candidate I'm voting for because of himself - not as a lesser of two evils ... and it feels good.
  • LeeGaltender, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26Chuck Norris has only one thing to fear: Ron Paul!
  • Azdak, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3buried as spam

    like all ron paul submissions should be.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Hey azdak,

      Show us your proof? Why should all Ron Paul articles be buried? Is it his message or liberty? His message of anti-tax? His pro-life stand? What part of his message do you not agree with?

      I suppose you prefer to pay income tax when it's a fraud? Well, if you don't support him you will pay a tax the rest of your life.... don't you love that idea?
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Hey azdak,

      Show us your proof? Why should all Ron Paul articles be buried? Is it his message or liberty? His message of anti-tax? His pro-life stand? What part of his message do you not agree with?

      I suppose you prefer to pay income tax when it's a fraud? Well, if you don't support him you will pay a tax the rest of your life.... don't you love that idea?
    • AnObserver, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Another proud member of the Nazi Squad.
  • fadeout, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Ron Paul spam? On Digg? Ghee I didn't see that coming..

    And for fun click to see who has dugg this. Try just a few of the names, especially the ones without user icons, and look at their account history and behavior.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Hey fadeout,

      No this is a ron paul article and not related to another topic so I suggest you are spaming on a ron paul article... But I get it you can say anything or do anything just like our media and still say ron paul is spam. You guys are going to be in for a real shock when you see the support paul has on the ground... Now get off a ron paul article posted about a student and either vote it up or down.
  • rautox, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5Please stop spamming us. Thanks.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Hey Rautox,

      Now it's the other way around. The article is about Ron Paul and your spamming us... Didn't you read the article? I suppose not. It is a ron paul article. I suppose you hate liberty and freedom like many other FBI agents or CIA agents do which are on digg for fun....

      To bad because you will still have to pay an income tax if yo don't vote for him and you will still have to accept the chip if you don't vote for him...

      Again rautox, stop spamming ron paul articles with your comments of spam.
    • StillGaming, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1DAHHHHH!!! YOU UTTERED THE MAGIC INSULT THAT RON PAUL SUPPORTERS LOVE!

      "Anyone that hates Ron Paul hates freedom!!@)!*@)!@*!*@(&!(@*&!"

      DAHHHH!!!!!!!!
  • xSEED, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5if only americans can get beyond the retardation he'd win but nope america is full of fat retards
    • Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Generally, it's not really Americans fault though. It IS true that Americans vote in the end, but Americans are fed so much filtered ***** about candidates by the media or the candidates themselves, it's sickening. Then, come election day, they have such warped view of the candidates. Some people are so sick of it, they don't even vote, and you end up with people having more passion and motivation to vote for American Idol, than an election. I think it's stupid to call Americans stupid. I think blaming and calling the media stupid is more acceptable.

  • residentps2, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Ron Paul - The Official Candidate of everyone's favorite racism site: Stormfront.org!
    • khfn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Ok, that's like saying that since the KKK call themselves Christians that means that Christ is a racist. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass.
    • Mellowchimp, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Are you seriously comparing Ron Paul to Christ?
      I know most of his supporters think he's a saint, but isn't this going a step too far?
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Non sequitur. He's comparing a pair of situations (stormfront::Ron Paul : KKK::Christ) The components don't make it across the comparison; just the situational argument.

      Learn some damned logic.
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14I heard Ron Paul walked across a lake to heal a dying swan. Ron Paul is love.
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Hey Jagdwulfe,

      You have won 1,000,000 with your wonderful comment today. You are just outstanding now tell us all what part of Ron Paul's message don't you like?

      Is it his message of anti-tax? His pro-life stand? What part of his message do you not agree with?

      I suppose you prefer to pay income tax when it's a fraud? Well, if you don't support him you will pay a tax the rest of your life.... don't you love that idea?
    • khfn, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7no dude, i'm not sure he was being sarcastic... i think this actually happened
    • derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5@darel99

      Dude, lighten up. It was just a joke. A funny one at that.
  • Duncan3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7It's amazing now millions and millions of posts and threads about Ron Paul on the internet mean nothing at all in the real world. Oh wait, not it's not, that's what the internet is for, to make sure you don't go _DO_ anything.

    Enjoy :)
    • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4On the contrary, Ron Paul will forever be remembered as the King of Spam thanks to his nutball followers on the internet.

      Remember - no matter how justified you think your 'message' is, noone likes a spammer.
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Oh, hold on. So it's spam to submit a story about one of the candidates to Digg? Or to then talk about him on said story?

      Yeah. Quit yer bitching.
    • kennon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I found out about Ron Paul via the internet. I've now contributed to his campaign, and have registered to vote as a Republican, and I will vote for him in the primaries and write him in if he doesn't make the nomination.

      The internet certainly affected my voting choice!
  • darkcooger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13To all of you who say you support Ron Paul but that it would be a waste to vote for him, remember that voting only for the "viable" candidates is what has kept us in this mess for so long already. A GOOD candidate will NEVER be elected if everyone continues to think like that.

    If you like and agree with Candidate A but you vote for Candidate B because they can win, then you have truly thrown your vote away.

    I do not support everything on the Libertarian platform and I do not support Ron Paul 100%, but as things stand right now, I expect to vote for him. I don't expect him to win. Considering that he has said he will not run as an independent, I don't even really expect him to be in the election. But if he is, I'll vote for him because I agree with him more than any of the other candidates. That's the only reason to vote for anyone. (Though I will admit voting against a candidate in the previous election, rather than for one.)
    • senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well, supposedly that's what primaries are for. You can vote for the guy you like best in the primary, and when he loses, then you can vote for the lesser of two evils in the general. Unfortunately, unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, primary votes apparently don't mean *****. FWIW, I registered as Republican for the primary, but, I live in NY, so my vote doesn't count (actually, being in NY, neither the primary nor the general election votes count)
    • wemustrebel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Are we not supposed to vote for most qualified candidate? Then let the results be what they may? Vote your conscious and let God work it out!
  • rautox, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Just to drag this down to a common language, something I think you may have some slim chance of understanding... Hey, darel99, blow me. I've spent the last 2 decades+ in this country's service, you flaming little douche bag. The ***** I pick out of the corner of my eyes every morning knows more about freedom, democracy, and the defense of our constitution than you ever will, you limp-dicked, intertard, lemming.

    The first 30 RP articles may have, MAY HAVE served some sort of service of enlightenment. But we're way past that, aren't we, you mindless little ditto-head? Go back to the little hole you crawled out of. You're doing Hillary, Barrack, and all the 'pubs' way more of a service than they could possibly hope for.

    Oh, and kiss my red, white, and blue ass.
    • darkcooger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I have only this to say, rautox: lol

      :)
    • khfn, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4You've been fighting in the defense of the Constitution? Which one? The life of our liberty and civil freedom or the life of some foreign policy agenda to make the rich richer? No, this is not a rhetorical question.

      Oh, you _do_ defend the ideas our country was founded on? But you don't like Paul? I'm sorry, er...does-not-compute *spark*
    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Hey rautox,

      Oh I struck a nerve... Most real men can reserve their anger longer then five min. especially when I'm probably miles away. I did not attack you in anyway on a personal level but you have with me. Did they teach you that tactic with your 2 decades of service? If so then our nation is in real bad shape.

      Also, I didn't realize men in service painted their ass as you do with Red white and blue. The only red white and blue I have is an actual American flag which waves in the wind and is made in America on my front porch. I don't wear my colors on my ass but it appears some boys do as you have indicated.

      So if your in the military or some branch of service then you know all about the Real, ID Act? You have actually read it and understand the implications? You do understand the front runners are OK with you and I having a chip to track our every move? Are you OK with that? Is it OK to pay a tax which is unlawful which is been deemed to be unlawful by many court cases? Is that OK for you? Or do you want to pick a candidate who wants eliminate the real id act you and eliminate your taxes?

      Do you still want to lash out at me? If so then all your years of service were wasted. Also, when you lash out at a citizen and want to separate yourself then you are doing nothing more then showing disrespect for the oath you took. I have a right to free speech and so do you. My brother is in the service and has done his duty. But then when guys get out of the service they come to me for a job. So I do not accept your personal attacks of slander or cussing! Men like my brother are respected and he took his oath serious but many did not.

      In closing you had the freedom to click on the Ron Paul article or not to click on the article. I have a reader which notifies me of any Ron Paul, Mitt, Rudy, Obama, etc., article which may appear and I just programed this a day ago. So when I see an article about Ron Paul and since he is my favored candidate I have the right to make my own comments about a ron paul article but people like you want to call it spam. No, sir/madam you are just repeating what other may imply and not checking the details out for yourself. So this fact alone may appear you always followed and never lead.

      When I see negative comets I ask someone what part of Ron Paul's message don't you like and no one provides any reasons why they don't like Ron Paul. In fact most offer a red neck, eighth grade reply much like yours.

      In fact Rautox just for you I'm going to digg your little comment up so everyone can see your wonderful way with words.

      Please tell us all what part of the government you work for?

      Your so called common language hails from the local trailer park.... I suggest you call it a night and come back when you can offer an informed reply. Again notice one of the digg's is from me... Be sure to tell us what part of the government you worked in or still work in?

      People who work in the govement and want to verbally abuse the population does not obtain the respect of the population which is exactly a primary reason our nation is in trouble. The fact is as American's we don't trust the government on many levels. This concern extends to all branches for the government except for the SBA. If you were my emplyee and spoke to me the way you have I would fire you.

    • senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I'm not sure what to think about the "spam." It's self-feeding. The constant stream of Paul articles maintains the interest in Paul himself. I remember everyone getting excited about Gravel for a few days after the first debate, but without having a constant stream of articles, he's pretty much been forgotten about. If there wasn't another Ron Paul article on here every day, it would take (after having continued for this amount of time) probably a week for people to completely forget he's even running. That's the problem with "internet support". It's pretty damn fleeting. If you don't stay visible, you're invisible.
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@rautox
      "Just to drag this down to a common language, something I think you may have some slim chance of understanding..."

      Ah, darel's comments to you were worded in relatively intelligent language.

      "Hey, darel99, blow me."

      And contained none of this sort of virulence.

      "I've spent the last 2 decades+ in this country's service, you flaming little douche bag."

      I seem to remember that Nazi Germany had a similar glorification of service. It's one of the basics of fascism: the military are better than you. You may be proud, and that's cool, it really is. Don't expect the rest of the country to give a damn, especially those of us who served and really don't look at it one way or the other.

      "The ***** I pick out of the corner of my eyes every morning knows more about freedom, democracy, and the defense of our constitution than you ever will, you limp-dicked, intertard, lemming."

      Quote me section eight of the Constitution and tell me you know enough to *legally* defend it. Then tell me why Congress has contracted out the control of money to the Federal Reserve.

      "The first 30 RP articles may have, MAY HAVE served some sort of service of enlightenment. But we're way past that, aren't we, you mindless little ditto-head?"

      Then digg the story down. Or, hell, block 'Ron Paul' using digg's nifty story filters. This kind of third-grader bitching is unbecoming.

      "Go back to the little hole you crawled out of."

      You wouldn't have happened to be a drill sergeant, would you? You realize that for non-military, your insults little more than an amusement, right? No, seriously. We get better insults on morning talk shows. If you're going to say something interesting, say it. If not, we'd all appreciate it if you wouldn't swing your ***** around.

      "You're doing Hillary, Barrack, and all the 'pubs' way more of a service than they could possibly hope for."

      Personally hoping for a battle between Paul and Obama. For once we could have an election that's the better of both goods, rather than the lesser of two evils.

      "Oh, and kiss my red, white, and blue ass."

      Useless tin soldier.

      I'm sorry, but as ex-Navy, I have to say that you really appreciate freedom when you're in the military; you fight for it, but you never get any.

      I suppose that's why you seem so hell bent on shutting others up. Either you're still in, and no one can have the freedom of speech you don't, or your out and the freedom is all yours now.

      In short, grow up.
  • Craig42, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13All these people talking about this being "spam", are you ***** kidding me? If you think this is spam, why aren't you emailing and calling CNN and FOX for spamming THEIR selected 2 or 3 candidates that they continue to push? That's REAL spam and it affects so many more millions of people. Digg is popular, but it's not as popular as CNN or Fox News. Those "NEWS" channels are the real ***** spammers. This article, like other similar articles submitted, is just an example of REGULAR PEOPLE who actually vote, trying to counter the corporate CNN and FOX News spam!
  • AeroSquid, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10Snakes on a Plane was a popular internet movie that flopped in the real world. R.P. is a popular internet politician...
    • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Ron Paul still polls between 1%-3% regularly in non-internet polls.

      Some people would rather live in their secluded, internet-only reality.
    • Skooma714, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

      Signed,
      Digg
    • lofiboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You can't download a politician.
    • ferosh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Actually, I saw Snakes on a Plane coming a mile away from those previews and I've never bothered to watch it. As for Ron Paul, I saw one of his debates on youtube and I knew I had to see more. So I did. It inspired me to check out other candidates, read more articles and books, and in the end just as the beginning, I knew he was deserving of my vote.
    • ferosh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0P.S.
      I'd have to say it was his shocking honesty, intelligence, and knowledge, of which I hadn't come to expect in any politician.
  • reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5I regularly take part in Obama's Facebook message board and yes people are not serious all the time because the regular commenters have discussed a LOT of stuff over the last 3 months and only blow steam during work/school/whatever by creating frivolous topics sometimes. The "buttsecks" he mentions was borne out of some guy creating a thread called "Surprise!" followed by "Buttsecks!" which some of you will remember as a LOLCat caption...

    People need to stop being THAT serious...it's just a Facebook group after all!

    The Ron Paul fanboys have invaded that group too...it's almost like spam.
    • rautox, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2almost?
    • Awspire, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Is it me, or does it seem Obabma is attracting nothing but an occult following? I'm waiting to see some screaming teens crying at his very presence.

      Obamas political accomplishments compare to that of some High School Student Council. He has no credentials that compare to Ron Paul, same goes for Billary.
    • Mellowchimp, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Putting forward dead end bills for the purposes of political posturing is an accomplishment?
      Ooooh, sign me up!!!


      YAY RON PAUL
  • scottynz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Fantastic article, Andrew. It's wise to stick to facts and issues: "principles before personalities." Dr Paul speaks of principles and that is how he will win American's hearts: one voter at a time.

    Our grassroots effort to help spread Ron Paul's message will be most successful if we avoid personal attacks on others, encourage debate from *everyone* and simply stick to the issues.

    There is hope.
  • agimat, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Certainly not under-estimating the amount of damage Ron Paul spam is doing to my RSS reader.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Flocks of Libertarians go to Ron Paul stories, thinking "I've got to get attention!"

      What they don't understand is the kind of attention they're getting.

    • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Hey agimat,

      Well thats simple delete the keyword Ron Paul from your reader..... That was easy to fix now wasn't it?

      But no you want to call it Ron Paul spam half of you spam nuts just don't get it... Do you?

      So I'll ask you the same questions will you have an answer? I doubt it so far you so called diggers who don't link ron paul seem to click on the article and begin your assault. But you will never debate the issue will you?

      Ok since your own net tell me which Canidate will defend Internet Freedoms? What is the anwswer agimat? Do you know who they are?

      If so give us your answer.

      What part of Ron Pauls message bothers you? Is it his anti-war stand? His defence of small goverment? Do you oppose his anti-tax stand?

      Tell us all your answers we would all like to know.
    • darkcooger, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2@darel99:

      You're not really promoting Ron Paul at all. You're just annoying the living hell out of anyone who disagrees with you... and guess what? That goes against Ron Paul's platform! A big part of constitutionalism in the United States is freedom to disagree, after all. If you really support Ron Paul, do him a favor and shuttup.
    • emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4A big part of constitutionalism is free speech and the ability to at least attempt to persuade others. It is VERY hypocritical to tell someone to shutup because you have the "right to disagree", because they're not trying to take away those rights, they're just trying to persuade, which is at the core of every argument. If people weren't allowed to try to persuade others, nobody would ever learn anything.
    • darkcooger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@emjaymj:

      Fair enough. I suppose my "shuttup" was more aimed at the bad arguments which undermined his cause than his arguments at all. I should have left the "right to disagree" bit out, actually. The main point of my post was that he was doing more harm than good, with respect to promoting Ron Paul. You are right, darel99 has not tried to prevent disagreement but has rather tried to confront it head-on. I guess my problem, then, is actually his fanaticism and poorly constructed arguments.
    • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I am sorry that our country is more important than your ***** RSS reader.

      Can someone tell me what they expect supporters to do, when the media purposefully ignores him?

      Just lay down and die? Please.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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