digg

Join DiggAbout

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

(Ron) Paul Campaign Never Ended, Spokesman Says

washingtonpost.com — Great and factual article in the Washington Post about Ron Paul's continued presidential campaign.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Trustar247, on 05/07/2008, -94/+242Let's get the good doctor elected!
    • indy500fan, on 05/07/2008, -23/+127I voted for him in the primary (Indiana) today, I don't think he has much of a chance but I still tried and supported him.
      • whalefarmerjohn, on 05/07/2008, -12/+135Mathematical elimination be damned I'm voting for RON PAUL
        • afruff23, on 05/07/2008, -12/+35PSHHHT, math is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
        • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2You are saying voting for the shoe in who is ***** evil, wrong, stupid, and a traitor to his own people is cool becuase then your vote counts?
          • ncurses, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2no, no one is saying that. It only seems that way because you're just a libertarian
      • scotticus, on 05/07/2008, -17/+33IN - 86% reporting
        Huckabee 38,956 10%
        Paul 28,986 7%

        He got fewer votes than someone who actually quit.
        • haiduz, on 05/07/2008, -58/+1That is absolutely pathetic that Huckabee beat him.
          Ron Paul is against the constitution, he is against the commerce clause, and he is against the first amendment because he wants evolution and prayer in public schools.
          Besides ron paul is just another CFR puppet.
          • floatingorb, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4/sarcasm ^
          • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"That is absolutely pathetic that Huckabee beat him. "

            Why? Paul is inherently unlikeable.
        • EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -1/+37% is a heck of a dent in the Neocon's GOP vehicle.
          Bush won by 500 votes; they can't afford to lose 1%, much less 7%.
          Ron Paul is the Kingmaker; he make or break McCain with a mere speech to his base of 1,000,000+ supporters.
          Remember how hard we took down Rudi Julie-Annie? McCain's only support is from the same cabal of NY/LA/DC/UN neocons.
      • masamunecyrus, on 05/07/2008, -7/+17As did I. Currently, Paul has 8% of the vote. That's pretty damn impressive for someone that ended their bid, if you ask me.
        http://www.indystar.com/
        • haiduz, on 05/07/2008, -6/+7no its not. no one is taking this election seriously. mccain has nothin at stake. there is no incentive to vote for him so most of his supporters stay home. ron paul even lost the i dont want to vote for McCain vote to huckabee who officially dropped out of the race.
        • Rafikichi, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11Ron Paul has a *****-ton of support within the state elected delegations... the real nominee choosers are the elected delegates, and there are enough of them, pledged or not, that are morally bound to make McCain not so, that either Paul becomes the nominee by the last balloting, or the entire building will be figuratively burned, along with the party, and America's hope.
          • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I hope you're in the building at that point.
      • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -14/+2Well hell I wish this article was on earlier than I wouldn't have crossed over and voted for Hillery
        • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -10/+5aww is the flock mad at me?
          Obaaaama
          • EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1If Obaaama can't will with a large enough margin of victory to compensate for Operation Chaos, that's just too bad.
            The Oh-baa-baa flock seems to feel entitled to the coronation originally scheduled for Hilleroid.
            Foolish mortals, support Ron Paul or you will die starving and homeless on the continent our forefathers conquered!
        • TheMadCow, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7Thank you for showing the darkside of inbreeding. Please meet the new poster child for Americans Against Inbred Ignorance.
          • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1No so much I'm a more or less a libertarian. I actually believe Obama when he says he's going to do something, he's going to do it, and I believe that the country will be at best *****. McCain/Hillery will cause less "change" and maybe just maybe Paul can get in, in 2012.
            I also like the fact that your an ***** and think that people from Indiana/NC are inbreed, so much for compassionate liberal.
          • MtheoryX, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2@jgtg32a: it's not the fact that you're from Indiana or NC that makes people think you're inbred.

            It's the fact that you sound mentally handicapped and unable to reason, perhaps as a result of inbreeding.

            And you sound like a loon.
      • catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+9good for you. no kidding. there is nothing wrong in saying that you are still running. if people give you money thats on your own accord then.
        The article was a pro paul one but still it presented itself for judgment with no preaching.
      • humperdeath, on 05/07/2008, -6/+10Ron Paul is waiting to get all the Canadian delegates, and that just might be enough for an upset!
        • InferiorWang, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1If only the Republicans had super-delegates...
          I keed
      • dralezero, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Yea I voted for him too even after looking at the results from other states. I couldn't swallow my pride and vote someone else.
      • NeoRicen, on 05/07/2008, -10/+8Not much of a chance?? He has NO chance!

        You need to face facts, Ron Paul will NEVER be President of the United States.
        • pseudononymist, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4not in this lifetime, but the wheel of karma may yet surprise us
          • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Libertarians are pretty ***** low on the karmic scale.

            "***** you i've got mine" is about a beetle on the reincarnation chart, if not a pubic louse.
        • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Yes yes... and no one will ever need more than 640k ram....
      • wonderworm, on 05/07/2008, -7/+6Just remember fellow Paulites. We are all going to vote for Obama in the general election over McCain. Ron Paul and Obama were the only 2 guys left who spoke out against the war before it even started and the only 2 who will end it and bring our Trillions in tax money back home. We need truth back in our government.
        • DiggyWiggy, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Well, you're half-right...
        • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3I would consider Obama if Paul ran as his vice... or personal advisor or something. I would like to see the ability to formulate a plan beyond "war is bad! Immigration is bad" that I hear from Obama. Heart can be in the right place all it wants, but if his heads not then we lose anyways.
        • dralezero, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Obama said in his book he wants to increase troop levels.
    • OffPiste, on 05/07/2008, -90/+29He might be suited as the the president of the KKK but certainly not as president of the US.

      America has firmly rejected Paul and his racist BS.
      • fluxion, on 05/07/2008, -11/+42huh?
      • Enjia, on 05/07/2008, -15/+16LOLOLOLOL + LOL your a nub
        • OffPiste, on 05/07/2008, -11/+15your/you're
        • mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -30/+7Yep, thats about the reply you would expect from a paultard. Maybe his run wouldnt have been the laughing stock utter failure that it was if more of you were old enough to vote (or drive).
        • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5@Mike17032. You forgot to call him a racist slaveholding troofer!
      • latinjones, on 05/07/2008, -5/+23I'm proud that 8% of those who voted Republican in my state voted for Ron Paul. Almost 30,000 people in Indiana alone have cast their ballot. Many of them like myself did so not in hope of getting him elected but to continue to spread the message of individual liberty, limited government, and a humble foreign policy.

        For many people like myself, Ron Paul was only the messenger and this is just the beginning. This country will not change from the top down. People will figure that out in another 4 or 8 years.
      • bobbknight, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11You sir are spouting venal lies with no backing.
        • BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3"On day of my election, I will pull all American troops out of the war. From there, I'll order bombs to be strapped to all the blacks of America where they'll be sent back over to Middle East to finish the job." -Ron Paul
      • Bkaufman, on 05/07/2008, -9/+12Most likely coming from an Obama supporter and his racist pastor.
      • haiduz, on 05/07/2008, -16/+7thx for speaking the truth. his support mainly comes from racists and truthers
        • kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Wrong moron.
          • haiduz, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3guess what. the government wasnt responsible for 911. you can take that tin foil hat off now.
      • dbradley96, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Thank you for your baseless comments.
      • jackajj, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2A racist libertarian. I don't get it.
      • DiggyWiggy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6“I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”

        -John McCain
      • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Uh oh, looks like the head of the NAACP in Austin did not get the memo. I'll bet he looks pretty foolish to the other black people.

        http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=2278 ...
        • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1He actually never endorsed Paul, and in explaining the comments further, did NOT ever support Paul as a candidate.
          • Bilabrin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Maybe not, I'm sure their politics would be different, but I was adressing the racism charge.
    • KMye, on 05/07/2008, -12/+46Umm, did you miss the part of that exceedingly short article where the campaign manager confirmed Paul is not trying to get elected?
      • serend, on 05/07/2008, -12/+3Please elaborate.
        • KMye, on 05/07/2008, -5/+16"He put out a video in which he said victory in the conventional sense was not available to us, but there was still much the campaign could try to accomplish," - Jesse Benton

          Don't supporters like Trustar feel a little silly yelling "Elect Ron Paul" when even his campaign has given up on it?

      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -8/+16Reality is tough.
      • ieatpizza, on 05/07/2008, -2/+12Here's a good video with Ron Paul explaining his intent (from March 10, 2008).
        http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/ ...
      • bobbknight, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8Seems like we have another critical reading skills public school system failure.

        "He put out a video in which he said victory in the conventional sense was not available to us, but there was still much the campaign could try to accomplish,"
        • KMye, on 05/07/2008, -15/+5"Seems like we have another critical reading skills public school system failure."

          So tough to decide whether truthers or Paulites are more apt to make morironic statements like this.

          For your sake, bbk:
          "victory in the conventional sense" = Elected president, or even Republican nominee
          "victory in the conventional sense [is] not available to us" = We know there is absolutely no chance Paul will be elected. We're admitting this to you, his supporters this, outright"
          "Vote for Ron Paul/Write Paul in!" = Quixotic, and given how the candidate's taken advantage of his supporters, foolish, but nevertheless politically defensible
          "Let's get the good doctor *elected!*" = Utter retardation
      • dralezero, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5He is trying to spread a message if enough people hear it and act upon his massage the constitution says we can overthrow the government (not that its going to happen) so he really doesn't need to get elected it's up to the poeple to stop being dumb.
        • Lythium, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7The Constitution offers massages now? I am _so_ there.
        • jackajj, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2The people overthrowing the government is impossible now. Bush made sure of that. You would be labeled a terrorist and put into a prison with no charges and if enough people tried to overthrow the government then the military would be deployed. The only other way to fix America is to elect someone that actually does what the majority of the people wants instead of the elite and as you saw with Paul the media wont let this happen.
      • jackajj, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Basically what happened was Paul raised all this money but then it seemed like there was no realistic way of him getting elected. So instead of quitting hes going to use the left over money to get his message across to the people. Sounds fair to me.
      • nonsequitor, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1The goal at this point is not to be elected, but to have his delegates represent his message at the convention. He knows that the convention will not end up being brokered. Its about spreading ideas.
        • KMye, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I understand what his purported point is now...I was responding to the top comment (which received 142+ diggs, jesus christ) saying "let's get him elected!"
    • ronpaulite, on 05/07/2008, -15/+18
      • catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -15/+11So this is now about book sales?!
        NOW it makes sense
        • neognostic, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Not only that, but RP has suggested that he may take his campaign funds and start a publishing company.
        • kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3^^^ I hope so. The more books published on liberty, the better.
          • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I don't want it turning into the stuff done for religion though...
            Freaking fifty million songs (Many very similar) sold for $25 a pop to the same people who want more stuff to prove they love God... *sigh*
    • ufia, on 05/07/2008, -37/+12It's a conspiracy! Ron Paul was silenced by the jews secretly controlling the Federal Reserve. Google it!
      • neognostic, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3No, he was silenced by the 95% of the voting Republicans that did not vote for him.
    • someidiotinnj, on 05/07/2008, -15/+11Doctor Who?
      • NikoKun, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Somehow when I heard him say "the good doctor", it made me think Doctor Who as well. How strange...
        • someidiotinnj, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Apparently making a "Doctor Who" reference on Ron Paul "The Good Doctor" is a big no no on Digg.
          Oh well dig me down :)
    • shig, on 05/07/2008, -4/+12Let's get his supporters elected locally!
      • neognostic, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Dog catcher is up for election in Dallas county!
        • floatingorb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2While ugly puppies may not go to heaven; At least, a *Ron Paul republican* dog catcher wouldn't make it 'hell on earth' for them while they are here.
    • daizaru, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1As long as he's still just trying to get a republican nomination that's fine, if he ends up running as a 3rd party candidate he'll just be stealing votes from Obama and have no chance of winning.
    • richmomz, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5It's too late for that unfortunately, but we can still spread his message and lay the groundwork for the next election. That, I think, has always been the real goal.
      • dawn4598, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'll write him in if he is not on the ballot. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
  • jeanine22, on 05/07/2008, -52/+47bomb Iran John McCain is one scandal away from oblivion
    enter Ron Paul president
    • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -28/+22After Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, and on, and on....
    • OffPiste, on 05/07/2008, -51/+9Hell Alan Keyes has more of a chance than a racist like Paul.
    • Sogui, on 05/07/2008, -15/+24Fact: This is how the remaining Paul supporters feel. Either he's going to magically broker the convention or McCain will die and suddenly everyone will fall in love with Ron Paul.
      • rficwizard, on 05/07/2008, -11/+39Fact: You're wrong. The remaining Ron Paul supporters, which is most of the original Ron Paul supporters, are glad that he is still out spreading his message of Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, and hope he continues to make use of the media attention that an election brings to do so. Paul will not be the next President. We know that. The more support he gets, the more attention he gets. We know that too.
        • catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -12/+6if you feel that way then thats great. Now try to tell that to many of his other supporters and see what you get
        • Sogui, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5www.ronpaulforums.com

          Try saying that there and you'll be accused of being a troll.
        • frankingeneral, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Fact: Until this article, Ron Paul has not gotten any media attention since McCain sealed the nomination.
          • rficwizard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1His book has gotten a fair amount of attention. His candidacy is now treated as a footnote.
      • terracottapai, on 05/07/2008, -9/+7That's great you believe in your candidate and all, but seriously, look around.
        There are a LOT of people here who have deluded themselves into thinking he can still win.
        • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Just let it go. There are always going to be people searching for bigfoot, voting for hillary, supporting bush, and in general doing things that make sense to them (But maybe not to us).

          If they are having fun, more power to them.
    • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -3/+11"bomb Iran John McCain is one scandal away from oblivion"

      Why, the Republican masses love the thought of blowing Iran away.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1Seriously? McCain is far less involved with controversy than both Democratic front runners. The Dems are slinging mud at themselves while McCain stays quiet. I'm sure I'll get dugg down because diggers don't like to hear this but it's true. Clinton has issues with things like NAFTA while Obama is still fighting the Wright issues.
      • casek, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5keeting five
      • frankingeneral, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4The Wright thing is a non-issue. McCain also has the Vicky Iseman (I think that's her name) scandal. Plus, in my mind he still has to answer for all of his inconsistencies and flip flops. Plus the fact that he used to call people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee "hate mongers" and now he calls them endorsers. McCain has his demons.
        • kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1There are even more than that, this guy is trash.
    • GratefulGroover, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3why do you think the DC madam was offed?
  • ncurses, on 05/07/2008, -47/+107oh ok
    • SwedishNinja, on 05/07/2008, -4/+23I'm digging you up because this is exactly what I thought when I read the title. :D
      • ensta2, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3I was impressed by the gravity of this comment
    • Lockhart, on 05/07/2008, -7/+6lmao, read the rest of this guy's comments. They're all comments with a few words, but pretty funny.
    • EgaoNoGenki, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3WHO THE (PLUCK) IS RON PAUL!????
      • BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1From Encyclopedia Dramatica:

        "Paul is an internet cult leader, white supremacist Pro-white nationalist, paleo-libertarian ***** from the state of Texas, and a 2008 candidate for President of the United States. Worshipped among Alex Jones and Hal Turner fanbois, Ron has already been elected as President of the Internets. He's either a ***** fundie and major redneck or engaged in a historically epic trolling of a major political party. Either way, his supporters are definitely ***** insane. Ron Paul summarizes himself in the statement "I like little boys. A lot." Many people who otherwise despise Ron Paul and hate everything he stands for still vote for him and donate money to his campaign. We did it for the lulz."
  • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -94/+59LOL. Neither did Romney's and he STILL has more delegates than RP!
    • natmaster, on 05/07/2008, -10/+22No, Romney has no delegates. Don't believe the lies the media tells you - delegates are selected at state conventions.
      Take Nevada for instance - Romney won the popular vote, and yet is getting no delegates there, instead Ron Paul is getting many.
    • cheeseron, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3you sure?
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.camp ...
      • RepubOperative, on 05/07/2008, -6/+8Romney 255 Pledged delegates
        Ron Paul 21 Pledged delegates

        http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
      • Joeyrev, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2Not sure why you got dugg down for that. Seems like you provided a credible source to back up your information.
        • 3ugene, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2If you call the 5 people who control all news in the country credible... I wonder why you haven't been dugg down more.
          • Joeyrev, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Please then, enlighten my feeble mind. Where do you get your news sources from? Inform me so I may make better decisions. Also, if you have any other sources that tell a different story about the issue at hand, "Ron Paul's delegate count", I would welcome those as well.
      • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Elected delegates are committed to their candidate for the first ballot only; after that they can change their votes at will.
  • Herkimer56, on 05/07/2008, -149/+202Ron Paul didn't have to end his campaign. The voters took care of that little chore for him.
    • benman587, on 05/07/2008, -30/+72Oh snap!
    • Daniel591992, on 05/07/2008, -30/+51Did we not spam enough? Oh tell me! Where did we go wrong?!
      • ronpaulite, on 05/07/2008, -22/+68
        • mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -26/+21Maybe it has something to do with the 15 a day that were hitting the home page because they were gamed there by jackasses such as yourself that dugg everything that had his name anywhere in it, and nothing else.
        • alittleroy101, on 05/07/2008, -27/+22Actually, you jack ass, everyone calls it spam. And he was referring to those awful months when the Paultards controlled every goddamn story on this site.
        • masamunecyrus, on 05/07/2008, -19/+9Actually, you jack ass, everyone calls it spam. And he was referring to those awful months when the Obamatards controlled every goddamn story on this site.

          See what I did there?
        • Lythium, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3ronpaulite, masamunecyrus:
          It's ALL spam. When you guys did it, it was spam. Now that the Obama supporters / Hillary bashers are doing it, it's also spam. Spam spam spam spam spam. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the message or not: if the same damn thing keeps popping up several times a day for several weeks running, it's spam.
          • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I don't like spam.
          • masamunecyrus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I know it's spam. I was pointing out the double-standard that when Ron Paul was popular, seemingly 90% of all stories on digg were about him and were buried because of "spam". However, people don't seem to have the same opinion about the Obama stories, which are at least as numerous now as Ron Paul's stories were several months ago.
      • frankingeneral, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3No amount of spam could save a campaign with such insane ideas as returning to the gold standard.
        • Frenzy44, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3I really hope that was sarcasm. That is just one of the many "crazy ideas" that the constitution gives us.
        • kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Yeah, PAPER money is SOOOOOO great. /s
          Moron.
          • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1We do not have enough Gold for the Gold standard. Which is why we made the silver standard. And we don't have enough silver for the silver standard. (Move to titanium maybe?)
        • sweetholymosiah, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Restore the Declaration of Independence!!!
    • DeathfireD, on 05/07/2008, -27/+11ya considering the vast majority of his fans where high school kids that couldn't vote or people that didn't live in the US. None the less I still voted for him since I dislike the other candidates and didn't want to not vote.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -4/+17I'm writing in Optimus Prime for the same reason.
        • Sludgehammer, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6Hey, we could do a lot worse for a president then a 50' tall walking robot/semi-truck.
        • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2unrelated, but I like your username.
      • DeathfireD, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2Oh ***** I'm getting dugg down but the hundreds of 16 year olds I offended.
      • frankingeneral, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Yeah, 16 year olds have a tough time comprehending the intricacies of economics, and what a horrible idea it would be to eliminate the federal reserve and return to the gold standard.
    • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -16/+11Moron. Its not the voters that matter it the level of annoyance one can create on the internet.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -7/+8RP zombies were very good at this.
        • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Indeed. And for a time it was rather funny meme.
    • Xcel, on 05/07/2008, -17/+24By voters, you mean retarded blindfolded neoconservatives?
      • arobicha, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1The heck is a neoconservative? that some kind of retarded monkey?
      • wenomspitta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1your moma!
        ... no, I'm serious
    • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -5/+15Herkimer and 1HEIMER! Who do you all support for President? Why won't you answer?
      • PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2What does it matter and why do you care so much?
    • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -5/+12Take note that they never answer. It is further proof that they are TROLLS.
      • arobicha, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2Do they have to? Some of us don't believe the masses' support is relevant to who wins the election.
        • 3ugene, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5He doesn't have enough pride in his candidate to mention it on the internet under his alias. Ron Paul supporters on the other hand, take pride in the message.
    • thecoolestguy, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4They both love Bush and hate muslims.
    • choppasizzle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2inside job herk just like 911 right?
    • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1hahahah these are great... and I'll bite.
      prove otherwise ;P
    • jepedoelph, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0go ***** yourself, troll bitch.
  • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -70/+53
    • defska42, on 05/07/2008, -17/+55I disagree. I'm sure his donors would want him to spend his money spreading his message, so let him. Even though I don't agree with many of his policies, he's got some great things to say. I, for one, don't mind listening.
      • Alix7, on 05/07/2008, -32/+11I do.
        • rficwizard, on 05/07/2008, -7/+28So don't. Didn't you see his name in the title?
        • NikoKun, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2And that's why your a douche. No one is forcing you.
      • fluxion, on 05/07/2008, -15/+4i tried to digg you up, but they're digging you down so fast man! the retaliation for all that ron paul spamming in the past is upon us!
    • Jimmerz, on 05/07/2008, -8/+7You are wrong! He must continue to spread the word. Look at the lasting legacy of Ross Perot!

      Oh. Never mind.
  • travis6690, on 05/07/2008, -61/+873 diggs and this hits front page. I love Digg...
    • tacojohn48, on 05/07/2008, -2/+13So do any of these type of comments ever get dugg up?
  • Alix7, on 05/07/2008, -101/+160..............…………..„--~~""”¯¯¯””~~-„……………………………………...........
    …………………..„-~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::”~,………………………………………….
    ……………….„~”,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::”-,………………………………….......
    …………….../;;;;;;|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::……………………………............
    ……………..|;;;;;;;/:::::::””~~--::::::::::::::-~~”::……………………………...........
    ……………./”~,;;/:::::::/¯¯¯¯¯’:::::::::::/’¯¯¯¯’………………………….........
    ……………. º: ¯:::::::: . . • . ,/::::::::::„ . • . ,/……………………………….......
    ……………/’::::::::::::::::”~~~”:::::/””~::::’”~~”.::’,………………………………….
    ………….../:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::’,__„„/’:::::::::::’………………………………...
    …………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„----„_„---,::::::::::………………………...........
    …………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::„~"----„__„„-“::::::::::|………………………….......
    …………..|::::::::::::::::::::::::::/’;;;;;;;;;/::::::::::::::::::|...................IT'S GONNA FAIL
    ………..„~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::__;;;;;;--„::::::::::::::/…………………………........
    ……..,-“;:; .,::::::::::::::::::::::::’„_¯¯¯„-“:::::::::::::/………………………….........
    ….„~”;:;:;:;, .”~„::::::::::::::::::::::::¯¯¯:::::::::::::,-“;………………………...........
    .,~”;:;:;:;;:;:;:”-, . ”~--„:::::::::::::~--„„___„„~“::::„-‘ . |;:'”~-„…………………………
    “;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”-, . . .”~~---„„„„_______„„„--~” . ./ |;:;:’;:;”-,……………………...
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;____;:;”-, ~-„ . . . . . . . . /;;;;;’, . . .,/ . |;:,~”;:;:;”-,……………..........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;/;:;:;:;”~, “~-„_ . . . /„;;;;;;;/”-„~” . . |;:;”~„;:;:;:;’……………….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . .¯”~-’ . “~,;;;’ . . . . .|;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;’…………….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~--„;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . . . .|;;;;;;’ . . . |;:;:;:;/;:;:”~,;:;:………………
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~--„;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . |;;;;;;;;’, . .|;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;’;:;:………........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:;:”~„ .|;;;;;;;;;;;”~,|;:;:;/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:……………
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:”~„;;;;;;;;;;;;/;:;,/’;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:…...........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;”~„;;;;;;/;:,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:'……......
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~-„’,;/ ,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|…........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯„/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:|……….
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:|;:;:|...........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
    _;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|...........
    ;:;¯””~~--„„_|_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|-~/…….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯””~~----„„„__;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|~“…………
  • SportsViewer, on 05/07/2008, -41/+171Well, it seemed to fade away when diggers jumped the bandwagon from Paul to Obama.
    • willskillz, on 05/07/2008, -10/+12sooo true
      • willskillz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I remember when Paul and Gravel were on the front page everyday. Either those diggers stopped digging or this community has no loyalty.
    • Brian48216, on 05/07/2008, -12/+43It never really started to begin with
      digg != legitimate cross section of america
    • DeathfireD, on 05/07/2008, -7/+33Digg went from Mike Gravel to Ron Paul to Obama lol.
      • afruff23, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4Who is this "Obama lol"?
        http://bp2.blogger.com/_IMWFWUgeFg4/SAWLp1vkGKI/AA ...
      • kolinkoolface2, on 05/07/2008, -0/+20which makes no sense because Ron Paul's ideals are like completely different from them.
        • DeathfireD, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Digg doesn't follow logic or sense when dealing with things like this. If you've noticed it's more of a "what's more popular at the moment" kind of thing. Think back to before the next gen consoles came out. The community was all nuts over PS3 for months. Then out of the blue the community made a switch to Wii then to Xbox, then back to Wii and now it's basically a mixture of all 3 showing up on the front page.
          • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3A lot of people followed Ron Paul because it seemed like the media did not want that.
            Rebellion and all that.
        • dralezero, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I guess the media didnt post enough news articles about Paul to be submitted to digg. A lot of commotion going on with Obama.
      • fakekevinrose, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Mike Gravel fan for life
    • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -7/+22Eh, I don't think Obama fans believe Paul's ideas are 100% terrible.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -24/+1199% terrible. Privatizing everything is just retarded.
        • hyaena, on 05/07/2008, -4/+6thanks professor
        • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -6/+16Socializing everything is retarded! It's already been PROVEN to not work (monarchies and communism). America was founded on self-determination and self-responsibility (is that what you call privatizing?). You reap what you sow, so to speak.
          • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3But we DID socialize some things.
            The highways, water and electricity, fire departments and the police.
            That wasn't too horrible.
          • Pssdoff, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Socialism is the tool of oppression.
          • BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3No one is talking about socializing every thing, USSR-style. We want to socialize just certain things that need to be socialized, like they do in the Scandinavia.

            "I trust the American people to realize that, while we don’t need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators, a government who stands up for the middle class by giving them a tax break, a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their
            life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity, compassion and prosperity aren’t liberal values. They are not conservative values. They are American values, and that is what we are fighting for in this election." -Barrack Obama
          • 1timeuser, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Try as you will babywookie, RP zombies don't care/ dont try to understand logic. Best just to ignore them since they don't really even matter anyway.
      • Laminarcissus, on 05/07/2008, -21/+6Obama supporter here:

        100%
        • willskillz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3I don't think it matters what candidate you support on digg. You'll be dugg down for putting it in writing.
      • playmusic, on 05/07/2008, -9/+3Actually, Obama supporters like me HATE RP! Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise. Paul is polar opposite of Obama in terms of how government should function, and is also a total nutcase. Ron Paul = Lyndon LaRouche!
        • kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Wow, you are very dull in the noggin.
          • 1timeuser, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2He's not the idiot that donates to ron paul.
    • mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -3/+39And thats quite funny, since they couldnt be more different in their policies.
      • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -0/+11Because people are stupid and aren't responding to their politics just the candidate.
        • Lythium, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The cult of personality is a perfectly viable way of getting popular support. Humans are pack animals, with a need for a strong leader to tell them what they think. We've had a desperate shortage of that for the last several presidencies, so of course people are flocking to anyone who smiles well and isn't completely condescending. Not saying it's a good thing for politics, but it's shouldn't exactly come as a surprise to anyone.
          • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Of course, however its a terrible way to elect a candidate. The Germans did it in the 30s(? or late 20s, meh) and that turned out really great didn't it?
          • Laminarcissus, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1So next time we're electing someone to lead our animals we'll give Ron Paul a call. In the meantime I hope no one minds if I try to look for a little higher standard.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/07/2008, -10/+82Impossible. The only way *any* Ron Paul supporter would *ever* support Obama is if they never even spent a second looking into what either candidate believes in, and if they're perfectly happy just blindly hopping on whatever bandwagon seems to be the coolest at any particular moment.

      Oh, wait...
      • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -8/+13I can't speak for all the digg members that supported Paul, but every Paul supporter I've met has spent a lot of time learning, and listening, and reading about everything Ron Paul has done and stands for and given the current pick, couldn't really support any other candidate. That being said, I'll probably end up voting for Obama, not because I like his policies, but because I STRONGLY oppose the war and hillary-care. And no, I don't digg up obama stories, I don't support him enough for that.
        • wc3452, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9Obama also has a universal health care plan...
          • jgtg32a, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Its really not though
          • wc3452, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3It's not universal in the sense that everyone gets government health care, but it is universal in the sense that everyone in the US will have access to insurance.
        • SmokeyBBQ, on 05/07/2008, -1/+16I was with you up until you said that you'd probably end up voting for Obama. You stated that you, like other Ron Paul supporters, have spent a lot of time learning, listening, reading, etc about what Ron has done and what he believes in. And while I do believe that Obama is the lesser of 3 evils (I guess I'm kinda rooting for him), it's time to stick up for our principles and vote for the candidate that we really believe would uphold our laws and be the best person at this time to lead our country. After checking out all of the candidates and watching all of the "debates" (for both parties), I still believe that Ron Paul is the man for the job. Write him in if you have to!!! C'mon!
        • ATLien74, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Chalk another one up for the never ending battle of the lesser of two evils.
        • Pritchard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Wow! You support Obama enough to VOTE for the guy, but no... NOT digging up his stories. That's just going too far.
      • kolinkoolface2, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2THANK YOU! I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH TO MY FRIENDS.
      • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH total digg up.. true and funny.
        Oh nos! Black is the new white!
    • Disgod, on 05/07/2008, -7/+18I love how everybody assumes that it's the exact same people who were for Ron Paul, are now for Obama. Digg is a huge community of people, there are enough people so that there could be a fan base for Ron Paul, and a completely separate fan base for Obama, it's not hard to imagine. I was never for Ron Paul, and I've been for Obama since last October. All I gotta say is Ron Paul better not pull a Nader on Obama.
      • wc3452, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Ron Paul just as easily might pull a Nader on McCain
      • ATLien74, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9Yeah? And what are you gonna do about it? Not *****! I voted for Paul in the Primaries, and I'll write him in if I have to. I refuse to pick the lesser of two evils. ENOUGH!
        • rlbond86, on 05/07/2008, -10/+2You exemplify the Paul follower -- unwilling to compromise on anything. And that, sir, is a Bad Thing.
        • keithgplayer, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2"You exemplify the Paul follower -- unwilling to compromise on anything. And that, sir, is a Bad Thing."

          Umm...throwing away your principles to vote for a winner that does not represent what you stand for is a bad thing.
          • rlbond86, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Refusing to compromise and at least making your vote count is a bad thing. A vote for Ron Paul does nothing. Nobody will know that you did it, and nobody will care. People voted for Nader because they didn't want the lesser of two evils and we got Bush instead of Gore.
        • Disgod, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Dude, you need to learn to relax, it was an off the cuff remark and you act like I pissed in your cornflakes.
      • wonderworm, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3The Ron Paul army will be supporting Obama because like Paul he tells the truth and like Paul, he is the only one who will end the war and bring our tax money and troops home.
        • ATLien74, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1WRONG! I will not support Obama.... or McCain. I'd vote for Barr before Obama.

          End the war, shrink the governement, lower taxes, and legalize weed.
    • DigDugDigger, on 05/07/2008, -10/+46Ron Paul's supporters are not going away. What this country needs is a revolutionary new way of thinking, and revolutions are a long term effort, not a short term effort like elections. True, his chances of becoming the President are nil. But all those people who campaigned for him, all those people who made YouTube videos, all those people who donated, etc. are not going to disappear.

      As time goes on, you will see the Ron Paul supporters continue campaigning for those values. Like Ron Paul said himself, there is a revolution going on, and it's not about him... in fact, he's thankful for being able to take part in it.

      The revolution ain't done yet.
      • SmokeyBBQ, on 05/07/2008, -4/+19I second that!!! - You absolutely nailed it.
        • arjung, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1that's because he plagiarized ron paul's speech.
      • X9001, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4Good luck with that
    • RandaII, on 05/07/2008, -12/+18Thats because diggers are ***** sheep
      • spoonchucks, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Hope they're using condoms! Ahahahahaha... *silence*

        ...I don't have to ****ing impress you.
    • cohortq, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4I'm just voting for whoever has the best chance of getting us out of Iraq.
    • Vigilo, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9Digg censored Paul stories when he started to gain steam this was proven months back but ya i know not many can even remember what they had for breakfast. Digg is co-opted folks its essentially mainstream media now. So stfu and support for Obama, Hillary or McCain, drink your aspertame and fluoride because we are the "unwashed masses" and don't have a real say in anything except whether to get a big mac or mcnuggets.
      • HiCaP, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4Step Away From The Computer
        Take Off That Tin-Foil Hat
        And Get The ***** Out Of The Basement
      • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Oh? Try to link a story from his site. ronpaul2008.com or ronpaulforums.com
        Now link one from Obama's site barackobama.com
        No really, try it.
        Heres the result: This domain has been consistently flagged as an intermediary to the direct source of news and/or video content. Please linke directly to the story source.
      • g00dETH3R, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Spot on Vigilo.
        I cont believe people would vote for McCain over Paul, are people really that stupid.....
  • vikblazin, on 05/07/2008, -29/+19SO I COULD STILL VOTE FOR HIM!??!!!?!?!??!?!!/1/1/1?!?1?1/
  • EugineMW, on 05/07/2008, -50/+28I like Ron Paul right, but come on, it's over...
    • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -4/+7it was never about the presidency, it's about changing the mindset of the citizens and elected officials about the role of government. As long as Ron Paul supporters run for office, campaign for the same beliefs, it doesn't end.
  • vinnyvenus, on 05/07/2008, -46/+29Republican voters who voted in primaries and caucuses effectively ended his campaign by giving him less than ten percent of total votes. He did not even win in his home state of Texas. His campagin is an epic fail.
    • OfNumbers, on 05/07/2008, -9/+12As someone that lives in Texas, let me be the first to tell you that inside city lines, nobody is the same. Even the Catholic zealots that stick rosaries on their rear view mirrors are outcasts. There is very little unity over anything here. For Paul to lose in his "home state" wouldn't mean ***** here, especially to Texans.
    • rficwizard, on 05/07/2008, -11/+29We're still talking about him. Apparently, his campaign was an epic success.
      • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -15/+8We're still talking about the guy who ***** his daughter too.
    • ZeroIce, on 05/07/2008, -8/+15His campaign was definitely not an epic fail. For a candidate, that was basically ignored by the media, to get 10% of the population is pretty good. And don't forgot the record-breaking money bombs....
      • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -12/+6So you coordinate you donations into a short time for publicity sack. Big ***** deal. By the way RP got exactly the level of media attention he deserved.

        His ideas are not popular, period.
        • Tommyhawk, on 05/07/2008, -3/+7Popularity seems to be the only thing most people, such as yourself, care about.
          • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0In the context of an election its pretty ***** important. It has nothing to do with why his ideas are wrong, but it does have a lot to do with why all the delusional "OMGz RP is gonna win it all" was total *****.
        • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3It wasn't just the money bombs, they only accounted for about 11 million, he raised over 34 million! And that's just what's been reported so far.
          • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0No one doubts that his followers are not committed. They are not, however, numerous.
    • CleverGecko, on 05/07/2008, -3/+7epic fail? well, 10% of 48% turn out is 21% of the extrapolated proportion of the United States which means that... 63.8 million people supported him in theory. that's not an epic fail, but then again these are sabotaged statistics. :)
  • OffPiste, on 05/07/2008, -74/+26It's hard to shut up racists and their supporters.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -6/+12What does that say about your candidate? Is there supporting evidence?
      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -10/+9"Is there supporting evidence?"

        Years of survivalist propaganda.
        • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -6/+9Damn, I don't have his newsletters on my Mac. His top 10 things you have to do as a survivalist, before the race wars and America collapses, were ***** CLASSIC.

          I will have to post that list tomorrow.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4So that justifies racism? I think he would survive just fine without. You'd have a point 80 years ago.
        • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -7/+6"So that justifies racism? I think he would survive just fine without. You'd have a point 80 years ago."

          Your doddering old fool is the only Racist in the campaign.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2First of all, they're all libtards in my eyes, although I do think one is more honest and honorable. Second of all, I don't know what you're basing that on, but you definitely don't want to compare facts with me on this one.
          • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4"Second of all, I don't know what you're basing that on, but you definitely don't want to compare facts with me on this one."

            Printed and acknowledged documents are facts enough.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Honestly, post your facts because they'd be news to me.
          • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
            http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54586159 ...
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2I thought we were talking about McCain because you said "your doddering old fool"? Anyways, tnr is kinda biased, and I don't really care because Paul is most likely not going to be the next president.
          • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5"tnr is kinda biased"

            The excerpts are directly from Paul's newsletters, you idiot.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1I already told you I don't really care because Paul isn't relevant or important at this point, so I didn't even waste my time looking at it, you idiot.
          • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"I already told you I don't really care because Paul isn't relevant or important at this point, so I didn't even waste my time looking at it, you idiot."

            If you don't care, don't ask for the exact references as if you would have taken the time to read them.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Uhh, you're the idiot who linked to something about Paul when we were referring to McCain. Let's compare McCain to Obama like what we were suppose to do...
          • masterm1nd, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1*Researches for hours*

            I guess I know why you linked to something about Paul. Let's just substitute MLK for Obama, Paul for McCain, and then compare. Yeah, that'll fit my reality.
    • Minarchian, on 05/07/2008, -9/+25offpiste and his ilk still crying racist when they've been proven Paul is not.

      I've always thought that the biggest yellers of racism are usually racists themselves.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -14/+8So, what you are saying is that the people calling RP a racist are themselves racists? Well by your incredible logic, doesn't that make you a racist?
        • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+14I guess it would, expect he said the biggest yellers of racism. While one person is spamming digg with "he's a racist", the other simply responded to the accusations
    • Innova69, on 05/07/2008, -9/+15So, how much do you get paid again for typing "he's a racist" every 5 minutes?
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -12/+9How much did you get paid for digging up every retarded RP story a few months back?
        • 3ugene, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5$0 ... I actually donated $1,100
        • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Thank you for acknowledging they were retarded RP stories. Donate to cancer research and quit wasting your money on this tool.
    • trackerbishop, on 05/07/2008, -8/+7centcom pays about $25/hr to run around the net spreading neocon propaganda. OffPiste doesn't really believe he is a racist (no one who isn't a neocon or a moron does), he's just trying to play the psychological association game, where if you repeat two words together over and over, it sticks (Ron Paul - racist). Get it?

      now let me try:
      Ron Paul - revolutionary
      McCain - warmonger
      Clinton - liar
      Obama - 2good2betru
      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8"centcom pays about $25/hr to run around the net spreading neocon propaganda."

        You forgot overtime.
      • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -10/+7We are slacking. Ron Paul is losing to Huckabee in both North Carolina and Indiana. He can't even beat someone no longer in the race!

        Better get those posts up. Wouldn't want to upset the evil neo-con shadow government bosses.

        Ron Paul- so irrelevant, he is barely beating "no preference"...
    • thecoolestguy, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6It's hard to shut up ***** losers like Offpiste.
      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5The best way to shut up Paulentologists is to ask them what they would do with themselves if they weren't on welfare.
    • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2He has no clue why Hannity calls him a racist.
      Good for everyone, that unlike him, I do.
      Ron Paul is FALSELY called a racist becuase he does not support the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. It was NOT approved by 28 states due to the loopholes pertaining to immigration (ie a child born in US is a citizen and their parents are granted citizenship to care for their children) and the lack of oversight of the state debt clause.
      Calling Ron Paul a racist for not supporting an illegal amendment to our constitution is like calling an American Citizen a traitor for not support an illegal war *cough cough*
      • chaosium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Oh look, another failure of a constitutional scholar.
  • jer2eydevil88, on 05/07/2008, -46/+28Can you hear that? That would be the sound of nobody listening anymore. Not that I have anything against Paul but its not realistic for him to continue and its a waste of money that he could just donate to Charities.
    • aaabatteries, on 05/07/2008, -6/+13Legally, he isn't allowed to spend the rest of his campaign money on anything but his campaign.
      He has a few million left...why not take a bit of the Republican vote from McCain?
      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3"He has a few million left...why not take a bit of the Republican vote from McCain?"

        He's not spending the millions on doing so, and he's getting less out of his money than Giuliani.
      • Laminarcissus, on 05/07/2008, -9/+4That's not accurate. McCain-Feingold allows him to spend it on anything he wants that isn't himself. Which was the point of him raising it. He knew he wasn't going to win, so he ended his (expensive) campaigning early so he'd still have a few million dollars of unspent funds in the bank as play money.

        So maybe he can start publishing a newsletter again -- so many more ethnic and homophobic slurs to work with these days. The white separatist movement isn't what it used to be, how about a hundred grand to get that rolling again?

        So many possibilities, so much money raised on false pretenses...

        Hey, it may not sound fair, but all RP has to do to prove me wrong is spend the campaign money he raised from supporters of his Presidential campaign during the campaign period. Then I'll apologize.

        I'm not holding my breath.
    • Subliminational, on 05/07/2008, -2/+21I dont want him to just throw away the money I gave him. I say spend it to spread the word.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/07/2008, -10/+6I say spend it to cure ***** cancer.
        • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -8/+4Survivalists and libertarians are a cancer on the world.
    • ZeroIce, on 05/07/2008, -8/+14It's not about the campaign and the election, it's about the message. You'll understand one day.
      • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -7/+5Both were illconceived and poorly executed.
    • sgiffy, on 05/07/2008, -3/+7Hey! he's got a book to sell after all.
  • jbenson2, on 05/07/2008, -49/+18The only reason he is still in the campaign is to do the talking-heads book circuit to sell his dumb book.
    • thecoolestguy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4try reading his "dumb book" and wake up to reality.
      • jbenson2, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I think Paul has already woken up to reality and that is why he has fallen back on the book circuit. He knows he is going no where in political office.
  • Sogui, on 05/07/2008, -50/+35Ron Paul was an internet meme.
    • travis6690, on 05/07/2008, -4/+14I thought internet memes were supposed to be funny.
    • ZeroIce, on 05/07/2008, -5/+7That's funny coming from someone who is a fan of McCain and Obama.... Can't make up your mind? Not sure which band wagon to jump on?
    • thecoolestguy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4and you're an internet bukake
  • zenithmbr, on 05/07/2008, -39/+22Ron who?
  • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -50/+25It ended before it began. Paul's campaign is full of outlandish claims and false economics that pander to the internet crowd who have a tendency to find "facts" that support any point of view.

    I've dealt with his supporters quite a bit. Do you know who really supports Ron Paul? It's people who are fairly successful and got there without anybody else's help. They like Paul because he basically stands for destroying all assistance to the American people. It was a giant pain in the ass for Paul supporters to be successful; why should anyone else get it any easier? They stand for blocking progress, frankly.
    • BuddyDoQ, on 05/07/2008, -12/+29Sorry sir, but that's *****. He doesn't make a single claim that isn't well researched, I dare you to point to a specific issue he covers and debunk it. In fact, if you do your own research well, you'll see where many of his economic predictions and warnings have come true over time. As for the destroying all assistance to the American people? Where the hell did you get that from? If you follow the underlying ideals, messages, and warnings of our founding fathers, you'll have found exactly where, and for what, Ron Paul stands.
      • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4In this youtube video, Ron Paul debates with Bernanke about how central bankers always avoid talking about money supply when talking about prices. He then goes on to say that you cannot talk about prices without talking about money supply, then brings up figures of the increase in M3. http://youtube.com/watch?v=gldETRlhiXk . However, while there are correlations with money supply and inflation, the correlation is weak among countries experiencing low inflation (such as the US).

        The quantity theory of money is the leading theory on how money affects the economy and prices in the long run (Source: Macroeconomics by Gregory Mankiw, P. 83). The core of the theory lies in the equation:
        M*V=P*Y
        Assuming a constant V (velocity), an increase in the money supply does not always require an equal increase in prices, since Y (output) may also increase to offset the increase in M. This observation is supported further in studies that examined the relationship between money growth and inflation. In one such study that examined 160 countries, the relationship between inflation and money growth were weak among low-inflation countries (less than 10% inflation per annum on average in the last thirty years) (Source: Is Inflation Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon? http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j ... )
        • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Your source is a dead link, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your main argument actually supports Ron Paul's position:

          "an increase in the money supply does not always require an equal increase in prices, since Y (output) may also increase to offset the increase in M"

          An increase in Production was always meant to drive prices DOWN. Even if production was able to keep up with the expanding money supply, it's still robbing people who save money, because it lowers the purchasing power of the saved dollars. The U.S. has experienced constant inflation more or less since 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Historical_I ... , M3 alone is rising at 16% annually! The GDP (for lack of a better production metric) hasn't enjoyed double digit increases since World War !!!!!!
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3My main argument does not support Ron Paul's argument at all. His argument was that money supply and inflation are strongly correlated, and that is why we have to look at money supply when talking about prices. However, Bernanke then goes on to say that the link is not very strong, which is why central bankers focus mainly on prices and NOT money supply. The source I gave is then the support of this, as the correlation between money supply and inflation is very weak among low-inflation countries such as the United States. This is a pretty strong argument against Ron Paul's own argument that the money supply is the culprit of our problems. Yeah the link is dead, but a simple google scholar search on the title will get you the article.

          I think you misunderstand some basic economic principles. It is not that prices need to go down. It is that purchasing power needs to go up. You misinterpret nominal prices with real prices. It does not matter so much if the price level goes up, so long as your wages go up as well and you can buy more with the amount of money you're earning. You do not want the price level of an economy going down; that is deflation, and it has been largely blamed as a large factor towards the Great Depression. There have been MANY economic papers written on this, including one written by the guy that everyone loves to hate, Bernanke. There is a large amount of academic literature that supports the idea that deflation and monetary contraction led to the Great Depression and the extent of the damage it did to the economy. Deflation has nothing to do with how much you can buy. Price levels in general do not tell you how much you can buy. If they did, then by your logic, deflation should somehow allow people to buy more, which would mean that the Great Depression should have been the Great Expansion. Looking at nominal prices and ignoring real prices is a fundamental economic misunderstanding.
        • UltraKill, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2If I am not mistaking the monetary exchange equation can only be applied to long term situations (ill have to ask my economic teacher to be sure). This is why V was considered a constant in the research that you provided, since it was used to analyze a 30 year period. If it was to be used to analyze a short period of time, the business cycles that the economy experiences would give inaccurate results. The equation can be expressed as %p = %m + %v - %y, where the % represents delta (I don’t know how to make the delta symbol with my keyboard :( ) As you can see from the equation, any change in velocity could cause a large enough change in price. Again ill have to look into further, but I believe that there is a stronger correlation between money supply and pricing over a short time span (couple of years?), which I am assuming is what Ron Paul was getting at.

          I would like to add that the level of inflation would be a lot higher then it is now if the FDR wasn’t using PCE to evaluate inflation. I believe (although you may want to double check), that the FDR switched from CPI to PCE in 2000 which excludes food and energy. Food and energy makes up ~23% of consumer consumption. Prior to switching to PCE they would use substitution for goods which gave an artificially low inflation rate. Check out www.bls.gov I noticed a lot of articles that I read actually cite The Bureau of Labor Statistics, so they must be pretty open about that information.

          So with all that being said, this would then bring the conclusion that prices of oil have been going up due to an increase in money supply. This is why Ron Paul compares the price of oil to gold, saying that the two have been relatively similar in price. However I think as early as March, prices of oil vs gold has been going up as a result of higher demand for oil.

          The real rate of other goods have been able to keep down as a result of better manufacturing technology, and outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries.
          Considering the increase in manufacturing being shipped over to other countries, and the value of the dollar declining vs. other countries, and the possible recession, do you believe that Y would keep up with M?
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Yeah, the equation is used to explain the relationship between money supply and inflation in the long run. If it were in the short run, then prices would be assumed to be sticky, and I don't think there'd be any inflation in domestic goods (since oil is tied to exchange rates, there would be inflation there). However, I don't think this detracts from my argument because Ron Paul often cites long-term figures of inflation. He doesn't seem to talk about inflation in the short run, his problem (at least in the papers I've read from him) is that it'll generate large amounts of inflation in the long run.

          I think the assumption of V is pretty safe. V has shown to change when money demand changes. I believe it's inventions such as the ATM machine that'll change V. However, I think V is generally pretty stable.

          I agree that inflation is higher when considering the rising prices of oil and food. However, I don't see this as much a consequence of printing money as it is a consequence of a rise in demand for these commodities without an equal increase in the supply. Food prices and oil have been largely driven up as a result of increased demand from the BRIC emerging economies, as well as other things such as the ethanol programs. I do not see the monetary unit as the problem. Everyone is paying higher prices for oil, not just us. This is because the demand is going higher - we can't fight the rising price by changing monetary units, because I think it's mainly just a fundamental issue of rising demand not met with rising supply.

          If we were to try to fight it by changing our monetary unit, it would not change many things. Gold has stayed stable with oil because gold's price has been rising as well. However, gold has a big history of price fluctuations. Oil will continue to go up, but gold will not. Also, by kinda similar rationals, why don't we just move onto an oil-backed currency (I don't agree with this, but just using it make an argument)? An oil-backed currency would keep oil's price the same for us (obviously heh, since the price of 1-crude-oil-backed dollar would equal 1 barrel of crude oil).

          I see Y and M being the other way around. In other words, the federal reserve tries to keep M growing at the same rate as Y. We're sort of mixing short-run and long-run though. Like you said, this equation explains inflation in the long run. However, in the short run with sticky prices, it'd be in the Federal Reserve's best interest to increase the money supply to stimulate the economy.
        • DanNZN, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Wow, an honest to goodness debate about an issue without any slandering. I think all of you guys should be dug up. Sad that this little thread seems to be mostly ignored.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -9/+1Sorry chief, but the burden of proof is on you. I'm confident in my stance than Ron Paul's platform is drivel, and frankly I don't need to pass my research by you for that confidence to be confirmed. In addition, assuming you continue to support Mr. Paul, I'm fairly certain your voice will not be heard come November. Therefore, I really have nothing to gain from endlessly trying to prove Mr. Paul's platform to be incorrect.
        • BuddyDoQ, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Is it really drivel to not only quote, but believe in the words of entities such as the constitution, Jefferson, Washington, and Taft? Clearly they had something good to say, something important to us all, but maybe we have forgotten...

          I don't need my voice heard in November. November is for my conscience, and my conscience alone, as it should be. Indeed, we all probably want roughly the same thing. The difference we all face is how do we get to it. You haven't come out and said it here, but your stance against Paul indicates a desire to allow for a set of programs to support certain segments of our population. Rather than allowing free men live by the sweat of their own brow, you would have a government, and by such extensions, an armed force, take away prosperity from all americans for, "The Greater Good." Private philanthropy and good old fashioned hard working americans be damned. You're right in one thing, the people who support paul generally are wealthy, and they generally did work their asses off to get there.

          According to the government I'm dirt poor, I'm that guy who, if not taxed to hell, would have a paycheck enough to cover the higher gas prices without cutting into my other budgets. I'd be better off without this interference, I'd have more to spend, and therefore more to give to my fellow town and countrymen. I don't want a handout, I don't need support, so why should it be considered immoral for me to question the plundering of my earnings, while the Sheriff of Nottingham makes off like Robin Hood.

          If you're poor and need help, ask a church to sponsor you. Ask your neighbors if you for odd jobs. Look to your fellow man for goodwill, you may be surprised. Don't rob it from him, either by your own hand, or by the hand of law, he may learn to hate you for it...
    • diceau, on 05/07/2008, -4/+14I'm from Australia, working a low income job 3 times per week and living happily at the beach while chasing a dream of mine.

      If I were American I'd be voting for Ron Paul.
      • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1You know that Australia is using fiat money, right? In other words, this happy life of yours is NOT due to Ron Paul in any way, and he would probably object to your printing of money, seeing as how annual inflation in Australia is around 4-5%.
        • mobilelearn, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0You know that all first world nations use fiat money, right? Single point commodity money is too risky on intrnational markets. The last remenents of the US Gold Standard was eliminated by Nixon because the cash out demand was so high by international banks, he was in the position to be forced to take a gold loan from IMFs to keep the currency stable. Yea we have problems, but it is a myth that a 'gold standard' can fix them. No country's currency has ever survived on a gold standard, a single point commodity is too risky. Don't take my word for it, the Mises-Hayek Business Model Theory (Austrian Economic School that Paul even follows) states that not only will recessions, inflation, depression, etc still happen under a commodity based currency, but they are required as regular events to keep the economy in check. Nope, the real problem here isn't fiat or gold standards, it is simply the government trying to micromanage it too much. Paul has tricked everyone into thinking the gold standard is a panecia. It isn't. No country has ever survived on it in the modern era. I wonder if he invests in gold which is why he pumps it up?
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1? I agree with you. I'm not arguing against you here.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2Thanks for your input. You're not American.
    • TJATL, on 05/07/2008, -3/+10So do you need the government to wipe your ass every time you take a *****? If you want to live in a nanny state, there are plenty of them in Europe that you could live. Want the ultimate government help? Then take your ass to Cuba, were the citizens are living the "red" dream.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, isn't it? That is definitely the situation I implied. I know for a fact you realize that the situation you describe is a gross mischaracterization of my words, and I also know that most Digg readers would realize the same. So why even bother typing that message? You gain nothing and only further increase your ignorance.
        • TJATL, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5My ignorance? lol....do you deny that you are pro-socialist programs which you define as "progressive"?
          • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1I don't think increasing funding to allow kids to go to college is at all analogous to Cuba, which is what you have tricked yourself into believing I implied.
      • BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1"I trust the American people to realize that, while we don’t need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators, a government who stands up for the middle class by giving them a tax break, a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity, compassion and prosperity aren’t liberal values. They are not conservative values. They are American values, and that is what we are fighting for in this election."" -Barack Obama
    • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4By your own words.... if progress is handouts, I'll go the other way thanks.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3It's not handouts we're talking about. It's support. The entire purpose of a government is to support its people. Governments were created because they could do things that individuals alone could not. Ron Paul would strip down the government to its bare minimum, pull out of all treaties and international organizations while advocating strict isolationism (which gives us very little of a platform to defend ourselves from), and return us to archaic economic practices. What does that do for me?
    • Samurai77, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Frankly you're a dumbass.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I've known since I was a child that once people result to insults, it is a sign that their position is untenable.
    • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Oh yeah... one more comment on this... I totally forgot..
      "Paul's campaign is full of outlandish claims and false economics that pander to the internet crowd"
      You mean like RECESSION (that we are in)
      Or maybe RAISING GAS PRICES?
      Stuff like that... that actually happened exactly as he called it? Those things?
      You are not making you're case.
      • charlesray, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Raising gas prices? You're giving that to Paul? I called that 10 years ago when gas prices were also going up.
        But again, like I said before, I'm not making a case. I'm stating fact. I know Paul supporters have a big problem with facts, which is I why I don't generally make an attempt to support them.
  • BuddyDoQ, on 05/07/2008, -24/+229So I was reading Dr. Paul's new book today and saw this gem: "Until the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its entire history."

    If that's not enough to discredit Hillary and McCain's campaign of ignorance and ego, then I don't know what is.
    • mach32, on 05/07/2008, -50/+17don't bother to fact check. just accept everything at face value. you blind followers are loons.

      • Beatmiser, on 05/07/2008, -2/+35Though I am not a supporter of Paul...

        "Many of the legislators' questions were about Iraq, which had never experienced a suicide terrorist attack before the U.S. invasion. After it, there were 20 in 2003, 48 in 2004 and more than 50 in the first five months of this year, according to Pape's tally."
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
        • patpl22391, on 05/07/2008, -11/+2What about Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on his own people? What about people dissapearing in the middle of the night, or any of the other evil things Saddam did?
        • nebbo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9@patpl22391 Those are real suicide attacks aren't they?
        • shig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8@patpl22391

          We gave Saddam the chemical weapons, OK? I have the receipts. Blister agents, nerve agents, and biologicals from Anthrax to West Nile. A potpourri of black magic death. We gave him weapons, which is equivalent to building his throne and putting him in it. We gave him an enemy too. How about that?
        • CrushThemTorg, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6Didn't the Baath party receive support from the U.S. early on as well?
        • Pritchard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3And the USA is not the damned police of the world... I personally value people's right to run and challenge their own nation over having the authority to bend the world how we see fit. We don't have enough money to do it. If anything, it's immoral to go around the world, toppling nations and making people HATE us, just because we don't agree with their government.

          Yes, there are terrible leaders of nations in this world, but you can not entangle yourself militarily in other nations' affairs. That spreads war. If you want to change a nation, inspire it - Generally something the government should stay out of as well... propaganda and nation overthrowing...
        • PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2@Pritchard

          If only we could apply this to all situations equally, rather than ranting about how we interfered with a sovereign nation in "X" situation, only to turn around and criticize us in for not doing anything in inside a sovereign nation in "Y" situation.
          • Pritchard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I hear ya... These situations are very damned difficult man. But I think that looking upon History can help people make better decisions. History has found outcomes to these types of situations that we could not think of on our own.
      • GratefulGroover, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5HA PWND!
    • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -23/+11I agree that the war in Iraq should not have occurred. However, let's remember that Ron Paul's books are also not always filled with gems. Let me counter that with another quote that Ron Paul says in his book, Gold Peace and Prosperity on page 15:
      "We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s, as a direct result of our faltering economic system."
      This was written in the early 1980s. So much for that faltering economic system in the 1980s that created widespread civil disorder.
      • mlvassallo, on 05/07/2008, -5/+7He did say that in his book. Would it be irony that diggers who are so passionate about the truth are also digging it down?
      • ThickGreenPuke, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3he didn't count on the laziness of the average American.
      • 007brendan, on 05/07/2008, -2/+14That book was written in 1981. The "civil disorder" sentence was part of a section that predicted a large economic crash within the decade. He was proven right in 1987 on Black Monday, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2he was not. There was no widespread civil disorder as a result of the financial market crash. In fact, the market mostly recovered in a short period of time.
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Also, the section is called "Impending social strife?" He goes even further than saying that there will be a large economic crash. He's saying that there will be "widespread social disorder."

          So,
          1. There was no economic crash. One day in which the stock market drops tremendously is not an economic crash. It is a stock market crash, but not an overall economic crash. I think we can all agree that he wasn't solely trying to predict stock market movements, and only for one day (since it recovered mostly afterwards).
          2. There was no social disorder. Even with a one day stock market anomaly, no one freaked out, there was no social strife. Let's not try to stretch the facts to support his (now obviously) inaccurate claim.
        • thecoolestguy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+41. Black Monday WAS an economic crash. Financially speaking, it was one of the most devastating days in American history. The only reason the crash did not have wider repercussions was that the government BORROWED it's way out, leaving the problem to the next generation.
          2. The social disorder was more subtle and institutional, rather than overt, than Ron Paul had predicted. More blacks in prison than ever before in history, courtesy of the war on drugs (i.e. the war on the inner city), and more white women raped by blacks than in any time in history (approaching 40,000 per years). And a whole load of politically correct horsesht from both sides (the conservative right and the liberal-left/blacks) to rationalize/argue it away.
        • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1It was not an economic crash. GDP grew that year I believe. If there was an economic crash, you'd think output would contract, wouldn't you? Financially speaking, it was one of the most devastating in that it had a huge decline in one day. However, it mostly recovered because investors realized that the markets were oversold. It was bad yes, but it had nothing to do with what Ron Paul was predicting, and it certainly had little to do with what Ron Paul saw as a problem created by fiat money.

          Ron Paul predicted social disorder as a result of the economic decline, not just social disorder in general. Hey, you point to all sorts of stats that show SOMETHING got worse in a year. Hell, if that's how you define "social disorder", then there was social disorder in EVERY decade, since the beginning of time. Doesn't seem like Ron Paul was making a very meaningful statement, if that's what he meant (which I don't think is what he really meant).
        • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2OH NOS! Paul was able to predict that due to our economic situation we would suffer problems. He stated it as Civil Disorder.
          Does it really matter the semantics of what it is? He was the only one that was able to forsee the crash, and the only one that had a plan to correct it.
          Who cares if there was not mass hysteria, dogs and cats sleeping with each other, etcetc. He was right when all the economic "experts" had a thumb in juxtaposition to their heads.
          • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Boboki, read the quote. He predicted this in the 1980s, and it had nothing to do with the economic situation we're in now. That was over 30 years ago. If I said an economic crisis would occur soon, then 30 years later it did, would you say I had predicted it?
        • thecoolestguy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2----It was not an economic crash. GDP grew that year I believe. If there was an economic crash, you'd think output would contract, wouldn't you?---

          1987 wasn't a recession, but 1990 was. The financial markets reacted before the productive sectors.

          ---Ron Paul predicted social disorder as a result of the economic decline, not just social disorder in general. ---

          And what is falling birth rates, slowing growth in life expectancy, and higher prison rates if not social disorder caused by economic decline.

          Ron Paul was off about the timing of the total collapse, and that's only because the government bought time by borrowing more money and staving off and compounding the disaster, thereby leaving it for future generations.
        • bc289, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11990 was a decade after his prediction. We have yet to have one decade without having a recession. It would be like predicting that the clock will hit 11:20PM some time in the next 24 hours.

          How are falling birth rates a bad thing? That is not social disorder, hell that's not even necessarily a bad thing. Slowing growth in life expectancy has occurred throughout the world, not just the US. That has more to do with medical progress than the currency we're using in our economy.

          If you're going to point to higher prison rates as the "widespread social disorder", then