What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
El Cazador De La Bruja view!
funimation.com - Ellis has a bounty on her head, and Nadie's trigger finger is the only thing keeping her alive.
281 Comments
- toxicityj, on 10/11/2007, -3/+73well if the voting processed is based on most Diggs, I think Paul would win hands down. Either him or the iPhone.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/11/2007, -14/+72He didn't just say he believed they wouldn't win... he stated as though it were a fact that they will not win.
- willers32, on 10/11/2007, -29/+86Don't forget who Stephanapoulos is; he's Bill Clinton's former communications director. Enough said.
- shankrabbit, on 10/11/2007, -33/+84Even in the face of an *****, Paul dominates with his responses.
- sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -6/+53Clinton was at about 2-3% in 1991. He won.
- Rsardinia, on 10/11/2007, -15/+50What a dick. He's the problem with America. "Who are you going to vote for?" "But you're not going to win...." typical network news watching voter. I'm going to vote for the front runner so my vote "counts" because voting for someone behind in the polls is a wasted vote. Very sad.
- rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -26/+59Did he really need to tell them that? It seems like common sense...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -47/+78You have to be pretty stupid to think someone who polls at 2% has a chance in hell of winning.
- Infinite84, on 10/11/2007, -50/+80Let's prove him wrong & get Ron Paul elected
- jizzatch, on 10/11/2007, -46/+76Stephanopolous is also a card carrying member of the CFR, an organization that openly supports the creation of a North American Union.
George is a traitor to America. - kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -5/+33He could have handled it better though, and reminded him that it's the media's job to report the news, not decide it
- insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -1/+26It doesn't matter they bring sanity to a vary insane party. Imagine the rebpublican debates without them. "9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! 9/11!!!! "
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33The two best candidates are the long shots?
I cries. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23To be fair I think Gravel handled the end bit much better.
- jagermeistr, on 10/11/2007, -10/+28whether you like ron paul or not, very rude, and actually may not be a correct opinion.
- docrock911, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26Yeah, they're longshots.... wake up stupid. Maybe you should do a little research and see that Ron Paul won 64% of the straw poll in Massachusetts this weekend. And Guiliani got 8% as 2nd runner up. Goes to show that, as usual, the media is doing everything it can to try and bury the power of Ron Paul's campaign. He may not have alot of money, but he's got a hell of a backing from the American people.
- kidcodea, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21what better way to aknowledge a sick society like the US has, then to project disbelief in people with valid ideas running for president.
- biggsdarklight, on 10/11/2007, -13/+28I think he's "credible" but he's worked for the establishment and the is part of the status quo. Especially with someone like Hillary running. I don't think Steph is "one of us" I think he's part of the current political machine that is running the country and that machine is the antithesis of what Ron Paul is. A Ron Paul victory means a major shakeup to these people and the organizations they are a part of. I think it's safe to assume that if Ron Paul wins the presidency people like Steph aren't to get a whole lot of access to his administration.
- jostheller, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20I am voting for Ron Paul in 2008, even if I am writing his name in.
You are throwing your vote away if you do not vote for who you think would run the country the best. If you are voting for "the lessor of two evils" then you can not possibly win, and are in fact throwing your vote away. Pay attention and do your homework, and make your vote based on how the candidate would run the country.
My voting history - Perot 1996, Browne 2000, Badnarik 2004, Paul 2008 - laserjobs, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24This propaganda has been running rampant in the MSM. Look for yourself, there are so many articles that put in "little chance of winning" or "has no chance". That is an opinion and does not belong in reporting. It is easy to tell this propaganda has been sent from the top down since it is repeated in many MSM sources.
- kimohoki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Ron Paul has no intention of weaning you from the government tit if that is the choice you decide to make. He is, however, interested in giving you, me, and everyone else the opportunity to make the determination which option is better. You are trying to cloud the real point, and that is you are afraid of everyone really having freedom. You are so concerned about your safety and security that you are forgetting your actions are making you a tyrant to those who disagree with your position. Everyone should be able to make their own choice. You should be able to choose to stay dependent on the government for your bread and butter, but please do not FORCE me or anyone else to give up our right to choose. You should know that Ron Paul has stated on multiple occasions that he has no intention of betraying the commitments made to those receiving benefits. If we stop with the militarism around the world there will be enough to get people off of the welfare rolls and into the promise of a true free market.
- UberNick, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18@winnch
personal responsibility's a bitch, ain't it? - rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -10/+24Thank you. Instead of the whining below, you actually made a motion to action.
- MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -8/+22I know. Wouldn't it just be horrible to be able to keep the money that is being robbed from you to pay for all of that bureaucracy?
I'm not smart enough to know how to take care of myself so I want the government to do it for me. - atticus8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13It is simply unfathomable to me to picture Rudy Giuliani putting more than three sentences together without mentioning 9/11 directly or using some more oblique reference.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14From a blog:
Writes Justin Ptak: "At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates.
"In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).
"In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
"In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).
"In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).
"In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary)." - sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Stop. You're going to screw up the space time continuum.
- MaynardJK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The difference is that Americans don't vote for the leaders of Mexico or Canada.
- BobOrleans, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18It's too ***** early, no?
- thetaco82, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Global economy. Our international reputation. Unchecked power in the hands of thieves and liars.
- vanadium77, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16You know, if everyone that said Paul and Gravel were longshots--especially those who would otherwise support them--actually voted for either of them, there might actually be one hell of a race between two people who offer real alternatives to the status quo in this country.
Defeatist attitudes do nobody justice, especially when it comes to politics. Unfortunately, we have to live with the result every time. - Toloran, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17I'd have to agree if it was, say, July 08 instead of July 07. However, since it IS '07 and the election is over a year away he might still have a chance (however unlikely). All it would take is a nice and juicy scandal for one or more of the major candidates that gets covered by the major media. Granted, with all the boot lickers in media now and days, it would take nothing less then a high-profile murder to get the mainstream media off their asses.
- nreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16he didn't say "I doubt you're going to win." he said "That's NOT going to happen"
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Myspace friends? are you ***** me? You really think the average myspace ***** is going to go out and vote?
- Jedimonkey27, on 10/11/2007, -12/+22Welcome to Digg...
- Mavtek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Some people like winnch get on the internet after listening to Dr. Paul while they were clearly on Crack. Health Care for your kids? Does the government help you now with health care for your kids? They don't help me! WTF? I know I'm working my ass off for the Government to take money from me every 2 weeks for what it calls Medicare for which I have no benefit because I don't have 5 kids and make less than $20,000 a year! Clearly something is screwy if you depend on the government to help you start a business and get health care for your kids, guess what you bastard that's not money you're getting from thin air dumbass. That came from tax payers like me! That's my money your apparently squandering because you can't take care of yourself! Please next time go to Prosper.com and give me the option of helping your dumbass out with a loan that I at least have a choice of giving you!
Why in the hell do you think Ron Paul would get rid of people's current Medicare and Social Security bennys anyway? He's never ever said that! Oh and you're precious federal banking system has nothing to do with your government! The Federal Reserve is a private entity owned by greedy executives! HELLO!!! - BigDonkey666, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Pure idiocy. Learn what you are speaking about before you speak.
- ptrr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@imperium2000
Thing is, once more people hear about Ron Paul and look into his political stances, he has a damn good chance and that's happening. Believe it or not, alot of people don't want to choose between the lesser of two evils. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9He also has more money. (Paul, not McCain)
- sobe86, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Me neither, but still, I'm glad there are candidates like this, you don't need to win a presidential election to influence people, to make them think about things, and to restore our faith that not every politician is a complete dick.
- dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I love the defeatist attitude... that's exactly why we get ***** like Bush in the white house. How about if we all just voted for the person whose ideals most closely matched our own instead of trying to pick the winner like the election is some sort of game show? What if the big money raisers were Satan, Saddam and Osama instead of Rudy, Hillary and Obama (ain't that much of a stretch IMHO)? Would you vote for Ron Paul then or just ignore him since "He is NOT going to win"?
You said you like Ron Paul, and yet instead you intend to vote for the major candidate that you "hate the least". By doing so, you empower those you hate instead of using your vote, even if RP loses, to send a message to the big-money winner that there's a strong Constitutionalist presence in America that should not be ignored. Even if your candidate has a snowball's chance in hell, by voting for him/her you give your candidate's ideals some political muscle and make it that much harder for them to be marginalized in the future. Picking the winner from the corporate-sponsored "big money" whores that you "hate the least" is the best way to make sure your true ideals are never promoted in America, unless of course your last name is DuPont or Ford. - blitzman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13They told Washington that his ragtag band of unequipped untrained farmers couldn't beat the biggest superpower in the world, either.
- ptrr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@Konrad9
Well for one a NAU is a union of countries, not states. Mexico has nothing in common with America or Canada. We'd also be at the whim of the President of the NAU not the President of the United States to which we'd have little control over. We would no longer follow our constitution, we'd be under a NAU "constitution". In short, we'd no longer be America, we'd be the "United Canadian States of Mexico". Ah, who am I kiddin? You're probably already back to watching MTV. - blaaguuu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11He probably knows that he is such an ***** that many of his guest are going to want to kick him in the balls... Hence the leg crossing.
- frsrblch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I really want to see this guy win. The world needs him to. What I worry is that the average American doesn't understand enough about anything to think beyond what FOX tells him. The informed people, who have watched all the ***** being done to their country are the one's populating these polls and rallies, but I fear they aren't in the majority.
And please, for the love of all that is, if you want to see Ron Paul win, GET OUT AND ***** VOTE. Seriously, you guys are going to be very ***** if someone like Giuliani wins. I thought Bush was simply stupid back when he got elected, and look how he turned out. This guy is running on the platform that he will open a can of whoop-ass on the Middle East, and that should scare any thinking person *****. - CDoug03, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16I think George needs to *****
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Yep, bush got in (if we are to believe the 2000 vote wasn't rigged) by a mere 17% of the population voting for him! Thats utterly despicable!!
- scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I've always found it outrageous that the "networks" take it upon themselves to (officially??) call the elections one way or the other - and that the damn candidates often abide by this. Or maybe I imagined the whole thing... Bush couldn't have won again could he?
- sentanta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9You're post implies that 7 out of 10 voters won't in fact sit on the couch and watch the election. Only about 30% of Americans vote
- dagnome1984, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Science forbid that he would give us a currency that is not debased by half every ten years.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 281 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is