What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
100 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+107Gravel vs. Paul would be the dream match up. I think even the Founding Fathers would at least temporarily stop spinning in their graves.
Either one as President would improve the state of Washington, so we couldn't lose overall. But the real differences between them represent the fundamental differences between left and right ideologies, not the ***** wedge issues, lies, and false dichotomies we're usually given. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43Isn't it sad when politics is so ***** up in this country that people find a candidate from the opposite end of the political spectrum to be refreshing just because they don't talk out of their ass?
We've got to remove money from politics people. How? Discuss that amongst yourselves. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35The rigged system is killing us ALL. The obviousness of the current system being rigged to do the bidding of the very few is undeniable. Yesterdays episode with ABC (some of you here know what I mean by that) served to demonstrate that the game is even worse than those of us already "on to them" thought.
No offense meant to anyone here but there are essentially three groups of people and understanding that is one key to solving this critical dilemma:
1. Those who already know the system is gamed against us.
2. Those who do not yet see the system is gamed against us(some of those never will).
3. Those who know the system is gamed and either are "IN" on the game or (wrongly) believe the gamed system serves their self interest so they willingly/actively support and perpetuate the game.
For those that understand the game and realize how dangerous/damaging it is for all, fight it in every way you can. If you prefer Ron Paul also help Gravel because all indications are that he is an anti-game candidate and vice versa. Try to demonstrate/explain/convince that the system is gamed against us all to those who have yet to catch on to the game but are well meaning people trying to do the right thing.
For those of you who think the game is "good" for you personally, it is NOT in the long run(unless you are one of a very small group of people), please reconsider and help end this corrupt and dangerous status quo. - foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32I support the Battle of the Mavericks 2008, but the corporate media doesn't...
Gravel is "Comic Relief" - George Stephanopollus
Gravel being there "Just Wastes Time" - CBS's Bob Scheiffer
Ron Paul's "reedy voice and excitable manner stood out in what was otherwise a blending chorus of deep monotones" - NYT (wtf)
Ron Paul will "develop as the Kucinich of this group." - Lois Romano on MSNBC Debate
We need a plan to counter the corporate media, because it's only going to get worse from here on out. If the majority of Americans got their information from the internet, we'd have a shot, but as of now, I'm still cynical. How many people on Digg who submit stories about Gravel or Paul daily, get out and talk to Americans who aren't getting news from the internet? Probably not that many... this is still a real long-shot. - sollycardy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38ABC ARE STILL CENSORING RON PAUL AND MIKE GRAVEL:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/ABC_No_mention_of_Ron_Paul_or_Mike_Gravel_as_presidential_runners
Tell them how this makes you feel:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660 - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -16/+42@linkedlist
What the hell are you babbling about?
I'm saying Digg doesn't have unwavering support for Ron Paul, because many of us have liked Obama since we met him, and still think he's the best choice for President.
Which each new candidate, the Digg loyalty will be split.
And I'm not treating Obama like a hot girl and dumping him/her?? Dude you're weird. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26@jerbaker
"We've got to remove money from politics people."
Question: What is it that the lobbyists buy?
Answer: POWER
Solution: Remove the power from government. With nothing to sell, there will be no buyers. The power that's being sold was never granted to them by the Constitution anyway. Put the power back in the hands of the people. Then sit back and watch the lobbyists evaporate. - ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24we need them to team up,wont happen but could you imagine how they could run with that??
a truly by-partisan campaign - foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Obama supports increased military spending. He said “No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests” (Referring to Middle Eastern, Caspian Sea or Venezuelan oil???)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/25/738/
Obama takes money from major corporations while putting on a charade he doesn't take lobbyist money
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-obama22apr22,1,6990763.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true
Obama supports more nuclear power plants, regardless that those plants need huge subsidies to be built:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/
Obama has NO support among the true activist-left (people who listen to Democracy Now and read commondreams.org). He says "if you elect me, we will get out of Iraq." Like Mike Gravel says, why do you need to wait to get elected? Mike Gravel (and Woodland Creature Kucinich) are the only Democrats who talk about the 50,000 mercenaries in Iraq, and the 100,000 contractors building 104-acre permanent bases in Iraq, and that another $80 billion spending bill isn't supporting "the troops", it's going to private contractors who are making a killing in Iraq.
I consider myself "Progressive Left." Yet I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama... just give me that chance Republicans! And hopefully you feel the same way about Gravel vs. Romney. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18if the FCC required their licensees (all of the broadcast TV and radio companies) to set aside a sufficient sum of advertising minutes to legitimate candidates without charge as a condition of their license, then the need for money in campaigns would drop significantly.
make GE, Disney, and Viacom agree that, in exchange for the use of america's electromagnetic broadcast spectrum, they have to stop charging billions for political ads. the lionshare of political fundraising goes into TV and radio ads.
each of those multimedia giants own cable networks as well. make the agreement include "must carry" cabel channels while you're at it.
the airwaves belong to the citizens and we grant the broadcasters the rights based on their ability to enhance our republic. are they fulfilling that obligation by charging the candidates millions to get their message out? millions that need to be raised at the expense of democracy? - laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14We're enacting that plan: ignoring television and discussing this at the grass-roots Internet level.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@mirunit
You're just being lazy with your homework. A candidate like Ron Paul is what this country has been begging for since the death of John F. Kennedy. If you are not smart enough to see that then you ought not participate in 2008. You will doom us all to horrors. - BruceBannon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Ok, so here was my take on both the democratic and republican debate...
The Democrats all seemed to be the same old wishy washy crowd. None of them have a firm stance on anything except that the war needs to end. And, maybe it's just a look in their eyes, or the way they hesitate when they speak about it, but I feel that the only reason they take that stance is because they know it is what the American people want right now. 9 out of 10 of the republicans present at their debate were war-mongers, and most of them the ugliest kind, the kind that think we can win in Iraq. THERE IS NOTHING TO WIN. Our children are losing their rights to a decent education for a handful of people to be insanely wealthy. Right now we need to fight to ensure that our children have the right to make educated decisions, not ill informed bias and control implemented by our current administration and our current media. Ron Paul has been climbing on every poll on MSNBC's website, yet they are giving him NO COVERAGE! Wake up people and look at what our beautiful country is being changed into! Mike Gravel vs. Ron Paul 2008!!!! - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -28/+40Unwavering?
A lot of Digg still supports Obama completely, myself included. - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20a lot of people stopped supporting Obama when he stated he consults the clergy on important matters, and suggested that the clergy were qualified to guide women on the issue of abortion.
- rolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It is this attitude that has us choosing the lesser of two evils every four years, and you know what? It sucks.
At least, before the primary, support who you'd like to see as president and think about the lesser of two evils on election day if it comes to that. We don't need to be support the douche vs. a turd dynamic from the beginning.
"a set of real candidates who will repay the digg community with loyalty on a whole range of political issues"
Thanks for the laugh. The mainstream candidates won't have their loyalties to the digg base, whether or not we "piss our political capital away." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15bipartisan campaign would be very interesting
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Declare open season on any lobbyist with more than 1000 dollars to add to someone's political campaign.
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11A Bush-loving simpleton who is also a bad actor?
I'll assume you're joking. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"What happened to Obama?"
I think Obama has the better shot, and he's more likely to get the nomination at this point.
But I did say "dream candidates." If we're dreaming, why not aim for more radical change? - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What's his campaign slogan? "I wasn't a district attorney but I played one on TV"
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Bush has brought America to a grim crossroads; either change will happen quickly with this country or we're quite literally doomed. The slash-and-burn policies of the Bush era have left America an island in a storm. I feel the '08 election represents a -LOT- more than Dems vs. Repubs to many people, and if we don't get someone of quality in the White House now, no amount of corporate media spin will ever make us feel like we have a part of in our government ever again.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Site breaks in Firefox.
Dude's a nub. - BruceBannon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ mirunit
"Therefore the evil "corporate media" spends more time on the primary candidates as it is what most of their viewers want. Also, a MSNBC web poll does not illustrate what the viewers want - I would guess alot of people who voted did not even watch the debate."
lol, mirunit, do you know who MSNBC is owned by? GE owns them, and so would have them be more bias toward a president that would keep the current system in place that supports GE being a huge monopoly, and supports MSNBC not actually showing news, but a biased representation of what we think is the news. And because the viewers trust MSNBC as a valid "news" source, instead of the tabloid that it has become, the get away with this. And i was on MSNBC's website during and after the debate, and directly after the debate, the polls and the comments exploded, yet there was no coverage of this. WE need to become the media. WE need to become the journalist. That's right, WE are the viewer, and WE can take control of the situation. - guyinjapan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Okay, you can digg me down, but I'll have you know that I've sent multiple emails to every single major news network urging them to cover Ron Paul. I just sent another to Comedy Central and ABCNews.com. I want Paul to succeed, I just don't see how a grassroots campaign will get anywhere without some media coverage.
- manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have noticed 3 presidential candidates are mentioned most often here on Digg: Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Barack Obama.
Please note that generally a candidate will tend to say things that would get them ellected. Anyone can say anything, so supporting somebody for simply talking about wanting to do good is a simplistic aproach. What somebody has voted on however I think is a clear indicator of their true intentions. The following data is from http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html where you can click on the name of any 2 candidates to compare them side by side on the important issues, and gives sources.
- Iraq War:
RP: Voted against "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" (10/10/2002). Voted with Democrats in rebuking Bush's management of Iraq War.
MG: Was one of the first current or former elected officials to publicly oppose the planned invasion of Iraq in 2002. He appeared on MSNBC prior to the invasion insisting that intelligence showed that there were indeed NO weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against America’s national interests.
BO: As a state senator, he spoke out against Iraq war, before the war started. Has long favored a phased withdrawal.
- Security/liberties:
RP: Has consistently voted "no" on civil liberty curtailing issues, and generally "no" on security issues for similar reasons.
MG: Believes failures during Hurricane Katrina highlight structural changes that need to be made at the department.
BO: He voted against and later for bills to reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
- Same sex issues:
RP: Supports civil unions for same sex couples.
MG: Supports same-sex marriage.
BO: Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality.
- Trade issues:
RP: Paul is an ardent free-trader. (this presents a source in which he claims "I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade.")
MG: Believes NAFTA is unfair.
BO: Has a mixed voting record of trade issues.
- Budget issues:
RP: The balanced budget championing Concord Coalition gave Representative Paul a rating of 99 percent in their most recent report card.
MG: Advocates the replacement of income taxes and the IRS with a national sales tax.
BO: Senator Obama voted against the most recent effort to raise the national debt limit.
- Marijuana, illegal street drugs:
RP: Received a 100% score from the DPA (Drug Policy Alliance) DPA is the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs.
MG: -
BO: Famously admitted to using illegal drugs in his book.
- Gun control:
RP: Strongly opposes gun control laws.
MG: Supports right to bear arms.
BO: bama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005. Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F.
- Minimum wage:
RP: Has consistently voted against minimum wage increases
MG: -
BO: Voted for increases in the minimum wage.
For those of you who have the assumption that minimum wage has only advantages, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage .
I should add the fact that Ron Paul has apeared in the documentary America: Freedom to Fascism talking about the unconstitutionality and immorality on the income tax and the Federal Reserve (you can see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI) where he expresses his views on it.
If you would like to learn more about the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and why they are unconstitutional it's a must to see the documentary The Money Masters, which is 3h 30m long but worth every minute. You can see it here: (Part 1) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947 and (Part 2) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683 . - silenteulogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Paul has a much better chance of winning the Republican primary than Gravel does the Democrat primary unless Democrats stop slobbing Obama's knob sometime soon.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am in favor of election reform... I kind of like Gravel's idea of empowering citizens to become lawmakers.
http://www.nationalinitiative.us/ - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@maestro,
The problem is money buying power. But the reason we can't compel broadcasters (even with the knowledge that they are using the public airwaves in exchange for a promised public good) is the 1st amendment, which limits the public's ability to tell them specifically what to do or how to do it.
The 1st amendment is wonderful for people, but why does it apply to Disney or TimeWarner? Because Disney and TimeWarner are considered "persons" under the law. That's what's got to change.
Stop treating corporations (including non-profits) as PEOPLE, and fix the resulting legal issues the right way -- with laws that let them own property, file lawsuits, etc.. but remove the freedom of speech protections that were never intended for them in the first place. We can add a special protection for journalists that addresses the issues unique to journalism with sources, etc.., but remove their blanket freedom to LIE.
Companies don't NEED freedom of speech. They should not have a political view. They should not be able to donate to campaigns, or run issue ads. This includes unions too, btw -- only individuals, ideally those who can legally vote, should be able to help candidates. And if everyone within a given company or union wants to be political on their own, that's perfectly protected. It's when the company or union uses its resources that we get in trouble. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If neither get their party's nomination, that's my fallback option. But I think it would be harder, as they have fundamentally different ideas of government.
- andykram, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hey, does anyone know where I can get Paul or Gravel (preferably Paul) posters, flyers, brochures, ect?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5right. cuz the digg effect, if turned into donations instead of page hits, wouldn't be a huge source of campaign funding. if digglings organized, set fundraising goals (as per dKos or any rightwing blog), and hit their candidates with a concentrated single day donation drive... you can bet they would take notice and begin to pander to digg's special interests.
cash... especially small donor cash... is important, especially at this stage of a campaign.
and who's the cynic in this scanario? - Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Gravel vs. Paul would also be the setup I support. The simple fact that the mass media are desparately trying to hide these two candidates proves to me that these are the ones who would really do something for the American people.
- dcshiderly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hell, why not stick the whole lot of 'em, Republican and Democrat alike, on the ballot? Most votes wins, like in the old days. First and second place are the prez and veep respectively.
/old skool
//gotta admit, it'd make for good television
///slasheeeeeeeee - BruceBannon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ mirunit
"In other words, you don't agree with their news showing so its bias. Really, what news agency does not have some level of bias? As for GE owning them, MSNBC is a joint company with NBC/Microsoft - with GE in charge of the NBC portion. I really enjoy all the ways you try to discredit such a wide variety of news agency's, but it goes a long ways in illustrating the general sense of denial here."
Spoken like a true MSNBC representative. You are right that I do not agree with a media/journalist taking sides in anything. They should be unbiased and show the complete story, both sides, and support people's right to make an informed decision with ALL the facts supplied to them. Not just what NBC wants to show them. And yes it isn't just MSNBC, its all over the place, facts are left out of stories to present a false representation of what is actually going on by most news orginazations.
And that is why it is OUR job to make sure we find the missing pieces for now, until such time as
we move past these petty and sick uses of news/media. The media/news is supposed to inform the people, not persuade them. - onishenko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To settle this debate, I created a poll to help voice the suppressed voice of those who support any candidate aside from Gravel: http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/DIGG_DECIDES_Who_is_your_favorite_Democratic_presidential_candidate_POLL
- ElbridgeGerry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I live in DC and am very active in political circles.
Now all we need is for the other 999,999 Diggers to get the word out, too. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@masterofNone-That is an excellent start.
Also, we(the people) pay most of the nut for Public Broadcasting TV/Radio, we should demand no charge and equal access time for candidates on PBS. Initial time, early in the campaign season would be allotted to any candidate with x amount(low number) of signatures, as preset time periods elapse and after the messages of each candidate are accepted/rejected by public opinion the thresholds for access/time would rise incrementally to narrow the field.
Your idea, plus the above, plus the internet completely removes the need for the corrupting influences of our current "to the highest bidder" system. - LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree, all the other candidates are simply spokespeople for the corporations that fund their campaigns, if you think for an instant that those corporations don't expect something in return for the millions of dollars they give to their presidential hopefuls then you've gotta be retarded and shouldn't be allowed to vote. This country needs a president that isn't owned.
- faxxy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YouTube...
Mike Gravel debate highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA
Ron Paul debate highlights::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yJgqnQ5Rc - StupidLiberal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree with the premise of the story, but
"so now if we wish to save our democracy" Wow...Might want to go check on that one. (The US is not a democracy) - zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Obama.
He raised 25 million dollars in the first quarter of this year, but unlike Hillary, 90% of his donations came from citizens who donated $100 or less. He had over twice as many donations as every other candidate. He MIGHT be a candidate who isn't completely bought by big corporations. - BobSutan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 Go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
This is what I just sent them:
"Were is the coverage of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel? Your site doesn't even list them as presidential candidates. Considering they're the most popular independents out there its a bit odd that there is no mention of them. Moreso it makes me question ABC's objectivity as a journalistic source given the perception of favoritism in omitting such political luminaries."
[reply] - specsaregood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You can get some stuff here:
http://dailypaul.com/node/99
Professionally Designed Brochures:
http://dailypaul.com/node/90
Posters:
http://dailypaul.com/node/83
Avery Label Stickers:
http://dailypaul.com/node/89
Official Bumper Stickers
http://dailypaul.com/node/91
Door Hangers:
http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/05/01/proffesional-quality-artwork-for-door-hangers.aspx
And shirts,buttons, directions on making the Loveolution banners, etc here:
http://www.rescue-us.org/ronpaulrevolutionhome.htm - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You hit the nail on the head! A key to knowing who to consider for your vote/not consider is who are the Big Megaphones touting and who are they hiding/disparaging.
- riggs32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i def agree that these 2 would be the ultimate election. no matter who won we would finally be out of the same old political b.s. The founding fathers were against political parties in the first place.
- JWav3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not hard if you understand Liberty.
I seriously don't think Ron Paul will be passing any anti-ipod laws any time soon. ;) - defcon19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Let_the_Republican_National_Committee_Know_about_the_support_for_Ron_Paul
Go here and vote for Ron Paul as the winner of the republican debate. The Results will be sent to the republican national committee.
Make your vote count.
Also try to digg it to the front page Paul is about 400-500 votes behind Mitt Romney at this point. If we can get this story to the front page we can help Paul win the poll and show the Republican National Committee how much support there really is for Ron Paul. - healthydose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2George Washington didn't like parties anyway..... felt it divided the people. I wonder if our Founding Father had a point??
- chrgrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Obama scares me. Hillary scares me more. Giulliani is just feeding off 9/11. McCain is a sellout to the media.
I say Gravel/Paul in 2008. -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is