digg

Join DiggAbout

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

DARE TO REPORTERS: Ask Bush what "inflationary depression" is!

youtube.com — Interview with Ron Paul where he mentions inflationary depression. If Ron Paul gets elected as president it would be the first time in a long time we've had such an intelligent president.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -99/+31DARE TO TRUTHERS: Ask Ron Paul what "Astroturfing" is!
    • Cutkomp, on 10/11/2007, -17/+47Which do you find better, to seek the truth or to perpetuate a lie?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -56/+26Is that a trick question, or do you actually think that astroturfing, gaming, and poll-cheating is to "seek the truth"?
    • Smoove, on 10/11/2007, -21/+67Better look it up yourself. Astroturfing is an advertising campaign faked up to look spontaneous. The RP supporters on the Internet are not paid, nor in any way taking direction from any central organization (let alone RP's campaign itself).
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -55/+24@smoove: That's your word against the fact that the Ron Paul spam-flood dropped to a trickle during the weekend and picked up again monday morning.
    • scoobydoo84, on 10/11/2007, -24/+10@Junkyarddawg
      DARE TO YOU: Flatten your earth even more!!
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -9/+49With respect to the OP... Bill Clinton was a pretty smart guy. I don't know that he was the most ethical president.... but definitely smart.
    • netdawg, on 10/11/2007, -17/+9i routinely block all morons
    • aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -27/+36Yeah, I like Ron Paul too. ENOUGH!

      Do we really have to read 20 Ron Paul articles a day for the next year and a half? Where are the articles about the other candidates? Hell, we're still almost a year from most of the primaries.

      Just my $.02.
    • Nick5309, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17What is inflationary depression you say? Well i've got answers

      I'll use the Great Depression as an example. In time of prosperity, people will speculate on the market greatly. Times were good, everyone had money and was investing in the stock market. Thus, because demand was getting higher, the value of stock was getting highter, regardless of the true value of it. So within a few years, we have a stock from a company whose true value is 1/10 of what it sells for. And so, what goes up must come down, and the stock market crashed under the weight of its prosperity.

    • Nick5309, on 10/11/2007, -12/+1*edit* submitted twice, sorry
    • SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16@cannedmango
      I wouldn't even argue his ethics. Yeah, he was sleazy with an intern, but when it came to running the country, I think he was pretty ethical.
    • nogami, on 10/11/2007, -22/+28Ok, it's obvious that Ron's supporters are spamming articles on Digg left and right. Just look under the politics heading. When I checked a few days ago, every single article for 2 pages was about him.

      Pretty obvious isn't it?
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@sultantrav

      the funny thing is, I wasn't even thinking of Lewinski... I was thinking more of his exploits in Kosovo and Iraq (which he tried to keep under the radar).

      I think Clinton did a lot of good for the country and even the world to a degree... and he certainly helped to make America popular again overseas (it's hard to even remember what that was like)... but he did do a lot of sneaky, subversive things too. He didn't speak out against working with places like Saudi Arabi, and to that degree, just kept the status quo. I want to see an American president who will stand up against injustice, even when it costs America a lot of money. A good president has to make the hard decisions that are good for the people.
    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25@Junkyarddawg

      Just wondering why you are referring to Ron Paul supporters as "TRUTHERS"?

      Are you suggesting that supporting a common sense candidate who cares more about the constitution and civil liberty than the current president is somehow a conspiracy? I'm curious.
    • aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -18/+9What a shock. I'm getting dugg down for daring to question those who want to force feed us Ron Paul news 24/7. Where is the Digg I used to love?
    • dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -12/+25Just accept the new reality that Ron Paul is now a Digg staple, like anti-DRM or Apple fanboydom.

      True enough that Ron Paul started as a fringe element as does everything, but once more and more diggers were exposed to his ideas and his election platform, they climbed aboard because he's refreshingly pro-liberty as are most diggers who live in the "new wild west" of the internet. I can't believe anyone would find his popularity surprising given his strong support for the same ideals that were routinely promoted on Digg before Ron Paul ever appeared on the site... we've been rubbing the liberty lamp all along, but now at last our genie has appeared.

      Therefore, to disparage Ron Paul's popularity on Digg is to say that you disagree with the political ideals of a large section of the Digg user base. No harm in that, but you can't expect us to stop promoting Ron Paul stories any more than you could expect Kevin to stop promoting Apple stories. Ron Paul is the news that we love and wish to share as much as possible, and if it doesn't suit your fancy, tough bananas. Find something you really care about and start promoting it on Digg yourself, and if enough of us agree with you as passionately as we feel about Ron Paul, we'll "spam" Digg with your topic of choice as well.
    • PixelVision, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11aliengoods: Do we really have to read 20 Ron Paul articles a day for the next year and a half?

      We don't have to read anything. Nobody forced you to click on this story and nobody forced you to make a comment. Digg is about what the majority wants, that's what the Digg and bury buttons are for. It's not just about what you want.
    • subman697, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12inflationary depression:

      What happens to my depression every day Bush remains in office...
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8@cannedmango: I'm referring to _the people spamming digg_ as Ron Paul Truthers, because they're made up by three groups: anarchists who like him because they perceive he wants to destroy government; white supremacists who like his statements about blacks (that 95% of young black males are criminal; that 13-year-old-blacks -but not whites- should be tried as adults; that only 5% of blacks hold sensible political views etc etc); and 9/11 Truther nuts who interprete his statements about how the USA caused 9/11 and that he's called for further investigation into the attack as support for their pet conspiracy.

      That's why you're seeing all these insane conspiracies, featuring abbreviations such as NWO and ZOG, in the comments to most of the Ron Paul spam (see e.g. the ***** crazy comments in this piece of Ron Paul spam from earlier today: http://www.digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_First_Bush_Was_Working_Towards_New_World_Order ). That's why you're seeing typical supremacist/anarchist tactics like threats against webmasters, flooding of mailboxes, posting of personal information, and DDoS attacks, used against perceived opponents of Ron Paul.

      And that's the guys spamming digg. But you probably knew all this, just like you probably knew about this:
      http://bigdavediode.googlepages.com/diggfixexposed

      Ron Paul doesn't have a big following. In real life it's less than 1%, and there's no reason to think there's more on the net. He's just got a bunch of ***** crazy kooks astroturfing/gaming/cheating for him.
    • gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8antiRon Paul say-Ron Paul has almost no real supporters and he has no chance!
      antiRon Paul say-Ron Paul and his supporters are Kooks/Nuts/Whackjobs/etc.
      antiRon Paul brigade makes these claims all over Digg and submit numerous antiRP articles, much expenditure of time/effort.

      No Support/Can't Win=big effort in time and energy attacking a phantom enemy??
      Do you guys enjoy tilting at windmills
      or
      Who are the Kooks/Nuts/Whackjobs?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5@gmason: I don't care about the fact that Ron Paul has zero chance to become president. I don't care about that at all. It's a non-issue. RP's campaign is as dead as a very dead thing in the water. And I don't give a *****.

      I oppose you Ron Paul Truther ***** because you're damaging my enjoyment of Digg. I know that's not something YOU care about, but I do.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Too true, Junkyarddawg. Couldn't have said it better myself.
    • DrStrabismus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I guess I would recommend to people who are interested in other candidates to post some interesting articles about them. If others find them interesting, they will get dugg, if not, they won't. It's really a pretty simple idea.
    • gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8@Junkyarddawg-My experience thus far in life is that the quest for wisdom must first begin by being honest with yourself.

      If you are being honest with yourself that your only problem re:Ron Paul submissions is they are "damaging your enjoyment of Digg" (I do not know if that is the full story but your agitation is very apparent), then I offer the following and hope it is helpful:
      1. Try to ignore Ron Paul submissions, not that hard to do since there are roughly 3000+ submissions to Digg on a given day(many children learn this valuable life lesson with the "sticks and stones...")
      2. If the above is not possible, avoid Digg for the next 18 months.
      3. Start your own Digg(the "jacks" approach)
    • gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7aliengoods-"Do we really have to read 20 Ron Paul articles a day for the next year and a half?"
      The beauty of Digg is if you do not click on the articles you do not "have to read them" and there is a fail safe if you accidentally click on and article that you do not want to read, don't let your eyes move over the words.
    • tehxen3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Prosperity had nothing to do with causing the great depression. It was largely Federal Reserves fault because it drastically reduced the amount of money in supply in the economy, causing a deflationary depression.

      In words of current Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna Friedman: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
  • LordSkywalker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+38Forgive me for being ignorant, but I checked Wikipedia for "inflationary depression" and didn't find any articles mentioning it. And searching Google just links to fanatical propaganda type sites and people trying to sell books. Anyone got a link to more information about it?

    Edit: The only definition I could find is this: High inflation as the Fed counterfeits more and more currency to fund our current account deficits and foreigners flee the dollar and dollar denominated securities.
    • fober, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I may be wrong, but I think the Great Depression is an example.

      I think the term itself might be a new one (i.e., coined recently).

      Like you said, not much to go on.
    • Clogs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
    • Alegoo92, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I'm not sure but I just broke it down and I'm sure that it means an economic depression caused by inflation.
    • smartmlp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Well it looks like its time to edit Wikipedia then... heh...
    • crazydiode, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I urge all diggers to watch the entire 3 videos. Very illuminating, about the man and about the financial situation in the United Stats currently. Worth the time.
      He knows WHAT he is talking about, and i find it refreshing.
    • mastermc99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I think clogs is right, I believe he is referring to stagflation (such as the 1970's) where the economy stagnates (Recession/Depression) but prices increase due to supply side issues as was the case case in the 1970's where the oil crunch led to rising prices at a time when real economic output was decreasing. Although any situation where prices rise and output decreases could be described as "inflationary depression". (Like say what is currently happening in Zimbabwe, where the inflation is driven by crazy economic policies and a huge increase in the money supply)
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2So... Ron Paul is using a made-up term, and that Bush won't know what it means is somehow damning for Bush?
    • Spatch67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Lordskywalker

      I'd say that's pretty close to the truth. I hesitate to say that the fed counterfeits currency, as that would suggest that they actually take time to print the money they spend. If the fed controlled banks actually slowed up enough to actually print the money it spent, we wouldn't be in half the mess we are in now.

      Whenever more money is just yanked out of thin air and thrown into the economy, we forcibly in effect take a pay cut. The dollar loses value and moves more and more in the direction of just being another piece of paper. Argentinians woke up one morning and found out that a tube of toothpaste cost the equivelant of $7,000 or so dollars. Same with countless other countries. Hyperinflation is the term and the only reason we haven't experienced it yet is because the dollar is still holding on as the worlds preferred currency for commodities. If we don't change our ways, soon it won't be the worlds currency and the results will suck.

      People who realize this like Ron Paul, he seems to be the only candidate that views situations in the world realistically and if we put up with a few more years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton and thier ilk, we will not survive economically. That's simply a fact.
    • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Stagflation is not quite right, that's when you have high inflation and low economic performance at the same time brought on by rapid cost increases in the late 70's oil had increase from $3 to $35, that increased inflation while the economy was in recession. The danger in the short run US economy is if the economy starts to heat up to a point where inflation takes off, the government will have to raise interest rates to encourage companies and consumers to save rather than spend, thus reducing excess demand and lowering inflation, its not the same as a cost shock where inflation is largely uncontrollable. Raising interest rates will also have a recessionary effect on the economy as it will increase the trade deficit by making US bonds more attractive to foreign investors. The more demand for US bonds will increase the demand for US dollars and increase the exchange rates and make foreign purchases of US goods and services more expensive, further hurting US exports, increasing the trade deficit. This deficit has to be offset by the government financing more debt. More debt reduces the governments ability to provide current services, and increase spending to stimulate growth.

      Long winded I know, and there are many more factors involved. Simply put the cure for high inflation is increasing interest rates, which will put an economy into recession. You can't have a strong economy and high interest rates at the same time as one encourages spending the other saving.
    • kuberajones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Edit: The only definition I could find is this: High inflation as the Fed counterfeits more and more currency to fund our current account deficits and foreigners flee the dollar and dollar denominated securities.

      is pretty much it, you have to understand this scenario means prices keep going up at the same time that your money loses value due to over creation, it's lose/lose unless you invest in physical assets such as precious metals, which will appreciate along with inflation.
  • fober, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3"Sir, what are your feelings on inflationary depression?"

    "Fat people should never be depressed."
    • Joscarfas, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26"Sir, what are your feelings on inflationary depression?"

      "I thought you were going to ask about the pig."
    • deathweaver108, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1"Sir, what are your feelings on inflationary depression?"
      "It's hard to inflate a my pool toys while Mom is depressing on them"
  • Joscarfas, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Don't misunderestimate Mr. Bush. Now the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. LOL
  • tsoldrin, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5George W. Bush: 'Inflationary depression? Err...Ahhh...Well.... That's when fat people get sad! Heh heh heh heh'.
  • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I don't know how he does it. I certainly can't. Half the country (at least) is running around spouting the economic equivalent of 2+2=5. Now I'm not an economist and I don't have any advanced degrees. So what? It doesn't take an advanced degree in math to do simple addition. I just want to scream "You idiots, 2+2=4!!!"

    Yet there he sits, year after year, patiently working to undo the damage done by so called economists. Ones like John Keynes.
    • Nick5309, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Keynes? That was Great Depression reform stuff dude. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and deficit spending was the only way out. Although keynsian economics are not exactly the most ideal form of economics now, back then they saved the country
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"back then they saved the country"

      I rest my case.
  • lucidmatt, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27A long time since we had a president that intelligent? I've stayed out of the RP threads but...you realize Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, right?
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -27/+7And that Bush has a higher IQ than Clinton.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17Came in just to make that comment. Whatever you think of him as a politician, Clinton is a very intelligent man not in any way comparable to the popular caricatures that seem to have sunk into the social consciousness.
    • vann, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14No President except Carter has ever released the results of an official IQ test, so talking about who has a higher IQ is stupid.
    • Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Anyone who is able to balance the budget of the United States would have to be a damn intelligent person.
    • andwoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Thanks for making that point. Clinton is widely considered to be one of the most intelligent and widely read Presidents ever. Some say that was a weakness as well as a strength, but it's ridiculous comments like "it would be the first time in a long time we've had such an intelligent president" that make me question the historical knowledge of the people behind all the RP fanaticism.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -15/+7Inaccurate for suggesting that Ron Paul has any mor echangce of becoming president than I do.
  • sbgskl, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14DARE TO DIGGERS: Ask diggers what "inflationary depression" is!
    • TimDigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Asking someone something on the internet is pointless because they have the greatest tool ever sitting right in front of them....

      Asking someone on the spot...now that's interesting
    • Kohath, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I disagree. Your average internet dweller won't look it up. If they do, they won't understand the definition in context. The US has extremely poor education on economics. I'm guessing that's also true of other countries where economics is mostly thought of a way of understanding socialism and how to get money or services without offering anything of value in return.

      They may be able to cut and paste the definition, but understanding takes something they don't have: the desire to understand.
    • ACalcutt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I would imagine it is a depression(a long-term economic state characterized by unemployment and low prices and low levels of trade and investment) caused by inflation (Increase in the overall level of prices over an extended period of time).

      I would say current inflation is cause by printing money without adding any gold to back it (causing the value of the dollar to go down and prices to go up)

      Just my guess....feel free to correct me
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3"A term Ron Paul has made up which means about the same as the real term 'stagflation'".

      What did I win?
    • TheSpore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This discussion about "inflationary depression" is becoming ridiculous. I think anyone who knows knows what both inflation and depression mean in economic terms can figure out what an inflationary depression is.

      Even though the term appears to be new, it is certainly both descriptive and self-explanatory. If you don't know anything about economics, then don't whine about how someone has coined a new economic term.
  • jerryn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5I can just picture the Bush response.

    Eh.. Inflationary Depression... that's the mark I leave on the big old chair in the oval office after I get up.

    • CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8actually, he'd probably say that as a joke, get a laugh, do that idiotic grinning chuckle of his, make some irreverent comment about getting someone to "look into it" and then calling on the next question.
  • jonpotz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I don't know if he would know the answer to that question...HOWEVER...I do know "Fool him once, shame on...you...fool him....ya can't be fooled again!"

    Video evidence you can only fool him once...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbJABBo5s2w
  • Natasevoli, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1the guy sitting to the left of ron paul looks like a chubby hitler lol
  • Kohath, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11Jimmy Carter was supposed to be the President with the highest IQ. How did that turn out? Malaise and America Held Hostage.
    • Nick5309, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Lol, he was a peanut farmer from Georgia, the guy wasn't too bright.
      Russia invades Afgahnistan..."Uhhh, not nice Russia! Well take this, we're not gunna compete in the olympics. Ha ha haha ha"
  • eudyptes, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8OK, I am officially tired of the Ron Paul spam on digg.

    Unless RP assures me that he will
    1) Stop the Republican party (at both the state and federal level) from trying to enact laws that tell me how to run my life, and
    2) Rein in the excesses of big business,
    then I'm just not interested.
    • iTorrey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Everything he says and has voted for points to those things being true, what more does he have to do? Look up his YouTube channel and educate yourself.
    • MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Well maybe you should watch his videos then and you'd realize the comment you made was completely stupid. He has said pretty much all of those things
  • xrevision, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Didn't Bush graduate from Yale? I'm not saying that his name had nothing to do with it, but while in school he did still receive high marks.
    • sbgskl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Bush went to Yale via family connections, as did Kerry. He had a C average ("gentleman's C's").
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Didn't Bush graduate from Yale?

      Yes, but with inverted commas on either side of graduated!
  • Torso, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4To all the people who are sick of Ron Paul related stories.

    STFU and GTFO.

    That is all.
  • raybury, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Gee, it sounds like an economic term. Should I ask the president of the United States who has a Harvard MBA, has experience running businesses, and has overseen a massive expansion of the economy despite 9/11, and who cannot run for the presidency again? Or should I ask a crankly old antisemite, who will not win the presidency anytime soon?
    • jonpotz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Harvard MBA with a ***** average and business experience in running companies to the ground...not to mention going AWOL and lying constantly to the people he is suppose to serve and protect.
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3jonpotz, you forgot about his drug and alcohol abuse!
  • theconnollykid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4two words: "tribal sovereignty"

    http://www.ifilm.com/video/2646755?loomia_si=1
  • thedonga, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5sorry he is opposed to same-sex marriage, is opposed to gun control, is opposed to the United Nations among other things
    • bluechips23, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Oh so you want a President who lies you and your whole country and takes all your money and wages a meaningless war against some irrelevant country, rather than having an intelligent guy as a President who understands economics, foreign policies and the REAL BASIC issues that govern all the Americans. Well let me tell you something - Average American is more concerned about his/her savings, bills, payments, and medical insurance rather than whether he/she can possess a gun, or whether his/her President gives a crap about UN.
    • rspeed, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13His stance is that that NO marriage should be regulated by the Federal government. Those are VASTLY different things.
    • TimDigg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@bluechips23
      loved the same-sex marriage dodge....
    • iTorrey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Let's see. Why does the government have the right to regulate a union between consenting adults? Where is that power provided to the federal (or any) government?

      Next. The United Nations. What authority does the President have to use our armed forces as policemen for the United Nations? Congress must declare war. That is a power given to the congress so that we don't have Kings/Dictators launching wars around the world in our name. With the UN, they can direct member nations to participate in wars. This is against our constitution.
  • tearor, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Paulzac cures all types of depression
  • rspeed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Of the presidents that were in office during my life I think only Clinton, HW Bush, Regan and Carter were highly intelligent.

    Hint: That's all of them except W.
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Regan? Highly intelligent?
      So, Star Wars was conceived BEFORE bits of his brain started to vanish then?
  • popothebright, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22LOL. Reporters don't have the balls.

    Dare to reporters, ASK *ANY* OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

    1) Why should there ever be such thing as a "no bid contract"? Why have "no bid contracts" been given exclusively to companies with direct ties to the administration?

    2) Who are the top 5 corporate beneficiaries of the Iraq war? What are their ties to the Bush administration?

    3) Please explain the logic of lower taxes and higher expenditures? How do you see this playing out over time?

    4) How's New Orleans coming along?


    I could go on, but its just too depressing.

    The bottom line is that reporters are nearly as spineless as our Democratic leadership is wimpy. We need you Ron Paul.
    • jdwyckoff, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5O damn, I agreed with you all the way to the last line...so close
    • heliox, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Just curious, what ties to Halliburton does the administration have?
      I mean besides Cheney once running the company.
  • xlar54, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Whats the deal with all the Ron Paul stories? Is this the official spokesman of the Digg community now? Are we so naive as to buy into a single candidate this early on?
    • Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14Here's how it goes:

      1. Someone who supports Ron Paul posts a story
      2. Other people who find the article interesting Digg the story up
      3. If enough people Digg the story, it makes it to the front page

      Pretty simple, eh? You see a lot of Ron Paul stories (and Gravel, Obama, and Ubuntu) because lots of Digg users find them interesting.
    • luther70, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8Or
      1. Ron Paul supporter post story
      2. Organized Ron Paul supports log into digg with Multiple accounts to Digg up submission.
      3. Submission gets artificial momentum. Antiwar diggers join in.
      4. Front Page.
    • xlar54, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Got it thanks. 418 people on Digg like Ron Paul. Understood.
    • crazydiode, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Its really refreshing to see a presidential candidate talk about ANYTHING without mentioning "terrorists" or "9/11".
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@xlar54: This is why: http://bigdavediode.googlepages.com/diggfixexposed
    • Spatch67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Speaking of conspiracies...why in the world are so many Ron Paul haters taking time to digg down Ron Paul stories? Is there nothing better to read on digg? I hate Hillary Clinton and I haven't so much accidently read about her on here. I don't like her, I don't like the people who support her, so I (and this is the tricky part), don't read or communicate about her. It works sort of like this.

      (1) I see the name Hillary
      (2) I pass on the article and move to another one
      (3) If the next article mentions Hillary, again I move on.
      (4) I stop at the next article which appears to interest me and proceed to click on that one.

      I'm gifted however, since it took me little to no practice to master this technique, but I am positive that anyone can do it with a little hard work and dedication.
  • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7Ron Paul means well but his policies are much to PRO-freemarket. He believes in privatization of everything from the FAA to the FDA. We all know corporate regulation will never work. Look at the state of our FDA today. The organization is corrupt DUE ENTIRELY to infestation of corporate interests.

    What's scary is that he garners so much support for being honest. Realize that once he's president you can kiss your freedoms goodbye. Free-market is an idealist concept. It won't work because if you give to much freedom to the markets, then you're basically giving more power to corporations. This won't work.
    • meistaiwan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4His idealism of economic freedom will allow capitalism to take over and corrupt whatever vestage of actual unsold democracy we still have left. Why are the people here so inspired to replace one failed idealogy (neocons) with another (libertarianism)?
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7Sorry, where has capitalism failed? It has only failed when a) government meddles with it, which isn't capitalism or b) some person who wants something but doesn't want to pay for it declares a "market failure."

      Though, limited constitutional government is a failed ideology, look at how government has grown! Government can't be tamed.
    • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6libertarianism is idealist. Thats why everyone agrees with this stance. They think if you FREE everything, all will be well. Freedom of the press, personal freedoms, and free markets is what everyone thinks is "all the rage." Again, these are idealist concepts.

      The truth is it doesn't work in reality. With free press we have corporate and political interests invading and influencing the very media we see on Television (FOX news, anyone?), with a free market we have the corporate agenda infiltrating every aspect of our government (BUSH administration, anyone?) and outsourcing the whole work force to international sources.

      Support personal freedom, support economic restriction. Liberalism!
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@crimsonalucard
      As I said before, sometimes I just want to scream. I'll try to be nice, but ....
      "The organization is corrupt DUE ENTIRELY to infestation of corporate interests."

      The CAPS LOCK key is not sufficient to substantiate the statement. Especially when it's patently false. Try this oldie - power corrupts. Begin your analysis from there and you'll find that the corruption is entirely due to the fact that it is a government agency with power. Now if you want an example of how the free market can supply standards, then go to:
      http://www.smf.org/
      and learn a little. Their standards are much higher than the DOT's ( a federal agency ), they have no power to enforce them (other than withholding their recommendation), yet they've been around for fifty years. Why? People want safe helmets, Snell wants safe helmets, manufacturers want the advantage of selling safe helmets. The only thing Snell has to sell is integrity. The minute they pull crap like the FDA pulls they will be out of business. Snell's ass is on the line, and that keeps them in line.

      "What's scary is that he garners so much support for being honest. Realize that once he's president you can kiss your freedoms goodbye. Free-market is an idealist concept. It won't work because if you give to much freedom to the markets, then you're basically giving more power to corporations. This won't work."

      Giving power to corporations won't work. That's the only thing you got right. The rest is gibberish. Think I'm full of it? Then explain the falling prices of cell phones (and service). Governments didn't cause that. Corporations didn't cause that. Consumers caused it because they wanted to pay less. Businesses competed by finding ways to lower the price. Notice that there are multiple cell phone makers.


    • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3@15charmaxwtf

      Capitalism has failed because people under this system tend to group and form evil entities that are relentless in their pursuit of profit. These things are called corporations. While they offer some good, their's also a lot of bad that comes with it.

      These corporations infiltrate our government, and they infiltrate our media... Our government is a has failed because politicians are influenced by corporate interests (Bush, oil...? come on). This failure in government is an example of what happens when the market sort of merges with the government. In a sense you can think of it as a failure of the market too. No good can ever come of it.

      This is only more proof why we need to seperate the market and the government and why we need restrictions on both the government and the free market. However, While Ron Paul wants to restrict the government but he completely fails to see how he needs to restrict the market too. The scary part is that he wants to give almost complete freedom to the whole system because he believes it is self regulating. Will microsoft regulate itself in it's quest to monopolize the OS market? I think not. In short, Ron Pauls ideas can't be done. Gravel is the better choice.

      I do believe Ron Paul is a ***** idiot due to this one case. He's honest he has integrity, but economic self regulation is an illusion.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@crimsonalucard
      "Will microsoft regulate itself in it's quest to monopolize the OS market? I think not"

      No, but others will. Or have you never heard of Apple? Linux? Firefox? Take off the blinders, there's a big world out there. Much more than your narrow view.
    • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3@jeffiek

      You realize that corporations are the result of a free market? Corporations are part of the market hence, the government allowing people who participate in this market to form a corporation is essentially a freedom?

      Consumers AND corporations are the result of the lowering of cell phone prices. You can't get the kind of mass production and technological innovation without Demand from Consumers and coordinated effort and mass production from a powerful corporation. Their are good and bad sides to a free market, it's just MANY people FAIL to see the bad side. (I used caps, i don't care)

      Yes self regulation in an economy does occur in your example. But realize it is far from perfect. Look at the poison train from china. Those China food factories only fix the problem when the market realizes that there is poison in the food. Same with America before Upton Sinclair released his book and The government (key word) actually did something about it. In short, Economic self regulation happens based soley on demand. Demand is based soley on the group opinion of the market mob (note this mob voted Bush into power). Limited information and general stupidity of the mob, by logic, will definetely influence what is regulated and what isn't.

      For a good regulatory system you need one that is fast and one that gains it's knowledge from science and other reliable sources. It needs to be centralized somewhat for speed and power but at the same time it will need checks and balances (because like you said power corrupts). Think about it, would you rather have the whole united states vote whether we should teach evolution or would you rather have a small centralized group of scientists make that decision? Who would make the better, more informative choice?

      As for the FDA, I'm to lazy to back it up with anything other then capital letters, but it should be general knowledge to anyone who looks it up. Know that compared to europe, japan, and other 1st world countries America has the most lax restrictions in the food and other industries that need saftey regulatory procedures. This occurs mainly because the free market allows corporate enroachment.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"For a good regulatory system you need one that is fast and one that gains it's knowledge from science and other reliable sources. It needs to be centralized somewhat for speed and power but at the same time it will need checks and balances (because like you said power corrupts)."

      I suggest you read James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds". In it you will find out just how fast the market can react, and how accurate it can be. It's nice reading, not political. Or you could try some technical manuals on distributed networks, self-organizing networks, or genetic programming, but those are really tedious.

      The market has millions of checks and balances - they're called consumers. It may not be perfect, nothing ever made by humans will be It's just the best we've got.
    • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@jeffiek

      You realize that corporations are the result of a free market? You seem to be unable to differentiate the two. The people are given the freedom to do whatever they want in the market, hence they form corporations. If you want to restrict corporations, you want to restrict the market.

      Economic self regulation happens. But it's slow and dumb. Your example is correct. But realize that regulation occurs based on demand. Demand is only what the market mob currently wants (This mob voted for BUSH, btw). The market mob is like a little kid, it has limited information and it only wants what it needs NOW. (Not to mention that the whole situation goes full circle when corporations influence the media. The media, in turn, can influence demand through ads. It's the free market ***** itself up the ass) For a good example look at the poison train from China. They only fix the problem when the people realize there's a problem. Do we really need pets dying from poisoned food before a regulatory rule props up?

      The ideal regulatory system is one that is knowledgeable, centralized, and has moral intentions. It needs to make knowledgable decisions, and the faster it makes them the less problems occur. To make faster decisions it needs to be centralized. Centralization is power, and power corrupts, hence there needs to be checks and balances to make sure the regulatory system maintains moral integrity. Think about it, if we had to vote on what to do about global warming, Who would make a better voting group? a small centralized team of scientists or the whole market mob in the united states? Hell, a good portion of the united states thinks global warming is a hoax, so the choice is obvious. Thus in a sense, a regulatory system that is knowledgeable, centralized, and has moral intentions, is essentially a GOVERNMENT WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES. (sorry about the caps). The government is required for regulation, economic self regulation is not good enough.


      Also your cell phone example is correct. I totally agree with that. The lowering of prices the direct result of competition, consumer demand, and coordinated effort and technological innovation of corporations. In fact the lowering of prices had no chance of occuring were it not the mass production capabilites of corporations. I don't think corporations and free market are totally bad, just that like the government, it needs regulation, otherwise it is capable of great evil.
    • crimsonalucard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Dude, the very fact that corruption in corporations EXISTS shows that there is limited "wisdom in crowds." I may read the book, but it doesn't happen in reality.

      Also genetic programming is not a good model. It's based on randomness. The market, while unpredicatable and somewhat stupid is far from random.

      Eh sorry for the double post. I thought my post was completely deleted. SO I rewrote. stupid heh, I'm bored
    • trentasaurus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Corporations don't exist in a free market. They are entities of government. This is where people confuse capitalism with corporatism. That's when corporations are given power and backed up by the guns of government, which I agree, is a very bad thing. In a free market, there are only businesses, which compete with one another, where monopolies don't happen.
  • tsunamii, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1While your at it, why not as Kerry why he had a lower GPA then Bush....

    Ron Paul, blah blah,, bury
  • tearor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Digg is suffering stagflation
  • rspeed, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Comment didn't thread. Digg down.
  • Heavypettingzoo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0pretty sure he meant to say "stagflationary depression"... inflation refers to CPI rising along with wage rates, industrial production, etc, a depression is the exact opposite. Ive never come across this term in my 4 years at biz school... anyone have any insight or is Ron just talkin outta his ass?
    • Misesean, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"inflationary depression" is the definition of stagflation.
  • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17let us just clear it up once and for all.
    Ron Paul is
    THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE WORLD
    He is the best pilot, sea captain and horseman.
    He is the best crime fighter, new age phenom, and world gad about town.
    He can save a country just by thinking about it, and can cure cancer with his little finger.
    God calls him for advice on Tuesdays.
    He could even give birth, but he does not want to show off.
    What a guy. what a man , what a person.
    Vote R.Paul. he will make all the sick kids well.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5If Chuck Norris heard that, he'd kick Ron Paul's ass.
    • MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6darn it! I was about to say, "and taught Chuck Norris how to do a round-house kick to the head."
  • jonpotz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Ron Paul cures cancer, manually cleans up oil spills within 24 hours and can hold his breath underwater for over 48 minutes.
    • Heavypettingzoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Does this seem like a good time to suggest a Chuck Noris joke website spin-off?
    • Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Ron Paul single-handedly gave birth to Chuck Norris.
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I want Ron Paul to have my baby.
    • luther70, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5rescues kittens from trees.
    • polybot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4How dare you sir! To suggest that there would be oil spills and cancer in a world run by Ron Paul! When Ron Paul becomes King there will be no more evil people or things in the world, no more need for guns and wars or complicated stuff. You are a blasphemous rogue, Ron is great! All praise Ron!
  • jron, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13@ron_paul_haters

    I think Ron Paul stories might be slightly more important than Ubuntu and iPhone stories; hell, I'd wager Ron Paul could have more of an affect on your lives than the cracking of AACS. While some of you might not be interested in politics, there are many of us who realize this could be the last time in history where we have the time, money, and laws to concern ourselves with luxury items.
    • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@jron, Now I know we are ***** if I have no right to poke fun at this guy.
      He is our last best hope at civilization.
      Come on . We still have a chance as a society to overcome the terrible repercussions if the candidate who's name is to important for me to print does not win.
    • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If you think 'the people' will dictate who the candidate for the Republican party is, then perhaps you need the reality check. If the candidate doesn't have the money to win the election ( ex. Ron Paul ), he's not going to make it past the primaries. Yeah, a few little donations are nice, but Ron Paul's earnings aren't even close to the big boys.

      This is like saying Linux is going to overtake Windows next year on the desktop. I love Linux as much as the next person, and I'll be the first to give it a good word, but it's just not going to happen.

      This time in history has come time and time again. Honestly, your 'last chance' to recover the Republican party was quite awhile back. Hate to break the news to you, but you missed the boat, and your only real option now is direct opposition. Whether it be Libertarian, Democratic, or Green.

      Serious Ron Paul supporters need to switch parties now and start building up a party that Ron Paul could actually win on.
  • Rohhob, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9I understand why some are sick of hearing about Ron Paul on digg but,
    how can you as an intelligent person (extreme assumption here) listen to Paul and not get behind him.

    An extremely intelligent president in the White House....what a great country that would be.

    • esquilax, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4because i don't agree with the majority of his opinions on issues that are not "things that GWB did wrong."
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I must be stupid or something, but I think that some of Ron Paul's views are truly despicable, while others are outright loony. He is a good 'ole conservative when it comes to many things and I want someone who's a lot more progressive and open-minded in the White House in 2008. I'd prefer Gravel or Kucinich, but Obama will do.
  • MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Just because it hasn't been said yet... who the hell gave the U.S. the right to decide what is best for other countries? Unless they are a imminent threat to our security, why is it our ***** business to go into other countries and tell them how they should be running theirs? The U.S. is hardly a role model worth following. The U.S. has started more ***** with other countries than any other country out there.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8A depressed individual prone to inflate the importance of Ron Paul is said to suffer from inflationary depression.
  • MisterFlaut, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3A President with intelligence and a good head won't happen.

    Keep in mind the basis of how a democracy works: it's only as strong as the people who vote.

    And sorry, but most people are ***** stupid.

    As such, the candidates will reflect this.

    Think about it... the last truly good progressive President we had was JFK. Every single one after that were either corrupt, in cahoots with lobbyists, or just plain inefficient.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't know that most people are ***** stupid. However it is entirely accurate that:

      Half of all people are below average intelligence.
    • RonPaulRevolter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I think Paul comes close to Kennedy. He's less charismatic, but equally intelligent, and more progressive. At least, that's what he has shown so far.
    • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@misterflaut, It seems you never took the time to look in to the lives and history of the KENNEDY'S.
      He and his family are as crooked as they come.
      Talk about media hype when it comes to the Kennedy's.
      J.F.K. election to the presidency was a fraud , delivered to him by then Chicago's mayor. Daley and his machine.
      The Kennedy's have sucked more off the tit of this country than anyone.
    • MisterFlaut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ok then, assuming your opinion that Kennedy was horrible... that's over 40 years without a good president.

      In any case, my point still stands.
    • ClassicCon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Remind me again the voters of which party were too ***** stupid to figure out a butterfly ballot?
    • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1JFK would be considered more aligned with the republicans today, he was never in to the socialist agenda.
      He asked "not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for you're country"
      This is a total reversal of the leftist socialist agenda of the democratic party today.

    • Misesean, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"I don't know that most people are ***** stupid. However it is entirely accurate that:

      Half of all people are below average intelligence."

      And average intelligence is ***** stupid :)
    • awakenow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2and thats because JFK was the rare combination of charm and intellect.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Is it the depression suffered by Ron Paul supporters when they realize inflating non-scientific internet polls will not increase his chances of getting the GOP nomination?
  • S3dative, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think it will be a cold day in hell before we see another Republican from Texas get elected. Unless they run on the faith and morals ticket again...
  • RonPaulRevolter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It's not about Ron Paul, it's about his message. There's a real change that we can't even elect Paul next year with Bush declaring himself a dictator after a next disaster, or Paul being assassinated. So learn from what he is saying and make others aware of it. Because ideas are bulletproof, and the truth shall set you free...
    • ClassicCon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"next year with Bush declaring himself a dictator after a next disaster"

      Must be nice to get your news from Digg only. I wonder if he did this so all you little whiny liberal douche bags won't give him so much ***** about his slow repsonse to those worthless criminals in New Orleans after Katrina?

      I was born there so unless you have lived there you don't know ***** about New Orleans so be careful how you reply. MS was ***** destroyed and the media barely even mentions them, but those of you who live by cable TV think Katrina only hit that third world country we call New Mogadishu..
  • tehsuck1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Digg breaking news: Ron Paul is an intelligent,brave, handsome etc. candidate and you should donate your left nut to him.

    Honestly folks... I have nothing at all against Paul, but does Digg have to be so extremely one sided on everything? Or is it that people figure they might get dugg up if they say they love Ron Paul (whoever that is)

    It would do the community a world of good to finally get some opposing viewpoints (especially to the pot is good, legalize pot, pot cures cancer stories)

    At least post stories that are actually news.

    /rant
    • Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Pot is good. We should legalize it. Taxpayers are paying over 1 billion dollars a year to incarcerate 700,000 Americans charged only with possession of marijuana. Pot shrinks tumors and prevents cancer, but I've never heard of it 'curing' cancer - If someone were to say claim that it does without citing facts, I'd oppose their viewpoint.
    • RonPaulRevolter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Go ahead and post exciting news about other candidates.
      I think it's "We The People" Ron Paul versus "Evil Big Brother" Billary, Osama, Jewliani etc...
      Paul truly represents us, so for the first time in history, we can actually decide the course of the country (and the world it occupies) by inspiring and advising Paul. It's called Direct Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
      Proof me (us) wrong with reasons and the front page news will change.
    • ClassicCon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Digg is totally one-sided and you will never see opposing viewpoints on this joke of a site. You have all this little child diggers who will shrill censorship at every oppotunity and the "dictatorship" of the eeevill Bush administration but will spend all their free time in between college classes Digging down any story that conflicts with their goverment indoctrinated world view. Diggers are a joke outside in the real world.
    • Rohhob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@tehsuck1
      "Ron Paul (whoever that is)"

      Why don't you do some research like a big boy and then comment on a thread about another Ron Paul thread.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Ron Paul has a toe nail on the end of his penis!
    • Whizzeroo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0How do you know so much about Ron Paul's penis?
  • snaggletooth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Congratulations! In an attempt to ridicule the President's intelligence, you prove your own intelligence by ending your sensational headline with a preposition. YOU are a ***** idiot.
    • djohnmalkovich, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Believe it or not I wanted to provoke this response from people like you snaggle. I did that on purpose so I can make my point:

      I'm not the president and I don't have to know this if it's not my profession, but he DOES. He is leading a nation of more than 300 million people, you'd expect him to be at the least a rocket scientist and know where he is leading this country. And here is Ron Paul who is beaming with intelligence, truth, charisma and there are still people like you who are blind. It's ok, you'll wake up when they plant a chip in your head.
    • Fairly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ending a sentence with a preposition? Is that some dumb-arsed US English rule? How many languages do you speak, loser? Right now it looks like ZERO. Close to your IQ.
  • Fairly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1This is a shill post. Intelligent? Neocon? Yes. A neocon is a neocon is a neocon. Sorry for butting into your so important affairs, but you seem to be butting into ours all the time. It's like this: as the closest thing you have to sense and sanity is your Democratic Party and as the most stupid thing in the world is your Republican Party and as that Republican Party is making a travesty of the rest of the world and people's rights, I say "screw your pathetic RP". Just elect a freaking Dem. Give us a break.
    • Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I don't think you have the slightest idea what a "neocon" is. And if you think Ron Paul bears any resemblance to the rest of the Republican Party then you haven't been paying attention.

      Either way, you get dugg down.
    • Spatch67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do a little homework Fairly. Please find out what a neocon is, and then attempt to act smart. You are apparently clueless. As for your wonderful democratic party, and the neocons...they can go to hell now and give us our country back!
  • teotwawki, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I'm not American - so not really the target audience for this stuff - but I'm ready to vomit every time I hear Ron Paul mentioned.

    He can make a great soufflé, he can water ski on his hands and turn dog turds into gold by sheer thought alone. That's just great.

    I don't need to hear it every five seconds. There's such a thing as overkill.
    • djohnmalkovich, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Actually, many people have no idea who Ron Paul is, but since the media won't talk about him, WE THE PEOPLE WILL.
    • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@teotwawki well by jingles you have just earned honorary citizenship for the day with a comment like that.
      If in fact you do not care to be a citizen for the day, you can trade it on e-bay to the highest bidder.
      We take making fun of our political people very seriously here.
      Most of them deserve to be ridiculed, what can you expect when our congress has a lower approval rating the the president. AND PEOPLE THINK HE IS THE ANTI-CHRIST.
    • healthydose, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If you don't like it why then are you even here on this thread. Duh, it's about Ron Paul, if you hate him so much why are you even here?
  • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2::::::

    Ron Paul a name which has garnered so much interest. I wondered when I read over the comments how many people actually visit the article in question or in this case the youTube clip? I'm sure many did watch the clip. But many of the negative comments make no mention of the actual topic.

    For everyone else why didn't you review the clip? May I invite you to watch the clip then comment accordingly. I find that comments such as "I want Ron Paul to have my baby" to be funny but postings such as this reflect an IQ level of a non voting post.

    If you have issues with Paul, then state your point, if not don't post....

    But before you comet get to know Paul and become amazed with his views.

    Paul will have the largest cross over votes then we have ever seen. He is praised by true conservatives and his train is moving faster everyday.

    If your a Republican as I am and if Paul doesn't get the nomination then I will leave the party. I know my thoughts are shared by millions of other voting republicans.

    In closing I have an extensive background in banking and finance. I would concur with Paul regarding our economy. The clip provides facts. Also, you must know that Warren Buffet, Gates and even Pat Robinson has been dumping the dollar in favor of foreign currency. This should provide proof that major owners of paper assets are moving away from the dollar due to the real and present economic threat.

  • Juaquin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Does anyone actually think the Republicans stand a chance this election? Seriously?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3No, not even the republicans; the heavy-hitters are preparing to hibernate until 2012, when they expect the public to have forgotten about Bush, and be upset about the tax hike Hillary will have to impose to restore state finances.

      Which is why bizarro fringe candidates like Ron Paul (PBUH!) are having a field day.
  • generalinterest, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Ask Bush? If you want to know what inflationary depression is, ask Jimmy Carter.
  • healthydose, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4To: Junky puppy aka. trash canine aka junkyarddawg. The name "chortle chortle" says it all. Honestly though, I don't know why you even come on this thread, if you dislike him so much why even bother coming here? Better yet start a campaign for the candidate that you have feelings for. That would be much more productive, because no matter what you say, I and many others have decided to we like Ron's message. I thoroughly researched him before I decided to support Ron,so no matter the amount of vitriol you spew it'll have no effect on me. Those who have newly discovered Ron, I seriously suggest you do the same, so that no matter how much misinformation is thrown your way you can repel it with the truth. 1st. they ignore you. 2nd Then they make fun of you. 3rd. Then they attack you. 4th. Then you win.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I dugg you up because 1) you discredit the Ron Paul Truthers better than I ever could, 2) your user name is so deliciously ironic, and 3) you're almost as unintentionally hilarious as the Hamas Mickey Mouse.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Brilliant Ron Paul strategy -

    * Flood Digg with nothing but Ron Paul stories via multiple accounts to the point where you can't go 2 pages without reading a story about Ron Paul.

    Brilliant Ron Paul strategy flaw -

    * Pissing off single account Digg users to the point where they're about to start a campaign to take their site back from the flood of Ron Paul stories.

    Seriously, post stories about other candidates. Digg != Fox News.
  • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Ask Bush what C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N is. Dee dee dee.
  • tsotha, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Uh, yeah, 'cuz you wouldn't expect expect a guy with a Harvard MBA to understand basic economics.

    Ron Paul is a moron, actually. Or maybe it's just his web spammers.
    • Misesean, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Uh, yeah, 'cuz you wouldn't expect expect a guy with a Harvard MBA to understand basic economics."

      That's right, you wouldn't. Even most so-called "economists" don't understand basic economics. Ron Paul, however, does.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.