What is Digg?225 Comments
- flohoff60, on 11/01/2007, -10/+107Anyone worth their salt will check the 9-11 Commissions Report on page 392.
Paul did not mispeak. The Report is on the web. - eonblue, on 10/11/2007, -13/+108Ron paul is not a neo-con, therefore fox doesnt like him. The current republican party is full of neo-cons, therefore they keep him there to preserve their immagine that the republican party is for smaller government (while infact neo-cons are for even bigger government then the democrats)
Smaller government does not mean SPEND SPEND SPEND. Because that means we will be taxed for it eventually whether it be our paychecks or the lives of our children. The debtors will want their money someday. - jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -10/+94I agree! I called into Gibson's show today and as soon as I mentioned the landslide poll results in favor of Ron Paul at the debate last night, they cut me off. He got 20,000 out of 23000 votes cast on ABCnews.com. On vote.com he got 62%.....on MSNBC he also had most favorable %.
On H&C they said that leftwingers text-ed Ron Paul to 2nd place on the Fox poll. I think they are overlooking the fact that the Anti-war republican needs a home. The massive spending and horrible foreign policy are not Republican values.
The GOP needs to quit assuming every anti-war American is a leftie or they are going to suffer the repurcussions in the form of a mushroom cloud over the GOP in '08. - nsbomb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+84What the Republican party fails to realize is that if they choose another war mongering, religous neo-conservative, America WILL NOT vote for him. Just look at the last election two years ago. The Republican party lost both majorities in the house and senate to the Democrats. Now, if that doesn't mean issue reform, I don't know what does.
Every single member of that debate last night wants to stay in Iraq. Excluding only two: John McCain and Ron Paul. I believe that most polls will suggest that 70% of all Americans disagree with the war and would like to leave.
Here we have, as shown by the polls, an extremely popular candidate: Ron Paul. He has a very loyal base, and he has collected voters from both parties (from what I have collected from comments on Digg). Why won't the Republican party recognize that the man who CAN win the presidency, (without even perhaps a 50-49 split as in recent years) is right here?
The bottom line: Ron Paul can mend conservatism back to where it was twenty years ago. The Reagan years. Unfortunately American's no longer see the Republican party as the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or Reagan. They think of it as the party of Bush, lies, and most obviously, war. - masamunecyrus, on 10/11/2007, -17/+83@timothybryce: He came in second in the cell phone text-messaging polls. People who participate in those polls aren't the nameless internet trolls and zealots, they're the real people who were watching the debate live.
The results:
— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
That's a significant margin over Giuliani, and the next closest candidate had 8% (Huckabee). Dr. Paul could very well be a surprise underdog. After all, look how much media attention Howard Dean got, and then out of nowhere, Kerry won Democratic nomination. - CkMaverick, on 10/11/2007, -5/+60@Timothybryce
That is exactly the problem with the political system today. It is not really a true democracy nor a republic because we are not electing whoever we want, we are picking one out two that are presented to us... People need to stop saying "oh they don't have a chance so lets just focus on the two main stream media wants us to look at..." The fact of the matter is we decide the President of the United States ultimately... not them! Do you think Giuliani is more qualified than Ron Paul? What has he done? Oh yeah... he was an attorney and a mayor... WOW! You know, if 9/11 didn't happen I am sure we would have forgotten his name by now... Ron Paul is a medical doctor and has been a congressman for 10 years. Do you honestly think Giuliani has more diplomatic experience from being a mayor than a congressman for 10 years? And yet, he is practically declared the winner literally years before we will see another President. The point is the media is lying to us and we need to stop following like sheep. If we really wanted to we can elect a Paul or a Gravel and there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. The real power is with the people and it is time they realized that and gave each candidate a fair shake and give us accurrate unbiased information so we can hire the best man or woman for the job. - euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+57Notice how CNN subtitled the Ron Paul segment with: "BLAMING U.S. FOR 9/11"
I'm extremely disappointed with and tired of the media's inability to do anything but jerk their knees at anything they can exploit at face value. - lemmywinkseld, on 10/11/2007, -34/+88Could not agree more! The only reputable man in the race
- IglooFu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+61Fox News not only hates lefties, but they hate everyone they don't own. The main Republican leadership hate Ron Paul...thus so does Fox.
- aoliver, on 10/11/2007, -5/+55Ron Paul Responds on CNN's Situation Room, 5.16.2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F147
I dugg it. - mrmx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+54"It's a year and a half before the election, and half the articles on Digg are about some guy who has zero chance of getting his party's nomination."
I certainly don't believe that. I gave the man $25.00 after the first debate and another $125.00 after the second debate along with the message that I recently saw a broadway show for $100.00 and his performance was far better.
Hopefully, if you like what Ron Paul has to say, you'll put some $$$$ in his tip jar so he can keep going! He might not win but let's not kill an important messenger! i.e., we can't impeach Bush or Cheny, etc..., but we can support Ron Paul. - zweben, on 10/11/2007, -8/+46Please excuse Cyre. He likes to speak of himself in the 3rd person.
- havokzero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42Notice that Kucinich and Gravel are also ignored on this site.
- Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35so, nobody's actually considered that the US actually -is- partially responsible for 9/11 ?
so, we fund the number one bad guy in the region since its violent creation, bomb the ***** out of a country twice, name two of the countries 'evil' and continually meddle in their politics, yet when a few of them get pissed and try to hurt us, its not our fault.
i can see why people might be skeptical. - marcushe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31"I don't think there should be any laws outlawing the use of drugs." "It's always been amazing to me how hyprocrytical the members of Congress have been. Talking about drugs, and getting political benefit out of the issue, giving speeches on the House floor about hard drugs, while some of them have been half-inebriated on alcohol. I think drug laws are the number one reason why we have so much crime in this country."
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul - asdfasdf, on 10/11/2007, -9/+39Anyone who's willing to check the 9/11 Commissions Report is likely always informed on the issue at hand. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't seek out facts at all, and doesn't even know what critical thinking is. A common but effective legal scam is to make money off people's ignorance, or rather, their stupidity. People believe what you spoon feed them, no questions asked: This is why Fox has an influence to begin with.
I'm going to sound egoistic and arrogant, but anyone who is for the Iraq War is just ignorant. Anyone who thinks we're "spreading democracy," or that "Terrorists hate our freedom" probably still believes that Iraq had something to do with 9/11; Get real.
The truth is that intellectuals have always been, and will always be, a minority. Would the world be able to run if 90% of people didn't work 9 to 5 without questioning anything? No. - Internecinal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Joined just for Ron Paul. Allow me to say this:
"You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
- Usamah Bin Ladin - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25Much as I liked Dean and Kerry, let's not try to be revisionists with history, 2004 wasn't that long ago. Kerry didn't come out of nowhere. He was the establishment candidate from the very beginning. If anything Dean came out of nowhere with his strong grass roots campaign based on the internet. Kerry though had the money and political savvy, donors and manpower lined up though. Dean got a lot of buzz because he ran his campaign in a very new style, ultimately it wasn't enough though.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32I agree that the networks aren't treating Paul completely fairly, and that he might in reality poll a little better than two or three of the other candidates, but anyone actually believing these online poll results are representative are engaging in willful self-delusion.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26End the Iraq War, end the Drug War. 2 for 1 special with Ron Paul: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34107/Ron-Paul-The-Pot-Candidate
- Satertek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Said page so people will actually read it:
"The United States is heavily engaged in the Muslim world and will be for many years to come. This American engagement is resented. Polls in 2002 found that among America's friends, like Egypt-the recipient of more U.S. aid for the past 20 years than any other Muslim country-only 15 percent of the population had a favorable opinion of the United States. In Saudi Arabia the number was 12 percent. And two-thirds of those surveyed in 2003 in countries from Indonesia to Turkey (a NATO ally) were very or somewhat fearful that the United States may attack them.23
Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that "the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread.. . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria."24
Many of these views are at best uninformed about the United States and, at worst, informed by cartoonish stereotypes, the coarse expression of a fashionable "Occidentalism" among intellectuals who caricature U.S. values and policies. Local newspapers and the few influential satellite broadcasters-like al Jazeera-often reinforce the jihadist theme that portrays the United States as anti-Muslim.25
The small percentage of Muslims who are fully committed to Usama Bin Ladin's version of Islam are impervious to persuasion. It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity, even though our own promotion of these messages is limited in its effectiveness simply because we are its carriers. Muslims themselves will have to reflect upon such basic issues as the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim minorities. The United States can promote moderation, but cannot ensure its ascendancy. Only Muslims can do this.
The setting is difficult. The combined gross domestic product of the 22 countries in the Arab League is less than the GDP of Spain. Forty percent of adult Arabs are illiterate, two-thirds of them women. One-third of the broader Middle East lives on less than two dollars a day. Less than 2 percent of the population has access to the Internet. The majority of older Arab youths have expressed a desire to emigrate to other countries, particularly those in Europe.26
In short, the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people, and we must do so under difficult circumstances. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas? "
"American foreign policy is part of the message. America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.
The United States must do more to communicate its message. Reflecting on Bin Ladin's success in reaching Muslim audiences, Richard Holbrooke wondered, "How can a man in a cave outcommunicate the world's leading communications society?" Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage worried to us that Americans have been "exporting our fears and our anger," not our vision of opportunity and hope.27 " - kolanos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22MSNBC poll after first debate -- Paul in first place: "It's an internet poll! It was probably spammed or hacked!"
Fox News poll after second debate -- Paul in second place: "Bah! Hackers/spammers strike again! Sure Fox News had a couple of weeks to ensure their poll couldn't be taken advantage of, but who cares, we don't like the result so Paul's supporters must be spamming!"
MSNBC poll after second debate -- Paul in first place with WIDE margin: "Uhh...crap, even we're starting to sound desperate trying to spin this...maybe there's actually something to this Paul guy. Naw, SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! Someone get a shovel and help me bury my head in the sand!"
It's time to wake up people. - painted82, on 10/11/2007, -11/+33"Everyone knows he sucks ass. This is just more proof."
I fail to see the logic. Please get a working brain. - Sunsetter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25Do people really take FOX news seriously anyway?
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20The Daily Show (and Digg) crowd probably knows more about the issues than you do. People want change. Not the same regurgitated crap.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21@CKMaverick
I have no idea why you are being dug down because you are absolutely correct. The American people have the power to elect whoever they want and saying garbage like "this guy has no chance, lets not listen to him or waste our time on him" is handing all of your voting power to those already in power. You allow them to choose for you who will be the next president. If you really (really) want to enact change then you have to make big changes... and the best way to do that is to vote for people who believe in what you believe in.... not only for people you believe will win. There's something funny about perception... someone can convince you that something that hasn't happened yet is absolutely inevitable... and then it becomes inevitable because you aren't strong enough to refuse it. If you want Ron Paul for president (or anyone else) then make it happen! Don't vote for your second choice and then whine when things aren't how you want them. Grow some ***** balls and vote with your conscience. Better yet... use your free time to raise awareness to help those you believe in become president. - michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24With all the ***** going on your just worried about weed?
- xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Wow, is Ron Paul really a republican, this is the first time I see eye to eye with a republican.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Ron Paul is also #1 on technorati ahead of You Tube, American Idol, Myspace, and Paris Hilton.
http://technorati.com - Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Im not a fan of Ron Paul. But what he said about 911 is true. Did Guliane or however you spell his name even read the 911 commision report.
- jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I wonder if the GOP actually wants to win in '08? I contend they are playing tough on Iraq for political reasons. However, the very small neocon group they are playing up to with tough talk would vote GOP UNDER ANY circumstances ANYWAY.....so staying in step with them only costs them votes.
I am scared to death of a one party government but if we can't get an Anti-war GOP candidate, I'll be voting Dem. Don't make me do it GOP. - MurphyWatson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18I'm pretty sure McCain is bent on staying in Iraq even despite what Iraqi government wants. Other than that, the only Republican candidate who isn't too blind to see reality is Ron Rpaul.
- euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"I love Ron Paul and cheer him on the whole way; even with my hard earned money."
I doubt that.
Ron Paul's words were twisted in a way to make a nice, completely ***** sound byte. This needs to be addressed.
What we're seeing here is not only a lot of grass roots support for Ron Paul, but a grass roots support for calling the media and politicians out when they throw ***** at us and expect us to eat it. - jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1436 hours ago I didn't even know who Ron Paul was. Today.....I can't stop thinking or talking about him. I donated to his campaign, too.
I guess he got himself another spammer here.
The polls show Republicans and Independents are DESPERATE for an anti war GOP candidate. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Please kind sir, how is he nuts? Really? I don't think a purely libertarian government is sustainable, but Guliani doesn't even know why terrorists hate us!
- Santabot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Maybe they're not 100% accurate, but how will those who don't view online sources like this even have a chance to see his name? Nobody else knows the truth of the matter that other real candidates exist other than these fascist bloodthirsty neo-cons.
- Razster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14You would be amazed at the older people I know who still watch FoxNews.
It amazes me at how they can take the BS that comes from there and think it is the only news around - If only they could learn about Digg.com and the many ways it shows the truths. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17I'm sooo ***** glad to see Fox News pissing their pants over Ron Paul. Love seeing them squirm. Happy happy!
- Rfriaz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Oh man, the banana argument. Don't put Ron Paul down like that.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Here's a compilation of videos from last night's Fox news coverage. I think it proves the OP correct. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=28304644&blogID=265513231
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I love that Rep. Ron is running. He's going to sign some light in the dark minds of many republicans. He's one of the smartest congressmen we have. And they're going to resent every second of it. That's why Guiliani tried to paint Paul as a quack yesterday by saying that he's never heard of the blowback argument. Guiliani was lying. Paul shined and every party first republican hated it.
- hamish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11he also wants to abolish the IRS.
thats my boy ron paul! he's got my vote - feelmydisease, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Ron Paul has been associated with the Republican Party since 1974. Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1988 and then returned to the Republican Party. He has a long political career.
- Nanite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The Media pretty much killed any support for Dean after running 'The scream" non-stop for days. It never even really struck me as all that crazy of a thing to do, after all he had just lost whatever primary they were at at the time, and was just trying to pump up his supporters. The media made it look like he had lost his mind on national TV and then did a little more than insinuate that this proved he was no good for the Presidency. At the core it is my belief that Dean was squeezed out by the elites for not being pro-elite enough. The media was just another tool for this end. And what did we end up with? Two skull and bones new england elite good-old-boys. I'm no fan of state-run media, but the public news agencies should not be able to manipulate the news and pick our candidates for us!
- diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Are you nuts! Ron Paul is the real deal. He ops out of the congressional pension plan. He does not go on junkets and has a pretty consistent voting record. Giuliani is far more opportunistic than Dr Paul. He claims to know security, but knows nothing about blowback! If, that is true Rudy should be kept as far from the White House as possible.
- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11you're not the only one
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The current republican party continues to shoot itself in the foot. They have a chance to get a guy like RP in office and yet they still continue to give creedence to the usual slimy, bought & paid for run of the mill type politicians.
- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10great argument of the issues. I applaud you
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Why vote for a lesser of 2 evils? That's little more than reluctant slavery. Write in Ron Paul. I expect to have to do that, but I won't delude myself into thinking my vote matters. Your vote only matters in the long run if it has an impact. Being 1 in 100M for the lesser of two evils is merely supporting mediocrity. I will not vote for a candidate that is not worthy of being President who understand the Constitutionally-limited role of govt. This means I will not vote for a Democrat candidate, or a Republican candidate other than Ron Paul. I recommend others to do the same.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@1991wolf I tend to beleive we dont have a lot of choices. But is people like you who just sit and complain about how corrupt the government is without doing anything about it. Have you ever even voted?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is