What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
240 Comments
- votewritein, on 10/11/2007, -12/+137Last night on the #1 rated late night radio show Coast to Coast AM, just after the conclusion of the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina, host George Noory said:
"I don't know if you caught a glimpse of the GOP debate tonight, but I've gotta tell you, this is not an endorsement, I am just amazed at how Ron Paul continues to really, and effectively, out-maneuver the other candidates in these debates and he get's minimal national exposure and publicity. It is incredible. I mean you look at Fox News, Ron Paul on top, you look at MSNBC, Ron Paul on top. This is gonna be a very interesting election where it looks like Americans who are voting on the Republican end are picking Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure he'll get the nomination, unless he starts getting the exposure that he needs. But anyway, we've got the invite into Ron Paul to get him on a future program to talk about the issue of not getting the exposure, when it appears that America likes the guy! I mean, that's the story to me, America likes the guy!"
Ron Paul supporters should be extremely happy George Noory has invited him on the Coast to Coast AM, which boasts millions of nightly listeners. - JBURNES, on 10/11/2007, -14/+99They are ignoring him because he doesn't want to serve the military industrial complex, and the rest of them do including Hillary
- R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -10/+62I disagree, talking about why he is not getting exposure may be exactly what he needs to get enough uproar about the whole problem to force the media to start paying some attention. He can talk about his positions on things once he has this little problem taken care of, but until he can make it into the media he stands a snowball's chance in hell of making it to presidency. Unfortunately, he is still a politician and he abides by the same political truths; exposure and not political positions does a president make.
I think because we hear all of the internet backing for Ron Paul, we assume that he has a larger hold on the American people than he does. If you really consider it though, the majority of Americans still elect their presidents based on what the media tells them to choose + party lines and Ron Paul has little of either. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+68I hope he asks Dr Paul questions that are important. We need to know how Dr Paul stands on issues such as immigration, healthcare, and national defense. Talking about why the mainstream media is ignoring him is a waste of time because it is not important and I could care less about it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -11/+55Ron Paul is being purposely buried by mainstream media as so called 2nd tier candidate. Well winning all the polls makes him 1st teir. And it will be Ron Paul in 2008. Screw giuliani.
- specsaregood, on 10/11/2007, -7/+48Email Mr.Noory and let him know you can't wait to tune in to the show with Ron Paul.
george@coasttocoastam.com
Either Noory or Art Bell will be great hosts to interview Ron Paul. Defintely won't be a soundbite-style interview. - R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36I'm sorry, but as much as I agree with you I have to digg you down. If you have this much to say, blog it and link it (no ads please).
Forums have little room for such commentary. Short and sweet is preferred. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35I don't think anyone has the time, patience, or inclination to read that comment.
- emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+29All the people criticizing that Ron Paul only has support on the Internet, ever ask yourself WHY this may be the case?
You can't filter information on the Internet as efficiently as the MSM can. The average person at home gets their political information mainly from the TV, and so pretty much all that has to happen is for the MSM to agree on a winner and it's guaranteed, because the vast majority of people have nothing to form their opinions from except what they're exposed to.
The degree to which this is happening may be debatable, but it has become quite apparent that it is happening to a significant extent. Comments made on Fox News - that based on the polling, the public is only beginning to grasp who the top tier candidates but they're wrong about Ron Paul - show that even they don't try very hard to hide their acknowledgement of this fact.
I hear the argument over and over again that the MSM doesn't give everybody equal exposure because they simply don't have time to devote to any but the most serious candidates. And this just proves my point - it's inevitable. Whether they do it with selfish intentions or not, the media picks who THEY consider to be serious candidates and this shapes people's opinions.
Ideally, people would be able to do their own research - THE INTERNET FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THE BULK OF RON PAUL'S BASE NOT-SO-SURPRISINGLY IS - and the media would report on the candidates that the people want. This isn't the media's fault - it's the people's, because even if the media has the BEST of intentions, the majority of people are unable to form their opinions without the MSM. So the MSM has invariably been tasked with making up people's minds for them, which is not unlike propaganda, except that we bring it on to ourselves through general apathy.
There's a reason Ron Paul supporters are pretty much limited to the Internet and why they're so passionate. They've been more able to make up their own minds and fully believe that his ideas would make America better. - madewitt, on 10/17/2007, -16/+43Ron Paul is the class of all candidates Republican or Democrat. All Americans are in agreement with everything he stands for and what he says. If the corporate controlled media continues to deride and obscure the truth they will lose the small amount of credibility they have left.
- dave11980, on 10/17/2007, -9/+36BigDave,
Have you even read about Ron Paul or are you just pulling that our of your ass? Ron Paul consistantly votes against everything and anything that isn't specifically allowed by the constitution. Anything you find that sounds like he should have voted for it instead of against it you should ask yourself if we actually ever gave congress the power to do that, you will be shocked to find that they overstep their bounds most of the time. Ron Paul on the other hand has read the contract we wrote for them (in case you can't figure it out, I'm talking about the constitution) and follows it to a tee. Check the facts before you speak.
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_ronald_paul - TheBogie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31Even if you don't agree with him, you must admit that he speaks what is on his mind, not what he thinks people want to hear. This takes guts.
He is hauling around a huge pair of brass knockers in his drawers. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28I just talked to two people I work with today about Paul. Both are Republicans and sick of the lineup. They had never heard of Ron Paul. I showed them websites, etc. They are now very very interested. How can you not be?
You tell people about Ron Paul. Then they tell others. ***** the MSM. - Guydevice, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28When Ron Paul gets coverage he does awesome. Like after the Fox debates when all of the commentators were saying that he just threw his campaign out the window, but the phone polls were showing that he came in second. None of these haters on Digg will say who their favorite candidate is, especially if they claim to be Republican.
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28@zenerdiode
"I don't agree with his views on abortion and stem cell research."
Is there a need to agree with a candidate on every position? Is that even humanly possible?
Easy one first. Stem cell research. He is NOT against research, he is against the government FUNDING the research.
Why is this a deal breaker? There's plenty of money for worthwhile research. Lack of federal money is a far better alternative to a government that would ban the research period!
Abortion. His political position is that it is a states issue. That's a Constitutional point of view, and I agree with him on that. His personal opinion is anti-abortion, and I disagree with him on that. And I do believe he will do as he's always done and support the Constitution.
Why is this a deal breaker? I haven't heard about a huge pent up demand by states to ban all abortions. It really wouldn't be a big deal if the federal government got out of that area. Continuing with the concept of states rights: What if they really were respected as the Constitution intended? States are moving in favor of marijuana. The people are moving in favor of marijuana. What's holding progress up? The federal government. Same with gay marriages. Ditto with Iraq.
It doesn't make sense to break a deal over something that poses no danger when there are so many other matters on the table. - dave11980, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28bigdave,
He never said the supreme court was the decider, he votes on what he feels is constitutional. They have every right and power to rule for or against the laws as they see fit. The difference is between him and other politicians. He looks at the constitution and says does this actually grant me the power to do this, they look at it and say how can we twist these words around to give us the power to do this. The "promote the common good" clause is a good example. They use this to do things way outside of the bounds of the listed powers in article 1 USC, in all actuality it isn't listed in anything that any decent English major would categorize as something dictating power. It's listed in the preamble which is merely the why for the constitution and doesn't grant any powers.
Oddly enough about the only time the common good clause has been applied in a supreme court case is with the random dui stops in which the majority opinion given by Justice Rehnquist blatantly stated that they were illegal under the constitution, but the law would be upheld anyway.
We have a serious problem in this country where people want to find exceptions to the constitution and if we as the people don't stand up and stop it then Americas future doesn't look so bright and free. - mikes1, on 10/11/2007, -9/+30Gallop does not detail their methodology, but I strongly expect that it's based on random telephone calls. Most states have laws preventing such calling to unlisted numbers. AFAIK, no cell phones are listed.
The fact that people are moving away from landline phones, and the younger they are the more likely it is they don't have a landline phone ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070514/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phones_only ), makes such polling inaccurate.
I suspect that much of Ron Paul's support is coming from younger people, which not only explains the apparent lack of support when only landline phone users are polled, but also why he seems to have such strong support on web and SMS text polls. - SiliconBadger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22Ron Paul's comments only seem crazy to some who aren't aware of the world outside what mainstream TV channels show. However much you may think his ideas are crazy, I think it should at least be recognized that he most closely represents the views of our Founding Fathers and our Consitution.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25Plain and simple. The MSM is ignoring Ron Paul because of his staunch beliefs in our constitution. They lean quite heavily toward socialism and communism and that leaves no room for our constitution at all. So...they ignore what they do not agree with...
- dave11980, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25dshpls,
"Ah, so only the polls that you agree with are accurate. "
No, read what I said. "I don't trust Gallup or any of the other pollsters a whole lot any more."
I don't trust any of the polls. - zenerdiode, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Please quote one thing he says that you feel is crazy.
As you can see from my previous posts, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I do feel he is the most intelligent of the bunch and backs up his arguments with logic and reason. He is NOT prone to hyperbole. - dave11980, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20bigdave,
What the ***** are you talking about?
The common defense clause is part of article 1 section 8. It IS a granted power of the US Constitution to the legislative branch. Your the one that brought up the common good clause, not me, I merely pointed out that it isn't a clause in any power granting section and therefore deferred no power to congress or any other body.
Cite me the pay as you go law that you are referring to, either in USC or House Resolution because I honestly am not sure what you are talking about, but I will look it and Ron Paul's record up on it and tell you why exactly he voted against it. - lava, on 10/11/2007, -41/+58I'm going to get my ass dugg down, but I hope some people see this.
Ron Paul is being ignored by MSM because the average voter doesn't give a damn about Ron Paul. There's a lot of noise about how Ron Paul won the MSNBC online poll, but that's because the poll was gamed by his supporters, which is what's happening with digg right now. The reality is that he has very little support, and he's never going to get the republican nomination. Just take a look at the gallup poll. Ron Paul is at 0%:
You can find the analysis here: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598
First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners
May 10-13, 2007
Rudy Giuliani 29
John McCain 23
Fred Thompson 12
Mitt Romney 8
Newt Gingrich 6
Sam Brownback 2
Tommy Thompson 1
Mike Huckabee 1
Tom Tancredo 1
George Pataki 1
Ron Paul 0
Other 2
None 5
All/any 0
No opinion 8 - Narrator, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22 Ron Paul is the only candidate who aims for simplifying the government and not adding many new bureaus, new programs, new appointments, departments, and taxes. The tendency of most civilizations is to add more and more layers of rules, systems and bureaucracy when faced with problems. Do you ever notice that whenever there is a problem the government attempt to solve it always results in the government getting larger? We are constantly doing this, adding more complexity to solve problems. Have you ever heard of a government bureau being closed because it failed to solve the problem it was established to fix?
As Joseph Tainter points out in "Collapse of Complex Societies", This is what killed the Romans. When the Romans started falling apart they started making it illegal for people to leave their occupations, increased taxes, increased public welfare spending, inflated the currency, increased the size of the military and bureaucracy, tried to crack down on those in the frontiers of the empire. It all failed and the empire fell apart due to revulsion of its subjects. The Eastern Roman Empire did something very unusual in the history of civilizations, it took the opposite approach. The Eastern Roman Empire almost eliminated the central government bureaucracy, decentralized the military and had one of the most stable monetary units in history. They were able to survive longer than any civilization except for the Egyptians even though they were being constantly attacked by both Barbarians and Islamic invaders. - robdowns, on 10/17/2007, -28/+44ron paul is number one in many of the ONLINE polls, b/c there are a plethora of online nerds that vote for him. you only need to look at digg to realize this.
- Hunabku, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18I am a democrat for the coming election and even though i won't vote for Ron Paul, I will support him (via my discussions with others) because I believe he will elevate the dialog and debate (like Barack) for the dems.
This country needs a huge dose of more intelligent, moral, and constitutional dialog. The republican party of late is the party of the rich, the stoopid, and the very fearful. The soul of the republican party is libertarianism and with out its libertarian roots the republican party has no soul and will fail miserably. - proliance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Cliff's notes version please?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21Funnily enough, isn't it Giuliani who does the crossdressing?
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Giuliani%20crossdressing - dave11980, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Actually you guys would be surprised. While he might not support abortion or stem cell research he doesn't view allowing/disallowing/funding as a governmental power, at least not at the federal level. That is his problem with Roe v. Wade. It sets a federal mandate allowing abortion instead of allowing the states to decide on its legality and the methods and practices of it that are legal or the limitations placed on it. By removing power from the federal level you would in effect remove big businesses stranglehold on government. It would be much harder and much more expensive for them to effect or prevent change since they would have to multiply everything by 50, or even more if the states then relegated that power to local municipalities.
- JettaMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19I gotta say, Ron Paul sounds like a really good candidate on paper. I agree with all the stances I've seen of his: low taxes, limited government, free markets, and he votes no on anything that infringes on the constitution. I wish the guy was as well known (and as charismatic) as Rudy Giuliani and he might actually have a shot.
- Mervz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17anyone who's taken advanced stats can tell you not only does the way you word a question, but how you ask it, and through what medium has a HUGE effect on the result.
As mikes1 said... if they are using land-line phones, many younger voters won't be reached. You could extrapolate forever... Using the same logic, you can't say that online polls are wrong or rigged- they are simply representative of the audience that uses that medium. Fox used txt's to vote on their poll last night and THUS, they got the opinion of the audience that uses txt messages. Surprise surprise.... - jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Several people have already addressed this, but I'll give it one more shot for those to lazy to read all the posts.
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He stands for non-intervention. In fact, he makes a good case that the current administration is politically isolating the US.. And he want to change that. - gabacho2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I don't know if this is good news. Being supported by George Noory and his Circus Freak Show of a radio program can't add to Ron Paul's credibility.
"Another bigfoot spotted in Oregon, cattle mutilation in Idaho, and UFOs over Phoenix!! And boy, how about Ron Paul for president!" -_- - AzDraon, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21just sent an email saying they got a new listener.
- andyd273, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I don't watch much TV, so the only place that I've ever heard Ron Paul's name is here on Digg. If someone had called me a month ago and asked who I was going to vote for, I wouldn't have said Paul, just cause I didn't know him.
I think thats a big problem for a lot of people. If the media doesn't cover him, people wont know his name. If people don't know his name, he wont go up in the polls. If he doesn't go up in the polls, the media wont cover him.
You have to be mostly famous for most people to want to take the time to notice you. Its a Catch 22 - gazwilwah, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Giuliani is is part of the gang that the elite want working for them, outsiders like hardoworking decent guy Paul don't stand a chance.
Who determines who wins the vote? you?
try again, its the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the darkside. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Rudy? Charismatic? Being able to shout "9/11" over and over again to the cheers of a crowd doesn't make you charismatic.
- jlhoben, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16This is the best wake up call for people regarding the dangers of concentrated ownership in media for years. Many people are just going to tune out and look for other news sources (or better yet learn to read them more critically). Whatever you think of Ron Paul you have to admire what he is doing. It is amazing that so many people have been co opted by such a corrupt system.
- nosecohn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I just wish Dr. Paul would do two things differently in the debates:
1. He should be painting the other guys as the radicals. I know there are more of them, but that's doesn't matter. When asked stupid questions like, "Are you sure you're seeking the nomination of the right party?" he should respond, "I'm the only true Republican up here!" And maybe continue with, "The rest of these guys are just neo-con imperialist big spenders in the same mold as the President who got us into this mess. If you want more of the same, vote for one of them."
2. He needs to adjust his posture and speech to come across more Presidential. Lower voice (less whining), stand up straight instead of leaning on the podium, and for goodness sake, figure out what to do with your hands (grasping the sides of the lectern works). The audience responds to a lot of factors other than the content of what the candidate is saying. These simple measures will make his words more effective. - Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Does it not occur to anyone that the same power structure that owns NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and the major news papers might have bothered to buy up a few polling services along the way? Wake up America. You are owned and controlled.
- jrsims, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Several digg stories have hit the front page about the issue you're talking about. They prove that Ron Paul was correct and well informed on the matter.
He did his homework. You did not. And yet you think he's a lunatic.
This is why good candidates like Ron Paul can't win, and why the wrong people for the job continue to be elected to office. - jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"Ron Paul has voted against NASA funding bills repeatedly, I am against that."
Good for him. And I say that as a person fascinated by space. On what basis to you believe that politicians can make intelligent decisions on space exploration/development? Do any of them have the education or experience necessary to evaluate the various cost/performance/benefit options?
What you're in favor of is the exact opposite of that old cliche "put your money where your mouth is". Old but true. Look what happens when people put there own money on the line:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sso_rutan_archive.html
They make intelligent decisions. They make plans that persuade investors to part with their money willingly. More often than not they succeed BECAUSE of the difficulty in persuading investors, it's the good plans that get funded.. Some flawed plans may make it through, but that's of no concern, it's not the PUBLIC's money that gets lost. What NASA does is play politics. Can you say Hubble? Are you sure you don't want to re-think your position? - willistg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16in regards to the gallup poll or any other so called legit scientific polls who here on digg reading this has actually participated in one.
I personally have not, nor have I met anyone who has.I've been of voting age half my life. and a tax paying american who has opinions about stuff.
in regards to the online polls being gamed. Why hasn't any other candidates supporters gamed the system in their favor? I mean it's not that hard so why hasn't guilianni gestapo supporters figured it out yet? - WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13@ SecondGuesser
"I do, however, feel that his foreign policy, while perfect for an ideal world, doesn't exactly cut it in an non-ideal world. the common defence is a constitutional requirement of federal government, and i do believe that the federal government, if necessary, should be proactive and preventative, and even unilateral and pre-emptive whenever possible."
I had to digg you down for that. I mean, c'mon. Pre-emptive? What a bunch of *****.
I think most people here would agree that I have a right to defend my person... maybe even my home or the property that my home sits on. However, it is silly to think I can run around kicking my neighbor's asses because I think they might do something to me one day. What if I had intelligence? Uhhh... so, some dude told some other dude he is planning to get me? Based on that, I go get someone first? Whatever. Pre-emptive just doesn't work. - zeero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12so if people stray from the norm theyre in a cult/terrorists/anti american?
- Burnse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Thank You George, its about time people like you all over the country give this man some badly needed exposure before the military industrial complex kicks him out of the debate.
- vguard, on 10/17/2007, -9/+20Because the old media is scared. They've lost control and they know it.
I smell fear! - Bucketshred, on 10/11/2007, -10/+21Coast to Coast bloody rocks mate
- jlowe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Perhaps it seems "crazy" to you in that he is really neither R or D. There are more sides to issues than left and right.
- delelles, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13 Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?
May 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 242 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is