What is Digg?60 Comments
- fbliss, on 08/02/2008, -3/+58Amen to this. Old media only undermines their credibility by behaving this way.
- Trustar247, on 08/02/2008, -3/+47Excellent article. Thanks Huffington Post for that one. It sums the Revolution March up very well. Now let's make the Rally for the Republic the next stepping stone in taking back our country.
Freedom Rules! - Journeywithinn, on 08/02/2008, -3/+41Lots of things going on are not covered by media and should be. This March was huge and one of the only good things out of the BUNCH we seem to have to read Russian newspapers to find out about. They laughed at Americans in an article today, how Bush is doing so much and we seem unaware! Well, many still are. JOIN campaignforliberty.com and wake UP!
- Acrinimiril, on 08/02/2008, -2/+40http://www.rallyfortherepublic.com
Be there! - Acrinimiril, on 08/02/2008, -2/+33Watch the video and try to count all the people yourself, it's not only impossible because there are thousands and thousands of people marching towards the U.S. Capitol as far as you can see, but the guy filming ran out of video and there were still people crowding the street further than you could see.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpJGL0jIjI&feature ... - CoolHandLuke70, on 08/02/2008, -2/+33kick the mainstream media in the jimmy! Put the spotlight on them and watch them scurry like cockroaches!
- Hangly, on 08/02/2008, -3/+33Hey, at least they're just ignoring it instead of misreporting it.
True story: Ten years ago I helped organize a march in Portland that drew a thousand people. The Oregonian covered it, estimated the size at less than a hundred, and added a photo of one marcher sitting on the curb eating a taco with his sign on the ground next to him.
That photo... ***** ouch. I worked hard to make that rally happen. They might as well have stepped on my neck and pissed in my hair. - nwind1, on 08/02/2008, -2/+24The corruption of the media becomes more apparent by the day to anyone who will just take the time to look. As the Senate debated the "Law of the Sea Treaty" last year, a treaty that would create a UN power over America that would supercede our own Supreme Court, where was the media? Where was the media as we from the internet told the truth about the illegal alien situation and fought McCain's amnesty bill? Why isn't the media pointing out that the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac rescue will put billions of dollars back in the hands of those who screwed up and not help the people floudering as they try to survive with expensive mortgages and diminishing income? Where in the media do you read the truth that our nation is bankrupt and by printing endless dollars to maintain the illusion of solvency while Congress continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't have is causing the inflation that moving the middle class into the lower class? I could go on, but either you get it or you don't.
- Acrinimiril, on 08/02/2008, -0/+22That is changing, one American at a time.
And the message of truth & freedom is much more more powerful; once you learn, you will never go back to lies. - Lawofnations, on 08/02/2008, -2/+23Solution: If you ever have the opportunity to let someone working in the media know that they are, and always have been, part of the problem, then do so. Tell them flatly that they are contemptuous propogandists. Walk away.
- mahsah, on 08/02/2008, -5/+25I hate to say this, but not many people care about Paul. Not many people know about him.
In fact, when I someone asked me during the primaries who I was voting for (I replied Paul, naturally), I was intermittently met with a blank stare, a roll of the eyes, or, a tirade on how he was racist lunatic. - shesapainter, on 08/02/2008, -2/+20check out the new high tide promo vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thf4rzZ_Vds
- Acrinimiril, on 08/02/2008, -0/+16Actually it was misreported. CNN was the only network to say anything and they only made a brief mention about it being 500 supporters.
Watch the video I posted above, have a big laugh, and then tell me how anyone could legitimately claim that was 500 people. It's so insane what the media gets away with because the people rely solely upon their TVs for information.
500 people? The police that provide security there even estimated it was 10,000-15,000. 500 was an outright lie.
The important question, is why? Why would the media make such a drastic lie? Wouldn't it have been better to have just not reported it at all? - colihondro, on 08/02/2008, -4/+19repeat:
http://digg.com/politics/Jordan_Page_Revolution_Ma ... - inactive, on 08/02/2008, -2/+16Ron Paul: ***** yeah!
- carter1955, on 08/02/2008, -2/+15Did we really expect the MSM to take notice of the Revolution march, I didn't, there are no REAL reporter's anymore in the MSM they are scripted on what they can report by there corporate owner's.
We will accomplish TRUE FREEDOM again in America by conversing face to face with our fellow Americans.
IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS STILL A GREAT COUNTRY THEN WE AS AMERICANS WILL BRING IT BACK TO IT'S PRINCIPLES,PEACE PROSPERITY & FREEDOM FOR ALL !!!!! - Hangly, on 08/02/2008, -0/+13Because they would rather people know about us and think that we're lame. That's good propaganda.
- rftbunny, on 08/02/2008, -0/+12i was there .. i dont know about 20,000 i'de say around 10,000 maybe 11,000 plus but not 20,000, but then again you cant count how many grains of sand there are on the beach with just your eyes
- Erich100, on 08/02/2008, -0/+12Isn't it funny how now that the economy is in such trouble, as Ron Paul told us it would be, he's now on every MSM channel being treated with respect?
Ron Paul's Presidential campaign was only the opening act, the campaign for liberty will be much more effective towards achieving real change. - fbliss, on 08/02/2008, -4/+12@sportsstar67
I need a word that does more to capture the feeling of losing my breath from laughing so hard... Lunatic Fringe Group! I'm glad you recognize that we have such strong, devoted members of the Campaign For Liberty. Please, sign me up for the Lunatic Fringe Group that actually wants REAL change instead of the group that likes pretty pictures and the sounds of political sirens. You know, the British thought colonists were a lunatic fringe group... until we sent them packing. That's right, that is the country YOU live in, pal. That's the freedom YOU enjoy.
So we want some big change and you can't seem to find your nuts tucked away in your skirt. Yes, your nuts - remember those? They're roughly the same as the ones our founding fathers proudly showed everyone during the revolution. Please, locate yours and stop accepting what you see in Corporate/State Media as truth. You have let them tickle your fragile self right into a political fetal position.
Well, Guess what? Its time to send another message to the masses. It's time to strap 'em on and make some noise. Now, are you game for that or are you going to continue nodding your head like a corporate yes-man while you wait for mommy to make it all better? - inactive, on 08/02/2008, -0/+8That is an awesome picture. They're going to have to get creative
to shut us out much longer.
That pic should be everywhere! - inactive, on 08/02/2008, -6/+14I love it, MSM is scared as hell. Neocons are scared as hell. The GOP is scared as hell. The ball is rolling, can't stop it now.
- thadizzle, on 08/02/2008, -0/+6The bad thing is that it's probably too late for "one American at a time." If the current (and rapidly degrading) state of affairs doesn't motivate people to wake up right now, we are doomed.
- R1ng00, on 08/02/2008, -3/+8The media is really playing this game foolishly. If there is a "REAL" revolution then I'd bet dollars to dimes that the public would start by lynching the members of the media before they went after the officials....
- graydude, on 08/03/2008, -1/+5So much for a free press and freedom of speech. Luckily there are other ways to spread the word.
- sweed84, on 08/02/2008, -1/+5A free market hasn't existed in your lifetime. We live in a mixed market economy, getting closer to a planned economy every year. And both political parties are pro-planned economies because they get to decide where the money goes (here's a hint - you don't get to have it.)
- V3n0M, on 08/03/2008, -3/+7I missed the march, but I'll be at the rally! See you in Minneapolis!
- inactive, on 08/02/2008, -3/+6@sportsstar
The reality is that the status quo is going to ruin this country. We cannot finance the entitlemnt programs, the foreign empire, the growing debt and the all-pervasive nanny-state. We cannot pay our bills now and Social Security and Medicare and the interest on the debt are all growing exponentially. We will certainly not be able to get our finances in order without a violent change of direction.
The status quo, democrats and republicans, will not do anything to address these problems, in fact they won't even talk about it. We are doomed if we do not empower a third way, a choice for responsible government. If we always vote for the lesser of two evils the new alternative will never be able to grow into a position of competitiveness.
Your vote is wasted sportsstar because this election will not be decided by a vote. In the end a vote for McCain or Obama is just a vote for the status quo. And that is really stupid.
You could instead vote for the Libertarians. If they recieve 5% this election they will be competitive in 2012 - inactive, on 08/02/2008, -1/+4I like it!
- fbliss, on 08/03/2008, -0/+3Hi Guys,
First off, I'm actually enjoying this debate. This is a great conversation to have, and its nice to see some real engagement on the issues, so I have to give you some credit for putting some time into this conversation.
The point I would like to make between all the hair splitting going on is this - you don't have to have 100% agreement with a leader in order to make that leader effective. A true leader is someone who does not dictate a path but rather provides representation of a collective voice - that is what has been missing from our political system for such a long time.
We've been lulled into feeling that politics are either a) out of our grasp b) above our realm of understanding. To me, Ron Paul cuts through the junk by remembering some very basic tenets that can still hold true today (like they did when the Constitution was signed) and can guide us out of some very poor, misguided judgments and decisions made in the past.
If you've ever read Jim Collins' book "Good To Great" you would find it applies not only to business but also to leaders in a very general sense. Ron Paul is the quintessential level five leader. He is not a glory hound or a pied piper, he's a non-elitist war veteran who has already done a lot in government and sticks to principles that anyone could agree make sense. How can you argue with the thought that we should not police the world? Limit the reach of Federal Government? Absolutely. Respect citizens' rights and privacy? Are you going to tell me that doesn't make sense?
Ron Paul is a true civil servant. He has respect for his constituents. He doesn't let his personal beliefs and agendas come before guiding principles. Find me another candidate that has as loyal a following as him. I'll take one Ron Paul constituent over ten of anyone else's.
I think that hinting that putting Ron Paul in the drivers' seat for our country would give way to Laissez-faire Capitalism is another cop out to be honest. I'm not sure where you are drawing that conclusion from. Every man for himself is not part of and has never been part of his message. At least part of the message that we hear is to fix ourselves that we might help set an example for others and be able to then maintain a balanced role within the world.
I'll be willing to be that you have a good understanding of American History, Chico, but I don't think you should jump to conclusions just yet on what you think Ron Paul is all about. He's a different type of candidate, and I'm sure that were you to spend some time truly researching his message you would see that for once, we've got an opportunity to do something to steer this country back onto the course because the basic principles are what it all boils down to with him - everything we decide should be judged against those principles in order to effect positive change, to have an identity again. You don't have to agree with everything he believes personally or even as a leader as long as you know what I know - that he does not represent a single man or woman but rather the collective voice and the core principles we built this country on.
Your call to action is here. Can you stomach change, or are you content with taking the walk of shame with the same-old same-old in the political arena (that is, candidates that pander to corporations and a small group of elitists) Let me add this too - the social climate has changed and I think that needs to be considered in terms of your concerns with what you deem to be right-wing in Ron Paul's message. Going back to the Laissez-faire comment, I think that on a very basic level that requires a certain level of elitism that doesn't exist in Ron Paul.
So, can we give a guy like Ron Paul a shot or do we stick with the type of candidates that ooze grease from their palms or tell blatant lies (for example, about his record with regard to veteran's issues, John McCain is a blatant liar. He claimed he received the highest awards this-and-that from all sorts of organizations which simply is not true) Obama? He's better than more-of-the-same McCain but even his neutered party line can't help him effect some real change like Ron Paul can. That I'm willing to bet on. - fbliss, on 08/02/2008, -2/+4Please, that is a cop-out. The problem is that we have accepted every little nudge towards our current ridiculous state of being. Now, people can't believe an economy existed before the Federal Reserve even though it did for a few hundred years. Take a look back in history and find any paper currency that has ever lasted - there is none. The only thing that truly lasts are precious metal-backed currencies; Wait! Didn't we kick the Gold Standard to the curb in the 70's? Oh that's right... we did, and it further undermined our currency, sent inflation careening upward, and left us with less buying power than ever. Is anyone seeing a problem with that?
You want pragmatic economic/political realism? What exactly is that? That the economy is fine, that Iran needs to be invaded because the best defense is an Imperialist foreign policy?
Better yet, wait until 2009 and see if you think we're on the right path then. - MaryA777, on 08/04/2008, -2/+4ADDENDUM: Jordan Page, the author of this article, would like to give a special shout out to Restore the Republic (www.restoretherepublic.com) an organization that was a critical part of the success of the Revolution March! They were instrumental in getting him involved and are an amazing group of freedom fighters.
- Jordan Page Management Team
www.myspace.com/jordanpagemusic - fbliss, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2That just became my desktop background. I can't see a single icon in between all the people! ;O)
- RedPhalanx, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Bush's economic policy is considered "liberal" i.e go to anywhere in Europe and propose similar policies and you'll be called a "liberal". John Howard, former PM of Australia was from the "Liberal Party", not due to social issues but from an economic standpoint. It's no coincidence he was an ardent Bush supporter.
And you're assuming that everything can be divided into just "left" and "right". If this where true, and at the risk of repeating myself, Obama would be a communist, and I doubt that's what you're implying. - RedPhalanx, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Europe is also very different; they have a somewhat "collectivist" mentality. That's why they have socialized (i.e. collective) medicine and we don't....it's not a left-right issue but a collectivist-individualist issue. To say that we should adopt the same policies as the EU and they'll work here is history and regionalism-ignorant.
Also, "regulated capitalism" is an oxymoron, since capitalism, by definition must be unregulated. Corporatism would be a more appropriate term. - inactive, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2Spoken like a true believer. Frankly, I think the USA can choose to do what's best for the nation as a whole. We don't HAVE to be a nation of selfish greed-a-holics.
Laissez faire capitalism is what the American right has always brought to the table and it has been failing since the late 1800s. How many times are you going to trust Lucy and try to kick the football, Charlie Brown? - inactive, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1That picture looks like..... America.
We have to take this country back from the people who hijacked it. - askreet, on 08/03/2008, -1/+2PolishLogic: That may be the case, but a New Kids on the Block concert isn't a threat to MSM, either ;)
- RedPhalanx, on 08/02/2008, -3/+4Saying that the Bush economic system is "free market" is like saying that Barack Obama is a communist. Both are claimed by the opposite sides, and both are based in ignorance and a severe lack of understanding.
- inactive, on 08/03/2008, -3/+3"You want pragmatic economic/political realism? What exactly is that?"
The combination of social security programs and well regulated capitalism that has propelled the EU past the USA. They have a better economy, a higher standard of living and longer life expectancy. We should be able to do as well as Europe. - sweed84, on 08/02/2008, -3/+3Just for comparison purposes, not even Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington reached half a million people (estimated 300,000) ... and the gas to drive or fly to Washington was a lot cheaper back then because the dollar was worth more. The news has covered much smaller marches on DC than Ron Paull's.
As an aside, if you actually look up his positions on issues, none of his stances are particularly controversial (most of them actually used to be U.S. policy.) Sure, some of his supporters are a bit nutty, but that's only because his cause is the only one that seems willing to listen to people with a different story from the one that is constantly told by the media. Do I buy all of them? Of course not. But listening to someone's story never hurt anyone (although the American mainstream media seems to think it will).
Voting for the lesser evil only assents to evil as the status quo. I *understand* the idea that if you don't vote for one of the two major candidates you think you're wasting your vote by marginalizing yourself. But if you vote for one of two piles of BS, you're still wasting your vote on BS. - inactive, on 08/04/2008, -2/+2Let me also add it was pretty much Hispaniced out also. In fact, it wasn't even a large group of white folks
- vault, on 08/02/2008, -2/+2Well put.
- inactive, on 08/03/2008, -2/+1The fact that you refuse to understand left from right doesn't make it go away. I'm saying that the right wing is all about enabling greed and the lawless capitalism that has repeatedly failed. The left is about growing the nation as a whole and using government to stop corporate greed from killing people. You can choose whatever definitions and as many axis as you want. But George Bush doesn't fall into any sort of reasonable definition of an economic or political "liberal" unless you want to say he liberally killed civilians around the world.. No one blames the American right wing from running away from Mr Bush. He IS the worst president ever. But the right wing put him in power. He's your boy.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 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