What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
257 Comments
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+70Bob Novak likes the same candidate as me? Ewww... I feel dirty.
- amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -28/+76That's just what Ron needs: a plug from, Bob (Douchebag of Liberty) Novak, the sleaziest columnist in thr world.
Next a testimonial from Ted Stevens! - jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -10/+52But, but, this is impossible! Ron Paul supporters are only on the internet!
- scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+43Good lord... Novak?
If I were a Paul fan, I'd try to keep that quiet. - BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -8/+39Bob Novak and Pat Robertson....'endorsements'.
Why not just get George W. Bush himself to endorse Ron Paul. - Jensaarai, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28If I were Ron Paul, I wouldn't exactly go out of my way to publicize this fact.
- cowbot, on 10/10/2007, -12/+37Wow.. Novak. Ron Paul is clearing the air!
Healing minds! - BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Bob Novak? Freedom fever?
You do know who the Hell Bob Novak is, right? He's a total douche. Screw him. - 0zzy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23Well he was here in San Antonio the other day and 400-500 people showed up for the rally. So, judging from the lack of media he gets, I'd say he is doing pretty well and needs more coverage on the internet than the other candidates because they already have their time in the spotlight on television.
- DephexTwin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Endorsed by Novak? Well, hopefully he'll do okay in spite of this setback.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24IT'S A TRAP
- EnglishVoodoo, on 10/10/2007, -18/+36Looks like he's got the Freedom Fever. Careful folks, independent thought is contagious, people could continue waking and we could reach critical mass in this country (before the economy collapses/martial law/other engineered epidemic) , and at the critical moment, Ron Paul will peacefully, legally and rightfully ascend to the presidency. No laws will be broken! This has always been the case. We live in a nation of Freedom-lovers, and law-abider's.
Just look at all the freedom-loving lawyers, in this administration, and all of the freedom-loving lawyers running for office right now (Clinton, Thompson, Edwards, Giuliani, etc.), all advocating freedom, and the utility of new laws... - lukas88, on 10/10/2007, -18/+31No one knows whether Ron Paul's internet popularity translates into actual popularity. I can't help but think there is a small but very active group of people who are spamming him all over the internet. Look at Digg, for example. In the upcoming stories section there is always 3 or 4 Ron Paul articles with enough diggs to hit the front page, but they never do. This is probably a sign that the filter is not allowing them based on people gaming the system. If people are gaming digg, chances are they are gaming other social internet sites.
I really believe that he is the best candidate we have had in decades. But I still don't think that spamming him is a good thing. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15It amazes me that supporting a candidate equates to spamming. As far as "gaming" digg goes, that's a complete and total farce. Maybe you should think for yourself rather than jumping on a bandwagon. If you don't like a story, don't digg it. That doesn't mean you should immediately bury it though. Hell, if I buried every story I thought was lame, I'd spend more time burying than I would reading.
- Cutkomp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15The old person wouldn't have died because he didn't fund some program.
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Everyone that voted for the patriot act vote against the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution. That would include Hillary and Obama.
- FreeRepublic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Corporations have only been able to rule our country when they get the support of the government. What we have today is corporatism, or mercantilism. The government helps out it's campaign contributors in the corporate world. Ron Paul advocates a free market. This means that businesses must cater to consumers or go bankrupt, and they will get no special favors from the government. In a free market price fixing, inefficient, and evil corporations will get weeded out. U.S. Pharmaceutical companies would actually have to compete with foreign drug companies, the CEO's in Enron will still go to jail, and Oil companies that fix prices above market levels would lose business. Don't we have enough government involvement in our economy? Why do people want more?
- controltheweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Everyone says Ron Paul can't win. They said the same thing about Jimmy Carter. Malcom Forbes famously didn't have him sign his guest book when Carter visited him because he was such a nobody without a chance. Anything can happen.
- NH4RonPaul, on 10/10/2007, -15/+25Hey even a skunk can be honest once in a while! Take it for what it is and be glad. Also John Podorhetz thought you BUY straw poll votes - he got taught lesson today too. (Ron won NH with 65% REAL VOTES none bought)
- Dudeee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Ron Paul didn't start as one little group spamming his articles, it's young people wanting change, to get change you must get your word out. Though I don't agree with the resubmission of old topics or duplicates, I do believe any article about Ron Paul should be dugg or read because we need his message to be heard, it happens every campaign people have strong hope in the candidate of their choice they will make sure that person gets heard of, and the group of spammers doesn't work anymore, Ron Paul has to many supporters to call it a small group of spammers in a basement.
- hoppdawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Impeached for vetoing? right...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Maybe you could just overlook them if you don't like them? I don't troll digg and bitch about every story I don't like. Christ, when I see some of the stupid ***** that makes it to the front page, I realize that the average digg user can't be more than 20 years old. It seems that goofy ass pictures are more important to the average digg user than issues that affect how their lives will be shaped. I was 20 once and remember those days. I didn't give a ***** and then grew up. Hopefully you kids will do so too eventually.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I think you should rest easy knowing that a VAST MAJORITY of his supporters do not wish to spam nor do they wish to support questionable ideas as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
In fact, Dr. Paul is all about restoring this country to it's basis of freedom. A true Ron Paul supporter would NOT wish to force the vote of Ron Paul, because doing so would undermine the very principle of choice that is the basis of our democracy. So, as a Ron Paul supporter, I'm NOT telling you to vote for him. I'm telling you to simply educate yourself on the platforms of all the candidates and choose the one that best fits your desires. But please recognize the breech of freedom that our country has experienced. I truly believe Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to speak up about that and actually do something about it. YOUR freedom and MY freedom as Americans is my number one concern (and that's why I want Ron Paul for president). But if I truly support that cause, I cannot in good conscience ask you to vote for a specific candidate. - eean, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Apparently all the diggers are big fans of treasonous columnists who out CIA agents.
- nickcoons, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think there is a small group of Ron Paul supporters that are putting his name anywhere and everywhere on the internet. But this small group is a small subset of Ron Paul supporters, they don't make up the entire group of supporters. This can be seen easily in the amount of money he's raised in the past quarter.
A small group of spammers does not translate to roughly $2 million in campaign contributions in three months. This implies that there must be a large group, some of which may be spammers. - aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Actually it's not illegal to not sign bills...it's a legal process called a desk veto.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
I agree! For example, continually voting for the hand-picked "mainstream" candidates and expecting something other than the status quo.
Does all that sound familiar? - Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10That "my team is better than yours" party loyalty is a large part of why the US political system is as screwed up as it is now. Nobodies hands are clean. And really, what difference is there between Republicans and Democrats anymore? Most of the mainline Presidential candidates, for example, have both socially conservative and socially progressive stances on the various issues, and every one of them is fiscally liberal.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It makes no sense to thank the state when it appears to do good because it does so with other peoples money. Contrarily, it's not for us to condemn the state because it did not implement a program to 'save people' when willingly paying your 'fair share': Whether the outcome leads to undue credit for a job well done or scorn of the masses for squandering the money they acquired, it's an extraneous measure that politicians make justifications for, backed by force against the non-compliant: Rather, we should condemn the state for the initial instance of taxation that decimates opportunities for financial achievement amongst the poor and relegates them to the status of children and slaves of the government.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Do you have some kind of factual argument or are you just trolling?
- surf314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9This is so buried it'll probably never be read but I heard the major reason why he's pro-life is that he saw a late term abortion. I think that would really effect me too. Honestly I feel abortion is wrong but we should try to stop it from the beginning and not the end through sex education and easy access to birth control.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And you should never use the term thought because it's clear you're devoid of any.
- FactaNonVerba7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Please do your research before spouting nonsense. Ron Paul is pro-life as I'm sure many Ob/Gyn's are. But he does not believe that the federal government has any authority to make that decision for you one way or the other. Against universal health care because, once again, the federal government does not have the authority to do such a thing. And who do you think is going to pay for all of this health care? It's not free even if they try to make you believe it is. I don't see the problem with not wanting federal intervention on gay marriage. If you had done your research you would know that he also voted against the ban on gay marriage and against the government defining marriage, so his opinion doesn't really matter. And I don't know what "online gang" you are referring to, but if that includes people who fiercely believe in the constitution and the rights of all individuals and is appalled at the current state of our country and where it's heading, then count me in!
- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9By the way, the reason the stories don't make it to the front page isn't because of digg's algorithm. It's because there are a group of Giuliani and Thompson supporters who call themselves "buryronpaul" and who actively seek out Ron Paul stories and bury them because they don't want the competition for their candidates.
- solarsavior, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9How exactly is Ron Paul supposed get on the radar screen by disappearing now? Movements take some time to build steam. So what if he is not electable until 2012. His comments are working to shape the platforms of other candidates (if they're smart). They can either change their platform to get my vote or most assuredly my vote will go to Ron Paul. There is no such thing as a wasted vote. The only wasted vote is the one you cast for the least hated candidate, rather than the most liked. If you really believe in the "wasted vote" assertion, YOU are part of the problem.
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Eliminating social security- You mean people should be responsible for their own retirement. heaven forbid.
He doesn't want to get rid of public schools he just wants to keep the federal government out of it. He thinks it should be left to the state local governments. He doesn't want to get rid of disaster relief just FEMA. We already have this thing called the national guard to help out during disasters or private organizations such as the red cross. - Shroommaster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Do you really want the federal government deciding what marriage is, forcing all states to comply with whatever they decide? As for the pro-life he wants it to be a state issue, and he's pro freedom on pretty much everything else. As for health care, how about getting a job and paying for your own health care. I don't see why everyone else should be forced through taxes to pay other people's health care for them.
- AlphaEta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Have you ever heard the phrase: You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? It's actually quite true. You should try it for Paul's sake.
- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7By knowing the correct answer because he understands the subject matter?
- pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Secretly NY Times wants him to win--by denying the possibility he could win, it stirs up the flames of RP supporters. The more they deny, the greater is his chance to win.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Prove it.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9While your candidate cavorts with people who are sworn to destroy our Sovereignty and take us into the abyss of the NAU through the CFR. You have a lot to say.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yes, ***** them both. I don't dislike candidates for any particular reason aside from the fact that they try to speak on those issues that are "hot button" issues for American voters, and therefore inevitably end up using many words to say nothing as they make empty promises to American voters. Obama may be sincere in what he says, but it's clear that Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking up for what is the most important issue for American voters: our freedom. These other politicians are just "playing the game" and they are not serving OUR best interests. They are simply trying to be voted into office.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Novak was never a respectable reporter. He was a piece of ***** long before the whole Plame affair.
- kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The Buckley Amendment is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Every candidate has its cooks, loons and unsavory types supporting them. Bar none. Would you stop supporting Clinton or Obama if the CPUSA said they supported them?
Hell you people are supporting candidates that belong to the fricken CFR. And you think you have some high moral ground about Novak supporting Ron Paul. Please... - Fr4nk2012, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8you are spamming a Ron Paul article with you lame conspiracy theory about Ron Paul spammers.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7If you really think that Paul is a good candidate, then you would support him, regardless of the "chance" he has at being voted into office, since that is the basis of democracy. I know, we're not exactly a democracy, but that's the idea here... the people vote for the candidate that they want to serve as president.
- jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8...and you just proved my point. Association fallacy.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I'm sorry, but WHAT THE ABSOLUTE ***** does dogfighting have to do with restoring the liberties of the American people?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 257 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is