What is Digg?83 Comments
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50For those of you who jump between Ron Paul and Gravel, just realize that their politics are polar opposites.
- gambeht, on 10/12/2007, -18/+47I donated $100 to his campaign just now - this, after only finding out about this guy today.
Please email april@gravel08.us or go here
http://www.gravel2008.us/volunteer
to volunteer.
Even if we do not raise millions upon millions of dollars, we can still spread awareness by the efforts of individuals like me and you; that's how votes are ultimately produced.
Get involved, here is our chance to actually put someone in the White House that will make a drastic change and that is what we need. Even if you may not agree with some of his views, the point at this time is to vote someone in who will actually bring about a compelling change within this nation of nations.
This is really the man we have all been waiting for. Please help with this effort. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@king, it shows that they don't care about the politics the candidate support.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23"What you got to do is prosecute the President, criminally for disobeying the law!"
Where do I sign up?!
Gravel/Paul '08
wait a sec, that won't work....damn! - mjl5629, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16It makes me sick to see Mathews laugh in this guys face. The only reason they are laughing is because Gravel doesn't conform to the TV persona of being pretty, thoughtless, and shallow.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Who said Digg is a news site only. Whenever articles that scream we need a pictures category etc. appear, I think who said the front page is reserved for only news. In my mind, Digg is pretty poor when it comes to news delivery.
1) It doesn't produce content
2) It's often quite slow, big stories can take hours to reach the front page when managed news sites have them above the fold in minutes
What Digg excels at is finding and bringing eyeballs to interesting stories. Digg is not great at news, Digg is excellent at showing Diggers interesting stories from across the web - regardless of what category you define the story. - skjosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Why would i not vote for someone because their not going to win? what kind of logic is that? shouldnt i vote for who i want to be president not whether they are going to win or not? congratulations on turning one point into 3.
- dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Wishing that the opponents would tackle each other so they have a weaker Democratic opponent only shows how strongly the Republicans are worried about this next election.
I bet you $50 that most Americans will choose a Democrat over a Repbulican any day because of what G.W. has done for 6 years. - cvp1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Mike Gravel iz the new Ron Paul.
Jeez Digg, make up your mind. - spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Headline: Gravel defeated by Paper!
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Very true. Gravel is coming off as too much of a firebrand to get real mainstream support. However, while he would never get elected, it is a little refreshing to see a candidate cut the ***** and tell it as he/she sees it, even if I don't agree with him/her. Hell, Hillary was horrible at that "debate", just spouting off boilerplate talking points.
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10So true, because if you read in between his argument about making bush's foreign policy a felony, what he is saying is "It should be illegal to disagree with me".
- Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow, Chris Matthews is an incredibly disrespectful interviewer. I don't understand this trend. Nobody in the Canadian media behaves this way.
- xkrwlng, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11i watched the previously posted digg about gravel, at the debate thingy
the guy comes off as a *little* too zealous, a little too charismatic - RonPaulPres2008, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Amazing. We have the two strongest candidates ever, in the history of the USA: Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. It's times like these that bring back hope to me and make me proud to be an American. All the trash and corruption isn't enough to downplay the fact that America has brilliance deep down inside of it. Now with the voting machines being replaced, the media being replaced by the internet, and more... finally this country will be heading in the direction it was supposed to.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@kingklr
As soon as one of these candidates starts spouting anti-semitic, super-nationalist, and authoritarian remarks, let me know.
Until then, don't be a smartass.
I for one am sick of the mainstream candidates who are all so careful and reserved. If John Kerry, for example, had shown some real outrage over the purple heart band-aid incident and had actually said what needed to be said, he might be in office today. Our selection of candidates tends to be a group of people who are mostly the same. - xekko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7True, the emphasis on money in campaigns is destroying US democracy: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/50_million_in_campaign_contributions_isn_t_what_it_used_to_be (not my submission but a relevant article)
- Kazbaeden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@king
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Godwin's Law, among other things, allows us to determine that a debate had been going on long enough once Nazis are brought up. In this case Godwin's law has proven true after 20 or so posts. As per internet custom, the debate is now over, since with your argument about Nazis you transformed this from a debate to a flame war. Congrats! - celerityfm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Kazbaeden - it also means that kingkilr automatically lost the "argument."
So olo. Olo indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If Digg was around in 2003, all the front page stories would have been about how Howard Dean was going to be the next president
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@kingklr
It's not so much that I (or, I'm guessing, a lot of Diggers) jump between them as far as voting goes. We like both candidates because they say what needs to be said and want to do what they think needs to be done. None of this stupid political pandering *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3""it shows that they don't care about the politics the candidate support.""
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those that didn't get the pun, here it is again...
--""wait a sec, that won't work....damn!--
What do I have to do, footnote it for you? - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3OOPS This should have been posted under the other 'lieutenantmudd' comment, below this one. Sorry!
@lieutenantmudd
"2) [Digg] It's often quite slow, big stories can take hours to reach the front page when managed news sites have them above the fold in minutes"
This is true because too many stories of little value get posted, and too many of these trash stories get dugg by too many people.
The whole paradigm of digg is inherently committed to immaturity and banality, given its openness to people of all levels of maturity, including the totally immature, or inexperienced.
In some cases it is simply children, who certainly deserve rights....but who don't share many common values about what is newsworthy with many adults, particularly the truly mature ones. (And I am NOT tying maturity to chronological age, though there is a general relationship)
And everyone gets the same power to vote and submit stories.
If you look at the real time stream of incoming stories, it is frightening. Digging them up is like, every day, having to search for ne3dles in haystacks. it gets frustrating, as we all miss so many good upcoming stories because of the sheer volume of crap that is constantly submitted.
Would it help to have more categories? I don' know. Could appropriate choice use of categories somehow be enforced on submitters?
This all just means that Digg has outgrown its current algorithms, and is ripe for another major upgrade.
Perhaps it can be dissolved, and four new, little 'diggs' started, which might be more the way this Digg was when it was much smaller.
] - ironpirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4crazy wacko, lets run away
- rolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Must resist making inappropriate comment....
- wackie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Sorry the reply had timed out. To clarify I am NOT calling this guy a fascist, or saying his opinions remind me of Hitler's I am saying the way he yells during speeches and repeats the same point over an over for emphasis is similar to the way Hitler spoke in his speeches.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hdtvdust
I think you underestimate the fact that most Americans are ***** disgusted and pissed with the current Republican administration. I mean right down the line from top to bottom.
I truly don't understand how you can support them. I see your comments all over digg, denigrating the democrats, but I have yet to see you come up with a reason why I should not be ***** outraged by a president who has trod on the founding principles of this nation. Until you can come up with something positive, until you can propose one single, solitary ***** reason why I shouldn't demand the figurative head of every single member of this administration on a figurative pike, I'm sure as hell going to side with the other guys. I cannot fathom what you could come up with, but I eagerly await some response. - andrew52, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Hiding under a rock!"
I'm too young to vote, but if I could, I would vote for this guy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No need to bring up Canada into this discussion. I love Canada as much as any Canuck out there, but we need to start being more humble about our great country, instead of always telling our neighbors..."we're better than you because..."
- Veight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Haha you're ***** delusional.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2var MikeGravel = new Candidate('radical', 'liberal', 'socialist');
var RonPaul = new Candidate('conservative', 'libertarian', 'freemarketeer');
cvp1.comment.evaluate = function(c1,c2) {
if(c1.platform != c2.platform) return false;
return true;
}
document.getElementById(positron.comment.id).innerHTML = String(cvp1.comment.evalute(MikeGravel, RonPaul)); // output: false" - marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As much as I like his force of will, the guy is delusional. He thinks he can get enough votes to overcome the veto, that won't happen, not ever. Party loyalty is too strong, and that may be a bad thing, but it isn't realistic to believe action like that is possible. Better to spend that time really working for the people.
- Madhatter73, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Gravel seems like the left version of Bush...
I believe we need someone a bit less fanatical... - avolant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2king: he won, didn't he?
if his stance and demeanor is readily in line with their desires for the position then, yes, he is a good candidate. does that mean that he will always do the right thing as far as the rest of the world is concerned? well no, i don't suppose so, but bush can't even complete a coherent sentence and he's in the same boat.
in the event that either of these men advocated anything remotely violent or relatively militaristic or otherwise outright disagreeable there are a great many people who jump between them who would not. myself included. as it stands, even as a strong libertarian, i would be pleased to see an extremely socialist-minded president who was a reasonable, constitution-respecting individual. reasonable presidents do not have that much power, because, as we all know, the power under a functioning administration lies most primarily in congress. however, these men both display reason and respect for the people and actual democratic society. their differences in policy largely come down to an argument over federal power. this argument is far from decided and there are reasonable points to both sides. with a system of functioning checks and balances in place, i have very little fear of these men as president.
however, these men who are doing this thing you have indicated is just exactly like hitler (i guess i dont even know that you were invoking something as he does as the idea of not caring about one's policy? even still. stupid.) is in no way the portion of the word 'hitler' that evokes such a negative reaction. the fact of the matter is, he was quite effective at bringing his plans to realization. in that regard, in answer to your "argument", yes this quality that hitler possessed as an effective leader is employable in ways that do not involve conquering europe.
listen, as totally clever (read: ***** stupid. *****. stupid.) as that was, let's try to make some amount of sense if we are going to be defending poorly defined positions, especially if you must use hitler as your reasoning. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I was waiting for Oberman's response. He's right up his alley. Chris is a blowhard.
- givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This guy is ***** nuts, and I like him.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if you research this guy's political standpoints for maybe 2 minutes, you'd have your questions answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Gravel
even the tiniest bit of research helps. stop being lazy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1owned
- cclasby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am voting for this guy. I used to think Direct Democracy was insane, but somehow when that crazy-eyed SOB pitched it, it sounded like a good idea. Laws by the people sounds like something I could get used to...
- mkoby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I did not RTFA mainly because of the description. Also because some of the arguments point to him being left.
The thing is, everyone keeps talking about "Bush bringing the draft back" when Bush himself said "We don't need a draft, the volunteer army works" and also that it was two Dems that tried to push bills through the legislative branch to reinstate the draft. This is all public record.
I wish people would pick better argument points when combating the president sometimes. He's not perfect no, but I doubt anyone who complains and bitches on Digg could realistically do a better job. - edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Bush adm. didn't want the draft at all. Charles Rangell wanted the draft to polarize the country.
- Johnnyrazz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you think he talks crazy, you should see some of the candidates on politiPal.com
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1She's got as good a shot as Mike Gravel. Even with that website.
Probably more money too. - jazbek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The green party might be pretty cool, but her website looks completely retarded. Good luck to her.
- wackie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I am liberal and everything and I like some of his ideas, but it scares me that Gravel reminds me of Hitler and Mussolini in the way he speaks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1are you ***** serious? bush? bush sounds like a lazy ***** farmer when he talks about *****. he doesn't have an ounce of passion in anything he does or says (plenty of stubbornness, but definitely not passion).
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Anyone who is popular on Digg is not someone I would consider.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Anybody but Hilary Clinton...Bilderberg Group whore!
- tpaine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@tyrannysucks
While I agree with you about special interest donations I think it's only fair to point out that Obama has refused any and all donations from lobbyists. He recently returned some money that had slipped through the cracks from lobbyists. I think it's also good to point out that the in contrast to Clinton Obama has raised less money from more people. I heard a piece on NPR talking Obama's average donation is very low (~$100 i think) while Clinton has a fewer number of donations but far more of them are close to the $2500 primary campaign limit per person. While I'm not a big Obama supporter at this point, I'm still unsure about how he stands on many issues, I am encouraged by this time of fund raising. Campaign financing, imo, is the biggest problem with our current political system and if we can start getting people into office without money from lobbyists then we can really start to effect dramatic change. - dasaas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm definitely interested in hearing more from this guy, and after the last 6 years I think many Americans will be also. If Gore showed that kind of vitality in 2000 we would not have been subjected to Bush II.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is