What is Digg?354 Comments
- Stryder81, on 10/11/2007, -10/+164You numb nuts don't understand. His funding is coming straight from the people, no corporate or special interest groups. That's a ***** of support.
You compare the few companies that fund the current candidates compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who currently support Ron Paul ( and more & more learning everyday) ? Ppsshh this is going to be an interesting 2008. I'll bet that he'll go from hundreds of thousands of supporters into the millions mark easily.
He went from a nobody, to the 3rd tier, now the 2nd tier...in less than a year...I do see him makin the 1st tier with the obvious statistics. - lakush, on 10/11/2007, -11/+106"After silently watching the hundreds of youtube videos and digging of Ron Paul i've realized that he might not have that many supporters, but a group of extremely dedicated bloggers (maybe spammers) that know their viral marketing tactics.."
Perhaps if you left your mother's basement and saw one of Ron Paul's rallies, you would see his throngs out supporters. - jessehadden, on 10/11/2007, -5/+85Anti-war Ron Paul vs. pro-war Hillary Clinton... how interesting this might end up being!
- AntBing, on 10/11/2007, -4/+63Call me what you like, but so far Ron is the only guy who even remotely has my vote.
- facereplacer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+60Hey davidwasman:
There is a real support for Ron Paul. There are people who call him spam, crazy, or whatever else so they can to write him off and move on. A lot of people actively set out to bury RP submissions here. And with the mainstream media denying him any benefit of the doubt, praise or recognition for winning phone polls or whatever, I can't see why you'd blame the RP supporters here for wanting to Digg all the good press we can get. A lot of them don't know but they are neo-cons, have been hannitized, or whatever.
Aside from that, I find it hard for people to disagree with Ron Paul's politics. The reason being, he follows no other rules than the ones set forth by the constitution. Despite him being a religious person, his sense of right and wrong does not seemed to be swayed at all by religious ideology. His sense of right and wrong is on paper, in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on the United States.
To disagree with him or his politics is to want from your government more than it was intended to provide. If it's aggressive "wars on drugs or terror", he's not for it if it requires the US to involve itself, the CIA, or any other US entity in the international combat or disruption of another nation's policy or sovereignty. If it's socialized medicine or welfare, he won't help you. He believes in empowering the people, and limiting the government's stranglehold over their wages and opportunities.
I would suggest you just read his issues section on the website or watch a few of his youtube videos.
It's hard to not to think, "gee, this guy makes a lot of sense."
Oh, and... David Letterman likes him : ) - Nexus974, on 10/10/2007, -20/+74I don't think this story is accurate. 3 million sounds low.
- conceptkid, on 10/11/2007, -12/+64Haha, I applaud the WSJ for that article, I really do. Albeit their numbers are wrong, but no matter, we will see what Paul has really raised soon enough from a reliable source. It seems like everyone really wants to know Pauls numbers including the mainstream media and including every hater, its creating alot of hype in a really good way.
- poisonborz, on 10/11/2007, -10/+59I live in europe, and the american habit of "fund raising" for a president candidate always makes me feel ill... People/Corps giving their spare money directly to politicans just so that they become presidents? Say what...?
- revo764, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46***** voting for the party, that's why we are in this mess already, vote for the candidate. Oh and anybody that raises 20-30 million a quarter surely the question needs to be asked how much of that was from corporations that will demand the favour returned. This is why we now see that politicians don't listen to the voters and the military machine keeps the war going, favours being returned. Vote for the candidate that appeals the most to what you want.
- iamr00t, on 10/11/2007, -4/+47Well, if you say he doesn't have many supporters, that group of spammers must have a lot of money.
- darkcooger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+40As a contributor to his campaign, I can tell you that I do most certainly want something in return: smaller government, personal liberty, and peace. Otherwise I wouldn't have contributed!
- barrybarbee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40What makes me the most proud is that his contributors want nothing in return other than to get him elected. The number I most want to learn is how many unique contributors he has at the lower levels of say... $25.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38He did say "more than 3 million"
- Navicerts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28So the teacher didn't know the answer, and neither do you; welcome to adulthood.
- kkonarik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31The word is spreading. And the more that show up will give us a better chance to watch what happens in the background (i.e. electoral, voting machines) during vote time.
America needs to understand that this guy isn't bought and paid for like the "Front runners" - strayangel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Please support him.
- AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29I don't vote for who raises the most money, I'm voting for who I think is the right man for the job. Not that Ron has my vote all locked up, but he's in the lead right now.
- WeBeGood, on 10/10/2007, -8/+33The Main Stream Media’s national “un”-scientific polls are not a true indication of Ron Paul’s support. They are simply a reflection of the Main Stream Media’s failure to inform the public about their choices in the up coming Presidential Primaries. “Ron Paul Who?” BTW, “less than 5%” also equal “increased by over 100%”, there are many ways to say the same thing. Thanks for the Ron Paul hit piece. :-)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+34Ron Paul's campaign released a letter this past week saying that $1 Million was raised in 1 week. Saying that's true, this statement that RP raised ONLY 3 Million during the 3rd quarter is more than likely inaccurate.
- Mortikhi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25I logged in just to bury everything davidwasman said.
For an "older", "educated" man, he sure is a whiney bitch.
Take my bury and eat it. - neurosport, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27when i was in high school i was trying to get my history teacher to explain why this ***** is supposed to make any sense ? why somebody has to PAY for somebody else to become president ? its like in the middle ages where positions were simply SOLD for money and no elections were necessary. not much has changed, positions are still bought the same way IN EFFECT although in THEORY we now have "democracy"
of course my teacher never answered. he never answered ANY of my questions because he couldnt. after all his job was not to think, it was to "teach"
nobody ever explains these things to americans beyond the "because this is how its supposed to be" argument ... - mattsw84, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29I bet you have never read the WSJ in your entire life.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I just got my Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker today. That sumbitch is going on my car tonight!!!
- mattsw84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Your intellect is clearly superior.
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19This is a good point. not so long ago we were seeing reports saying Ron Paul was stuck at 1-2%. We then went through a phase where he was stuck at 3%. Now we hear that he is stuck at 5%. I believe the big question is what will voter turn out be?
The people questioned in these polls will not all go out and vote. I believe that the people who are saying Ron Paul are a little more informed and will have a higher voting turnout. these means that even though only 5% currently say RP if a vote was called today I would expect to see 6-8% for RP just because a larger % of RP supporters would turn up at the polls.
Its going to be interesting to see what happens in the first half of 2008. if he could double his share again and hit 10% then it would be very hard for the media to ignore him. - Bilabrin, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21That's why Dr. Paul hasn't spent hardly a dime of his campaign money. Mcain on the other hand....
- varun1s, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Atleast Ron Paul won't have to kiss corporations' asses like other candidates in both parties.
- Fabc001, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21Man that is mad despration from trollville, "let's now try to scare everyone in not voting for Ron Paul".
Bush has been trying to scare us for 7 years to accept his crap of dismantling the constitution. As everyone keeps saying, thier is no difference between the two parties, the big name candidates have all sold themselves to the corporate dollar, thats why they get 20 million a quarter in donations.
Vote for the candidate that most appeals to you, ***** the party name! - neurosport, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21now if only these bloggers/spammers figure out to do the same thing OUTSIDE of internet Ron will be president
all that it would take for Ron to become president is for the people who write about him online to take up placards and go out in the streets and talk to REAL people (not online folk)
just because all your friends are online doesnt mean that *normal* people even know what internet is - and these *normal* people (read *****) are the ones that every presidential campaign must focus on (because of how many there are) ... - Brecksteph, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22NEWFLASH KIDS....The "free press" AINT FREE....ITS OWNED..and its OWNERS DONT LIKE RON PAUL AND ARE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING THEY CANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DONT SUPPORT HIM.
...Just Look at how the New World Order BIG MEDIA trys to paint Ron Paul as some kind of "nut" because he actually FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Its VERY IMPORTANT to understand that the Globalist elites plans for One world Government means the US Constitution must be DESTROYED....and YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MUST BE TAKEN AWAY.
Thats why the Schools (YOU FUND) dont even really teach the Constitution anymore....THE ELITE DONT WANT THE CHILDREN OF THIS NATION TO EVEN KNOW THEY HAVE A BASIC BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
RON PAUL is the ONLY MEMBER OF YOUR GOVERNMENT WHO EVEN MENTIONS THE CONSTITUTION ANYMORE!!!
Under a Ron Paul Government the Police and the Citizens of this nation will KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS..WHAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE....AND WHAT REAL FREEDOM MEANS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1lTDWcsz2E&mode=re ...
{"The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: "The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.". Quigley differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's "role in history is significant enough to be known". Quigley also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to "throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.". Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to " dominate the political system... ...and economy of world as a whole" and implement a new system of "feudalist fashion" through "secret agreements". Although he believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.
Surprisingly, many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes "The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.". This high ranking military officer went on to explain their procedures for influencing policy, claiming: "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."."}
http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08/15/cfr-sta ...
.....EVERYONE RUNNING IN 2008 IS...PRO-WAR... ANTI-US CONSTITUTION...PRO-NEW WORLD AND ORDER....AND READY AND WILLING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY REAL....CHOICE.
Get Educated, then Educate those around you. - catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Haven't you guys heard? There is no such thing as political donations in the UK or Canada. Also, their poop smells like the morning dew.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6679999.stm - neurosport, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17he doesnt need to raise as much money as rudy or hillary because he doesnt need to sell the war.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -5/+19Sorta like Obamaranians?
- bustachops, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Boy that was a frustrating message board to read. A couple of people there said Ron Paul was "crazy" and left it at that. I know there are some anti-ron people here on digg. Can someone tell me in what way you think he's crazy. I'd love to actually see some justification for these thoughts.
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15quick, someone tell fox news the paul spam bots are spamming ron paul with money !
- EndersGame, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15I'd say hes already somewhere in the millions mark and will be catapulted to the 10 million mark if he can pull through the primaries. He raised 1.2 million dollars and the average donation amount was ~$85 albeit some people donated more than once you figure at the least almost a million people participated in the fundraising event. I bet the people that donated that 1.2 mil don't account for even half of Paul's supporters seeing as how many people just can't donate money so they donate time instead, or maybe that week came at a bad time financially, and there are many people that like his idea's but aren't really focusing on the election until its time to cast a vote in the primaries.
- DeviantDragon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15They aren't saying that Paul's numbers are comparable to the front-runners in regards to the total dollar amounts. I'm pretty sure the article is really speaking about the trends, ie: the percent growth in the amount of money contributed. His donations are taking off relative to how much he's received so far. Not in terms of surpassing of matching front runners.
- darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Actually, RP stories ARE actively being buried. There were quite a few of us who watched it happening Saturday night when the news of his one-week fundraising effort breaking $1 million first came out. A story had almost 500 diggs and several hundred comments but did not make the front page. That particular story never did make the front page, but a different one did - with far fewer diggs. As for the voting record you pointed out... the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to fund scientific research, subsidize education, regulate campaign financing, or manage the internet. Most of your complaints there are void.
- Bilabrin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Dr. Magoo, that's cute. At least you acknowlegde that he's a doctor.Now come up with one for bush.
- edheler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It is unfortunate you're a single-issue voter. The Democratic and Republican parties have been cultivating these wedge issues to divide the people neatly into little camps so to better control us. If you agree with everything else that he says, vote for him. Know that even George W. Bush with both the House and the Senate couldn't pass a law banning abortion.
- darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yes, it has a list of his votes that you disagree with, many of which were the correct Constitutional vote and others of which were based on a deeply-held belief that life begins at conception. I'm inferring from your comments that you are in the "pro-choice" camp, which is fine and I respect your position, but you must also respect the opposite position. I've come to the conclusion that the dividing gulf between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is exactly when life begins or when the child takes on human rights. From that point on, killing the child would be murder. It's a difficult question to answer, and the answer that you choose does not have to be based on any religious belief. I believe that Dr. Paul states that he came to oppose abortion from a very unpleasant experience while he was a resident, not from his religious beliefs.
- Pandalume, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I don't know when you went to high school, but I wonder if in today's climate (the last ten years) it is somewhat dangerous for public school teachers to give opinions on political topics. I've heard of teachers being suspended after parents complain about teachers teaching left or right wing views to their students.
Perhaps your teacher knew full well the answer to your question but felt it wiser not to answer. - tardmongerster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11The MSM is promoting Huckleberry as the "dark horse rising" in lieu of their failure to promote Fred Thompson. The small Huckabee flash will fade soon, as Ron Paul continues to steadily rise. And then Ron Paul will be the only one shining when they run out of candidates.
- Bilabrin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13I like Adolph Ghoulie Zombie.
- facereplacer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14It's so great to see an article in the mainstream press that isn't a hit piece or a casual re-emphasis on his lack of "real support".
- arjung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11*She
- EndersGame, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I hope he hits somewhere around 5 mill, the MSM will be forced to recognize him has a worthy contender for the presidency. They simply won't be able to ignore his success much longer and will probably result to smear campaigns. I'm predicting any attempts to smear Ron Paul will be quite comical.
- kaykfrink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12You do realize that the Wall Street Journal is now owned by New Corp, right?
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Very well said. There are many thing Ron Paul wants to get rid of that I want to keep. But i'm not willing to violate the constitution to keep them. If they're important enough, simply amend the constitution to allow it. If you can't get enough support, obviously the states don't want the feds to have that power.
- napkin1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Spreading the word about a candidate requires massive amounts of money to pay for the advertising, travel expenses, and the wages of the staff necessary to support a candidacy. When the election system became focused on mostly TV advertisement in the 1960s, congress enacted a law in the 1970s saying that no candidate could take more then X dollars per person including themselves (X was $1000 at the time). Unfortunately the supreme court ruled that spending your own money was freedom of speech but spending other peoples money was not. So, if you are rich you can spend as much of your own money as you want (even if you got it from "investments" in large corporations). Otherwise you have to beg for individuals to finance your campaign. So the financing system is a remnant of a broken law which was enacted to prevent corporations from owning a candidate, and to make it so that candidates from all economic backgrounds would be on an even playing field. But as a result we have a system that does the opposite.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 343 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