What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
147 Comments
- PSWTyrant, on 11/26/2007, -14/+181More reasons to respect the man and the message.
- reeder, on 11/26/2007, -7/+101This can only be viewed as a huge + for Ron Paul, since Texas politics is almost completely corrupt. By almost I mean that Ron is the only one not on the take.
- s35wf, on 11/26/2007, -16/+88Dr. Ron Paul Votes his conscience according to the US Constitution. He is NOT a bought and paid for politecean like most of our other congress members.
VOTE Dr. Ron Paul 2008! - murf43143, on 11/26/2007, -5/+56Last paragraph is where it is at,
"Only one House member received no contributions from the state's largest corporate PACs: maverick Republican Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian and frequent critic of big business who currently is running for president."
"They're very aware that they cannot influence his votes one way or the other, so they generally do not bother to give him money," said Mark Elam, campaign manager of Paul's congressional re-election race." - ejtttje, on 11/26/2007, -2/+47Wow, best advertisement for Ron Paul I've seen yet... "they cannot influence his votes one way or the other, so they generally do not bother to give him money"
- stephbangm, on 11/26/2007, -4/+45This is like saying I support my family but I don't support my own mother: hypocrites!
If the majority of Ron Paul supporters actually vote in the Primaries, we would most likely win. Even if only 5-8% of the public support Ron Paul like the official polls say, only about 5-10% of the population vote in the Republican Primary! That's why it's critical that we have to work hard right now. Just a few people could make or break this election!
Also, We have to become delegates to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination; As delegates, we'll be picking the GOP nominee just like the electors in the electoral college pick the President; Delegates determine and decide who the GOP nominee is—it's that critical! Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will NOT be President
http://delegate.notlong.com
^
Approved by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee: Jeff Greenspan, Regional Coordinator - Drahkar, on 11/26/2007, -3/+43Exactly. I'd say this goes a long way towards proving his credibility. Major Lobbyist not giving him money because they know they can't buy him. That would be one hell of a nice change in regards to someone in office.
- OnGard4Liberty, on 11/26/2007, -14/+50"I am a friend of the Free State Project. Check it out...and if you like it, join and continue the effort!" -- Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.freestateproject.org/intro/ron_paul - jaymzdean, on 11/26/2007, -1/+24So to all the idiots who like to misinform by telling everyone that Ron Paul is Corporate America's wet dream come true, IN YOUR ***** FACE. Meanwhile...how far up your ass does Hillary Clinton's dick have to be before you know she's ***** you?
- kristov, on 11/26/2007, -2/+24What a crazy country we would have if we had a President who wasnt beholden to his corporate masters. We can only dream.
- reeder, on 11/26/2007, -4/+22Try saying nothing next time you think you have something clever up your sleeve.
- idiggxbox, on 11/26/2007, -3/+20If you want Ron Paul for President you have to help me (and the rest of us supporters) make it happen. That means TAKE YOUR ASS TO THE VOTING BOOTH ESPECIALLY THE PRIMARIES and vote, make sure your not just talking the talk but you are also walking the walk. And thank you for supporting change in America.
- tumbler360, on 11/26/2007, -2/+16I would vote for this guy above any Dem or Rep candidate at this point. He's the only one saying anything. Everyone else just follows a script. (In my humble opinion)
- lolwaffle, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13"They're very aware that they cannot influence his votes one way or the other, so they generally do not bother to give him money."
Sounds like a compliment to me. - pictureDIGGER, on 11/26/2007, -3/+15Yea, people are making a commitment to move their families. That is not an easy decision.
- jocknerd, on 11/26/2007, -3/+1475% in agreement with Bush? Thats probably a lower percentage than most of the Democrats including Mrs. Clinton.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+11It has to be going better than "The terrorists will kill you if we don't protect you" state project.
- gthrank, on 11/26/2007, -3/+14I'm no republican, and in fact I hate the republican party and all its corrupt *****. But Ron Paul appears to be the only credible one amongst them. Maybe the reason the republican party won't support him is that he isn't a "republican" in the sense that that word has become - ie. corrupt, narcisstic, bible bashing, cynical, thuggish.
- toekneebullard, on 11/26/2007, -1/+11That's not just the last paragraph...it's the stories description.
- AtomicNewt, on 11/26/2007, -1/+10If RP gets elected I am fully aware that things may not move in our government. Perhaps a long soak in the waste water that is our current policy would help our "leaders" and enrage the public so much that we force our leaders to act on our behalf. If congress would just sit still long enough to see what their laws are doing to this country instead of debating on the next new thing, ( critiquing ad's come to mind) I think it would change some minds. Personally I can go for a do nothing President to go with our do nothing Congress. ( I am aware that Ron Paul would not be responsible for this stalemate, but the other branches of our government will stall him. )
- BoneDaddy64, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9There are two types of PACs, either "specific purpose" or "general purpose." General Purpose PACs do not give money to candidates. Specific Purpose PACS have a limitation on how much they can give to an individual candidate. (4K per cycle be it primary or general).
The purpose is that "big business" does not support Ron. They are often at odds with the concept of "individual liberty." For theirs is a desire to subjugate the masses. Freedom and property ownership is antithetical to their goals. - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9its very simple. A party that is corrupted and will give a corporation anything it needs to be one step ahead in the world in exchange for money will draw in corrupted companies.
as example, the FCC is ready at the beginning of the year to allow more mass media corporations the opportunity to own more. This means that they will be able to almost exclusively have their content and their messages that are loyal to the party that gave them this ability beamed directly to you.
What I dont understand is that under a ron paul type government there would be no regulation which I personally think is a bad thing. That not withstanding, i would think that corporations would eat that up because they would basically have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted to in a massive free for all. You would end up eventually with 1 or 2 companies eating all the smaller companies. Again, I see this as bad for the consumer, but i dont get why corporations dont see this as good. - andshewas, on 11/26/2007, -1/+10@ chicofaraby - It is funny that you assume Ron Paul supporters must have supported GW Bush in the last election strictly because he is a Republican and Republicans always and only support Republicans. You're wrong, dude. Many Ron Paul supporters will be first-time voters in 2008. I seriously doubt anyone is supporting Ron Paul because of the party he claims adherence to; people support him because of his ideals, morals, plans and voting history. You and people like you need to get your heads out of your partisan asses. If you'd open your eyes and look beyond the party designation and into the politics of the candidates, you'd be doing yourself and the country much better.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9This was my first Digg submission. I choose the article because it was not primarily Ron focused, and was talking on facts rather than rhetoric. Thanks to the people who have dugg this, thanks to the people voicing valid support, and thanks to the people voicing valid criticism. But the most thanks I must give is to the trolls, this Digg was purely for you.
When you put people in a position where they cannot pick on the facts without using a bit of effort, some interesting comments comes out. Colostomy bags? Paulspam? Qweef? Clown College? Thanks for walking into the trap.
I enjoy letting people voice their own ignorance, its far more efficient than trying to convince others of the same point. - Xtopherous, on 11/26/2007, -2/+10Corporations aren't people.
- digismack, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9You want that number in inches or millimeters?
- mOdQuArK, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9No, he's stated that he's willing to take anything that anybody gives him - as long as they understand that he'll do whatever he wants with it, and will completely ignore what they might want him to do. (His position is that everyone should already know where he stands & what his positions are, so they wouldn't give him money unless they are agreeing with him.)
- feshmania, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9ok, so PACs didn't give him money--but some PACs can be an individual...all it means is that money donated to the candidate or cause is in excess of $1,000. If Paul gets 1000 $100 donations, isn't it better than one 3-person PAC donating $100,000 in the log run anyways?
- Sarevok9, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8Perhaps I can sponsor you to go out and buy some tact.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8Why should anyone listen to your assessment of logic?
- kaelyiesta, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9Have you been sleeping the last 7 years? McCain sold his soul to this current administration. He is more of a lap dog now than anything. Sad really. I used to respect the hell out of that guy.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8Ya because that constitution is very kooky......*sarcasm*
I'm not even sure if the other GOP candidates know what it is. - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -1/+8Boy, you just swallow anything you see on youtube, eh?
Way to think from one side of the issue.
But the jingoistic nationalism is impressive. - fangorious, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Big industry doesn't like him because he won't bail them out when they Push Button, Receive Fail in the open market.
- stalefries, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7*politician
- andshewas, on 11/26/2007, -3/+10...not a neocon. Get it right, dude. He's Republican like in the old days, when that meant something.
- YojimboJango, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Letting businesses do what they want isn't enough these days. You have to legislate your opponents out of business. If everyone played fair we wouldn't have near the amount of problems that we have now, but the fact is that businesses see that giving a politician 100k to pass a law or give them an exclusive contract would make them 500k is 400k profit.
Breaking the rules is more profitable than following them. Making your own rules is the most profitable. - an0nymous, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Pathetic attempt at marginaliztion. Got a problem? Bring up matters of substance.
Then you can throw around the insults.
Douchebag. - ChaosMotor, on 11/26/2007, -3/+9You only pay the hookers that are willing to suck your dick.
- monkeyrun, on 11/26/2007, -4/+10Explain to me how could a corporation be loyal to a party?
- skotoseme, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5The smear campaign has begun. That's a good sign. Ron Paul is scaring the establishment on the left and the right.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win." -- Ghandi
Looks like we are right on track. :) Go Ron Paul! - synarchy, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Your first day on Digg, Larry, and you are off to a wonderful start with a new outlet for your hate (see your own history).
Also, you might want to remove "gentleman" from your profile.
Blocked. - anachronaut, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5"Hundreds of people read my material every day"
Oh. My. God. That's just too funny. Someone needs to buy you a dog or give you access to a blog. Anyone can look at your spam-filled comment history and see that, unless some poor schmuck has gone to the effort of unburying every single one of your posts, practically no one is going to be reading your crap. And the only people I've seen "thanking" you were either shameless trolls like you or they were being sarcastic.
Dude, get back on your meds and stop being such a narcissist.
And for everyone else: here's this insane spammer's daily "material" for the past 14 days. Hope it doesn't crash your browser:
"Hundreds of people read my material every day"
Oh. My. God. That's just too funny. Anyone can look at your spam-filled comment history and see that, unless some poor schmuck goes to the effort of unburying every single one of your posts, practically no one is going to be reading your crap. And the only people I've seen "thanking" you were either trolls like you or they were being sarcastic.
Dude, get back on your meds and stop being such a narcissist.
And for everyone else: here's this insane spammer's daily "material" for the past 14 days. Hope it doesn't crash your browser:
http://www.neaveru.com/digg/stats/editorresponse/d ... - cywar, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Dr. No strikes again !
- YojimboJango, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6Your assumption here is that the Diebold voting machines won't all be hacked. The election will be won by who ever hires the best hackers.
- mrboratsagdiev, on 11/26/2007, -5/+10Actually, it's been going quite well. All it takes is time.
- samdu, on 11/26/2007, -3/+8Could have something to do with the fact that Dr. Paul doesn't accept PAC money.
- zcrazed1, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6Good . ***** em. He doesn't need their money anyway. Ron Paul 08 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Sarevok9, on 11/26/2007, -1/+5If only we could force the nuts to be medicated based off of amount of downdiggs....
- andshewas, on 11/26/2007, -1/+5@ chicofaraby - Have you read anything at all about Ron Paul? I'm going to have to assume you have not, because you have the wrong idea. How in the hell can you say his policies are the same as what we've got going on now? He didn't vote for the war, he thinks government should get the hell out of our personal lives, he wants to do away with the fed and go back to gold standard, he believes the Constitution is much more than a "Goddamned piece of paper." So, please enlighten me; how exactly is he following in the footsteps of our current administration? Your argument is incorrect.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 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