What is Digg?29 Comments
- galeninjapan, on 11/03/2007, -8/+19Actually I find most of the Ron Paul support comments are very Civl and just want a smaller government.
The ron Paul supporters in Real Life are even more civil - Tenbatsu404, on 11/03/2007, -3/+13You have to admit though that the title is mildly hilarious.
- tc2004txst, on 11/03/2007, -2/+10It only annoys me that I live in Austin, Texas (notoriously liberal city), and when I walk down the street seeing all of the Ron Paul supporters handing out bottled water and pamphlets, no one seems to have any clue who he is. It is annoying only because he is such a success on the Internet, yet people outside of the net just hear "republican" anywhere in the same sentence and say, "No thanks, we don't need another Bush in the White House."
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -3/+10“F*CK THAT THIS IS OUR REVOLUTION AND THERE’S NO TIME FOR CIVILITY YOU NEOCOMMUNIST!!!11!”
hahahahaha - BrokenBokken, on 11/01/2007, -4/+11I'm a RP supporter, and I don't fly off the handle when someone disagrees with what he says, or says they like another candidate better. I have seen what the author is talking about, and it's a sad truth.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -5/+10Where's the context in "Please die"?
I can't wait to hear. - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -5/+10The last four comments from JDEnigma not including the above comment:
"Care to back that absurd claim up with an explanation?"
"lol I swear every post of yours is so vapid. You can't say anything of substance, can you? You got your sycophants digging you too I see. I'm guessing you're probably a 14 or 15 yr. old, thereabouts."
"Please die"
"Got anything intelligent to say? Every comment I see from you in other threads is so childish. Must be past your bed time."
Now there's some examples of civil discourse for you. No arguments and irrelevant personal attacks. Please go to dictionary.com and look up hypocrisy. - DannyAndNina, on 11/03/2007, -4/+8If only there was a photo of Ron Paul eating an invisible sandwich... sigh.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -5/+9"They started it!"
Excellent argument. - inactive, on 11/03/2007, -6/+10I don't know what Ron Paul supporters you've met but the ones that I have met are far from civil and terribly uneducated about our government and political system.
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -5/+9And I forgot to mention that all of those comments were made AFTER his comment above.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -8/+11Buried as lame
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -4/+6No, I'm saying if you're going to start out with "When you're desperate and have no arguments, resort to irrelevant personal attacks. ", be ready to be scrutinized. Starting with that kind of argument, the "they started it" argument just looks bad.
In summary, you're saying: "We never ever resort to un-civil commentary. Except when we do, then it's ok". - artemus, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3Rude and uncivil... like you?
- inactive, on 11/01/2007, -5/+7Spin, truther, spin! You took people to task for doing exactly what you do every day that you log on to Digg. You've publicly displayed your hypocrisy and been slapped down for it. I hope you learned a little something about yourself today.
- Hortnon, on 11/02/2007, -7/+8The comments on the blog are hilarious.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -3/+4Oh yeah, and you cowards out there think your idea of an excellent argument is to bury everything I say :-)
- JDenigma, on 11/03/2007, -8/+8Another exaggeration about Ron Paul supporters. Yes, there are a few bad apples as you will get with any other fans. These anti-RP supporters are distorting and exaggerating the claim about uncivil RP supporters. I don't even see that much. I see more of the incivility coming from those attacking the RP supporters. This is blown out of proportion. It's now the boogeyman of vitriol RP supporters just like the terrorist boogeyman.
When you're desperate and have no arguments, resort to irrelevant personal attacks. They're desperate to smear Ron Paul and his supporters. - JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -4/+4So what say you now herky jerky? ;-)
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -4/+4Well? I see you're a turn the cheek kind of guy then. So you see something wrong with me in putting someone down who insults me first? Way to go to get things out of proportion. Sorry, but it is a valid argument. You guys want to keep on wasting your time arguing with me. Go ahead.
- COINTELPROAgent, on 11/01/2007, -6/+5;'(
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3:-)
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/01/2007, -3/+1P3N15 LOL?!?
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3Oh yeah, I'm also glad this has been buried lol You bury so many valid things so it serves you right.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -6/+4I also don't see what is so wrong with those comments of mine you quoted other than the one saying "Please die". Yes, that one was nasty. I'm not afraid to admit to things, but it was in response to someone who was being a smartass to me in the first place. Like I said, I treat people the way they treat me and if you're civil to me than I will be civil to you. Got it big boy?
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -7/+4Oh yeah, and those comments have nothing to do with defending Ron Paul and I made those comments in reaction towards those who were already treating me like trash to begin with and that makes a big difference. I treat people the way they treat me.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -7/+4Oh yeah, way to take those arguments out of context lol You're intellectually dishonest for doing that Herkimer. If you were honest, you would have quoted the whole arguments in context and don't tell me either that the context doesn't matter.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -7/+4Too bad for you guys. I don't even care what you think of me. I have seen so many of you anti-RP whiners get so obnoxious and nasty in attacking us, so what do you expect? Think of it as blowback. If you would be civil to me than I would be the same in return. That's all I ask. If you're going to be obnoxious, smarmy little smartass punks in how you talk to me than don't expect me to be nice either. That's how it works. Capice? Boo hoo
- JDenigma, on 11/03/2007, -8/+4Oh, and since you're dishonest in how you represesnt my comments, I thought it would be fair that I should quote an example of myself from a recent post of mine. Here is what I said just recently in response to someone who was being calm and civil.................
theblooms:
"To be honest, I agree with Ron Paul on 99% of his campaign, and if we weren't at war, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. In the past I have voted for both Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik.
The only thing I have against Ron Paul is I don't think he understands that Islamofacists want to kill Americans and start a new world wide Caliphate starting with the destruction of Israel, the only true democracy in the entire region. How do I know this? I take them at their own words. I can't let that stand. And for that reason, and that reason alone, I can't vote for him. I agree with him on EVERYTHING else, though.
Is Rudy the perfect candidate? HELL NO. I can't begin to tell you how many things I disagree with him about, while at the same time, I only disagree with Ron Paul on ONE SINGLE thing. But the thing that I do agree with Rudy about, and disagree with Ron about, is killing as many Islamofacists as possible before they kill us. For my vote, that one single issue overrides everything else. While we are at war, that is what matters to me.
After we win the war, I'm all about some Ron Paul."
Me: "theblooms
I appreciate that you're at least sounding calm and civil in your post unlike others who start out attacking Ron Paul and his supporters. I understand where you're coming from there in your fear, but it is blown way out of proportion to the reality of the threat. This fear of Islamofascism is paranoid propoganda being promulgated by the neocons and you're letting them scare you. You are giving these terrorists way too much credit.
Ron Paul and the rest of us who want to get out of this war aren't saying that we don't believe in self-defense and don't believe in going after someone who attacks us, but what our government is doing is not the right way to respond. If there is some semblance of a threat and someone attacks us since it's not like a conventional war, we can't just invade countries like it is WWII. It is a decentralized network of people who threaten us and it is a mindset and a tactic. As long as the mindset of terrorism exists in some individual there will always be a threat of it. You can't eliminate it all, at least not like this anyway and you can't kill them all. It's just not possible. They're like weeds that spring up everywhere or ants or mosquitoes or whatever metaphorical analogy you want to use.
If there would be any tactic we would use to go abroad to go after those who attacked us, it would be more precise, covert operations in which send perhaps the SEALs over to find and destroy the individuals, the leaders like Osama perhaps who orchestrated an attack plus we could bring all our military from around the world back home and worry about national defense and stop funding terrorists through things like the drug war and stop encouraging terrorism through our foreign policy in the first place. Those are actual things that we could do. It's not that we're saying, do nothing.
What we're doing instead is we're fanning the flames and growing the empire abroad and the dictatorship at home. It's an Orwellian war that is open ended and never ending. We're endangering our citizens at home by encouraging more terrorism and growing into a dictatorship at home. Our own government is more of a threat to us than the terrorists are. Our government is reacting like someone whipping out an uzi and firing it in the air at mosquitoes. That is a crappy way to react. Defending against terrorism does not justify any infringements upon liberty and will not make us safer. You lock down one thing at home and the terrorists will attack somewhere else where you're not looking or they'll find some way around it. The terrorists know what our government tries to do so they avoid the pitfalls. All it is is an excuse for our government to control its own citizens. The terrorists don't worry about it, but the law abiding citizens are the victims. It's just like with gun control. The criminals in the black market will avoid the legal avenues where they will be caught and will still get a gun anyway. It only harrasses the law abiding citizens. It is not necessary to give up liberty in order to be safe and I would argue that we would actually be safer with more liberty. You can't secure everything. It's just not possible. The only way to possibly ensure that is by having a complete police state where you have brownshirts go door to door. Would you want that?
I thought if the terrorists supposedly hate us for our liberty like the media and the neocons claim that we weren't supposed to give them what they want by giving up our liberty. You guys just totally contradict yourself. Which is it? In reality of course, most terrorist ultimately hate us for our governments actions overseas. There may be a subset of terrorism in the Wahhabi movement, a small percentage that are violent fundamentalists, but the reality of that supposed threat is out of proportion to the propoganda. By reacting the way we do, we just encourage recruiting for more to go into that fundamentalist movement. You can also just as well have homegrown terrorist threats like the Timothy McVeigh types. Were you at the time against what the Clinton administration was trying to do after that?
It's a boogeyman threat that is greatly exaggerated and is a futile task to try to go around killing every single individual that will become a terrorist. There are better ways we can handle these things. Choosing between liberty or safety is a false choice. There is no way that they will be able to take us over with a worldwide Caliphate either. That is utter paranoia. I'll tell you one way to nip that one in the butt. Drastically tear down government and decentralize everything. That way it wouldn't be possible for them to take over our government in the first place.
You seem like you are well meaning here, but you are seriously misguided and have been misled with all this fear that you have been propogandized with. War is the health of the state and governments and big media in cahoots with governments thrive off of scaring their citizens with scary propoganda in order for them to relinquish their liberty. Your single issue over the war is the greatest threat to rapidly expand government and you don't want that, do you?"
And this is the link in case you doubt...... http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Do_you_believe_i ...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is