What is Digg?197 Comments
- CannedMango, on 11/02/2007, -6/+140While Ron Paul may just be the flavour of the month (or year), this is really bringing a issue to the forefront for many of us... how mainstream media helps to control the voting system in the American "democracy". Anyone can be president? Sure, as long as you're one of the twelve people from the meager two political parties that are sanctioned by the media. Want a libertarian president? Don't hold your breath, they'll just be labeled as "fringe write-in's" by the media and discredited before they even start. Looks like we're going to have to do this ourselves and grab this country by the balls.
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -17/+87Digg needs a "Life's Not Fair to Ron Paul" section.
- faithfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -12/+76Ron Paul avocates for "There is no free lunch". So it's the way it works. No money, no coverage.
If you like him, you should consider contributing to his campain fund
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/forms/contribute.cfm - fober, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57"If you like him, you should consider contributing to his campain fund"
I agree.
If anyone is as serious as their anonymous Digg comments sound, they should let their wallets do the talking instead of their mouse clicks.
Online polls don't elect presidents. - AmericaProper, on 10/12/2007, -16/+51Help force our National Public Radio into covering this outrage... this story is HOT but we have to act fast and now to make it known to all.
EVERYONE should go to this link and submit "suggestion" to NPR.org to follow Ron Paul and this blantant omission of his presence at the debate.
http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html
Even if you dont support Dr. Paul, you must have the cherry picking media EXPOSED!!!!
FREE THE PRESS!!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36The word is LYING, not "lieing".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Ron Paul aside, what we're seeing here is the growing power of the internet which is supplanting the mainstream media. Personally, I think this is a good thing, the msm has been far to complacent and even outright complicit in controlling the flow of information and that has to end. They will either get on board with what people want or they will go the way of the dinosaurs.
- theda3g0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Regardless of whether or not you support Ron or Mike, it is still crooked and disreputable to cover the debate and not include all the candidates.
- guyinjapan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35Before it happens - To all of you who will comment on this and call all of us Ron Paul supports spammers:
This has less to do with Ron Paul, and more to do with the mainstream media. We're fighting the establishment. You may not agree, or may think that our interest in Paul has gone too far, but this is, plainly and simply, about getting the mainstream media to report fairly. Power to Digg! - WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29We all know the answer. Thanks for the screenshots.
- unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29Wouldn't that be paying for his lunch?
I'm conflicted - IADTatami, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25They gave Gravel the short shrift, too
- Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Yea that's the main point here. They have a banner that says "Full Coverage" they provide links that say "View all Republican Candidates" and neither of those are true. It's just a complete lack of integrity and they don't really seem to give two craps about it.
- GraceHead, on 10/12/2007, -17/+38This censorship should have as much DIGG.com fervor as the DVD key censorship did.
What is more important anyway?
DUGG, big time! - TheBogie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22They give him no coverage because Mike Gravel spoke the truth. He has balls as big as a mule.
- wickedlogic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Help Ron Paul out, this country needs a return to dealing with facts. Life is not as complex as we let politicians make it out to be, at least federally. Let the States duke it out on political issues, where we the people have a voice. That way people who do not like their state can move and we can return to putting states in a position of competing for our residency.
- JESUSREAM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Just please tell me Im not going to have to choose between hillary or guiliani.
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Only in a limited way. I can tell you for certain that my parents, and most of their generation, still watch television and read the newspaper. They have no interest in the internet for anything more than weather, email, and ebay. Their age group is also very likely to actually vote, and likely to vote Republican.
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@miken32
"Reporting fairly is a pretty subjective term."
Not when you ask who's the winner of a ten person debate and only name nine of them. There's no subjectivity about the integers 9 and 10 (or any other integer for that matter) - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15As someone on Y! Answers pointed out, he keeps getting re-elected. He must be doing something right. Either that poster is lying, or the people in his district are masochists.
Some of the Paul detractors/media apologists are using this logic: no one knows about him, so the media is right to give him no coverage. - husker6294, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25Want to know why he was excluded? Check out the most recent poll numbers.
Among Registered Republicans.
Giuliani 25%
McCain 23%
F. Thompson 13%
Romney 10%
Gingrich 9%
Huckabee 3%
Brownback 2%
Tancredo 2%
Gilmore 2%
T. Thompson 1%
Paul 1%
Hunter 1%
No opinion 8% - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Well put @liquidmass. I hate to admit it but you do have a valid point. Although there is no scientific evidence to prove your claims, I think it is quite clear that Chuck Norris does in fact cry on Britney Spear's shaved head.
- mrmikewikowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12You people complaining about the coverage of this on digg seem to miss the point entirely. It's not whether Gravel or Paul are going to win, or even whether you like them or not. The issue is other people are making decisions for you in a matter where you are supposed have full choice. With this type of "censorship" we all loose freedom. Big Time!
- powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"but i highly doubt they would put a libertarian up for election."
You see thats the problem "they" shouldn't be putting up a candidate. "We" the people should. - matimus2012, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10i thought it was interesting he said " they want his head on a platter" ... if his district felt that way he wouldn't have been in office so long.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Way to pick and choose. Here's the full list from which you cherry-picked your arguments:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Paul votes consistently against government involvement in things the free market can do better, faster and cheaper. Some positions you may think are intolerable, but they are consistently small-government. - Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well, Yahoo deleted the question after over 1000 people thought it was worthy of a Digg.
DuggMirror got it. http://www.duggmirror.com/politics/Yahoo_Answers_Why_is_Ron_Paul_being_excluded_from_Yahoo_s_Full_Coverage - shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12sigh, you misinterpret his reasons for voting for quite a few of those things
The first block was voted down because he doesn't believe the government should fund those things, no true libertarian would or should advocate government funding of research. It also is not in the constitution.
Which way is the 67%? 67% for civil liberties or 67% against.
He is not anti-environment, he is anti-government. Every single one of the things you listed increases government ability to regulate, he does not want that.
AMBER system once again gives the FED more power, I suspect he would be ok with states doing it, but highways are a state controlled system and Congress has no authority to mess with them under the constitution.
What specific things in that 76% made him pro family?
Of course he voted against the subsidization of third world countries and of anything remotely involving the U.N. Libertarians believe that the lower level you can reduce the government to the less dangerous it is, the UN and the joint subsidies give more control to an international government, it is not that he thinks that foreigners are dirty, it is that he is trying to protect us from an even bigger more invasive government.
Not sure why he voted against campagin finance reform, but he is not getting any of big business's money so that seems to not be his motive.
There is nothing wrong with recruiters on campus, the government funds the campus to a very large degree, so why the hell should they not be allowed to advertise
As far as SDI "The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction" think about it, he voted for SDI to take away the justifications for preemptive attacks.
Open borders are impractical and are just accelerating our health care and welfare crisis, I am curious as to whether or not he voted for the fence.
Network Neutrality gives the government control over the internet. I understand we are scared of companies controlling it, but at least they have to convince us to use their service, meaning they can only get so corrupt. The government has the sanction to militarily force us to do what they want and if they abuse their newfound ability to regulate the internet then we lose.
Anti-senior... That simply means he is against expansion of the welfare state, he does not hate old people, he simply tries to not allow them to infringe upon the rights of the rest of the population.
That being said, I understand Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is far better than anyone else running and the big media denying him equal coverage is just another example of how democracy is failing. - kylebrothert, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11As always, I'm very proud to be in the one percent!
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Welcome to Blocktown. Population: You.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8He can bring peace to the middle east, cure the common cold, and rehabilitate Lindsy Lohans career! There is nothing he cant do with his libertarian economic policies.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ CannedMango
Ding Ding Ding!
You hit it.
It's not just political parties that are sanctioned by the media. It's the candidates themselves. - skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Or McCain...
- vatosplace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yahoo censors articles, does bait and switch with headlines, etc. Yahoo is not a good company and should be shunned by the public as a whole. Not to mention they suck anyway. Do they have any features that work reliably? I had to ditch them in the last year after being a yahoo paying customer for 9 years. No more yahoo for me.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This might be where the Founding Fathers f*cked up. If we had a parliamentary system, multiple parties would work just fine. We would have a significant Green Party by now, and probably also significant Libertarian representation.
- nexus420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@bigdavediode:
"The reality is that Paul has been a horrible, horrible public servant."
you got any evidence to support that? - SanDaiFez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yahoo deleted the question!
Toto, I don't think we're in the land of the free and the brave anymore. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There would be no problem if they said "Top Six" and their link didn't say ALL.
ALL is not a subjective word. It is objective. And they didn't include all. That's either fraudulent or incompetent. - maffick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The fourth estate has been dead for a while now. I would like to hear something constructive that can be done to bring it back to life. That and a cure for apathy.....
- theanimation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@husker6294: Yeah, notice that Hunter also has a 1% and he is featured on the front of Yahoo!'s "Full Coverage". I don't think your explanation works.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7How will he stop being a fringe candidate if he gets no coverage?
- nexus420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5agreed. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, per se. I AM a supporter of fair and balanced news coverage. This crap has got to stop. If the guy was in the debate, he should be covered like everyone else, until he drops out. For a news outlet to pick and choose which candidates to support, this early on, is ludicrous and bad journalism. I digg these stories on Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel, in order to help change the media and to pressure them into supporting fair and open elections. Whether or not I support their politics is completely IRRELEVANT. I am against censoring news, and reader comments, that aren't "mainstream" enough.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@kissthering, the California recall election was 2003, digg wasn't around untill 2004, Mary Kerry or Gary Coleman couldn't have spammed digg when "they were low in the poles for California's governor."
- CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree with you SanDaiFez.... land of the bought and corrupt is more like it.
- 1021, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Online polls don't elect presidents."
No, but online content sure does weed people out of being presidents. Case in point, George Allen, thought to be a front runner for the Republican primaries in 2008 was sunk by the use of a vague one-word phrase on YouTube. - MadHarvey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Often, I feel like my views aren't represented by democrats and definately not the average republican candidate. I often feel democratish.. but I usually disagree with them on so many issues that I don't vote (or vote for a no-chance 3rd party). Ron Paul seems to represent my views more than any candidate has in awhile. So maybe the numbers are so low for Paul because the poll was of Registered republicans rather than registered democrats, or the unaffiliated who always felt a little out of place in both categories.....
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@HeWhols
I'm going to try to respond nicely. Did you really read CannedMango's comment? Not a SINGLE WORD (ok, maybe one) expressed preference for Ron Paul, everything was about the MEDIA. Please, try to understand these are different topics.
In general, I find too many people don't think about what they're reading. Many topics have more than one dimension. In this case there's WHO is running and HOW the media reports it. Sloppy reading brings too many people to erroneous conclusions. - nexus420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4got any stats to support that? I have a BS and am certainly old enough to vote, and I will. Don't lump all of us in with you.
- allan17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just what a country that already has a weight problem needs, free ice cream every Tuesday...
- Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yahoo seems to have moved the location of the question for whatever reason that may be...
Here is the new url address: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar_OJtWjM6usPXOIdp9HqAkjzKIX?qid=20070508101117AAgfaoy -
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is