What is Digg?463 Comments
- cnelson700, on 10/11/2007, -35/+241The article was a surprise coming from Wired.
Ron Paul is an extraordinary individual.
Electable (elected for 10 terms to Congress),
Strong (Ever see 434 yea, 1 nay?),
Knows what a President should do (US Constitution),
Fair (Free Market),
and believes in protecting individual liberty (Ever seen him on CSPAN?).
I have been waiting to see him run for President since I stumbled upon him on CSPAN over 10 years ago. I am very happy to see this unorganized support from around the country by individuals who believe in being free and safe. I am a grown man and do not need a President and Congress to be my mommy and daddy. Actually, and surprisingly at the same time, support for Ron Paul is quite logical - especially by internet users.
Oh yeah, one more reminder to send in that $20 to Ron Paul before the June 30 FEC quarterly finance report cut off date.
No, I am not a bot.
No, I am not a spammer.
No, I did not digg or post to this article more than once.
No, I was not asked to digg or post here.
No, I am not part of any organized effort to digg or post on Digg.
I can't think of any other paranoid suspicion that I have heard used to try to explain the massive online support for Ron Paul. - Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -34/+186Paul does have something other candidates don't have, it's called principals.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+153Ron Paul is 70 years old and he knows what the privately owned and never audited US Federal Reserve is doing to this country. That alone is enough to elect him ten times. The Federal Reserve is privately owned by the member banks, creates US money out of nothing and then uses this created money to loan at interest. They even loan money, at interest, to the US GOV just to pay the interest on the existing debt, which is why until the "US" Federal Reserve is dealt with, the USA is on a swift course for bankruptcy. This is one of the BIG reasons that 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth.
- SaintMatthew, on 10/11/2007, -31/+165Its amazing. A non-mainstream candidate does well online and people immediately try to undermine his success. I bet the same rhetoric would be used to dismiss "scientific" polling if Ron Paul was winning in the "500" person telephone polls. This article, and along with similar articles of this nature, forget to mention that digg and other online polls only allow one vote per screen-name. And any argument saying "people have multiple screen names" just doesn't hold water. True, people do have multiple screen-names, but the chances of that drastically changing a poll are slim.
- jron, on 10/11/2007, -14/+116"Ron Paul is perhaps the only politician who could tell me the sky is blue and not make me feel compelled to run outside and make sure." Tim, New Hampshire
- speedmaster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+81Ironically, in say 1800 or so, Ron Paul's views wouldn't have been "fringe" at all.
- luvkit, on 10/11/2007, -8/+77Hey, I don't know about all this spamming online polls and digg, but I do know that the two videos I have watched about Ron Paul believes are astounding.
He's literally said he will REPEAL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX months after he gets into office. The government already has far too much money in his opinion, and doesn't need it.
As a side note, the income tax was written as unconstitutional by the founding fathers. The constitution was later amended to allow for an income tax, but, from what I've read, it was not properly amended and shouldn't even be legal today.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -10/+77Ron Paul is a breath fresh air. The last time a man disdained power so, was when Washington refused to become king of the United States. In the age of Dictator Bush, that's the kind of representative in government we truly need.
- Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -10/+72Really? He has administrators of public schools on his team?
The correct term you were looking for is "principles". - thecoolestguy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+58Here's the thing about Ron Paul supporters: they're not some special interest group. Ron Paul doesn't favour any particular group, so any support you see for him is coming from regular Americans, not the oil lobby, the Israeli lobby, or any other lobby.
People have been too lazy to get involved in politics for too long, and the result has been that clowns have gotten into office who have advanced the narrow interests of whatever vested interest supported them. Americans are finally waking up to this and realizing that if they continue to lay back and let the circus show that is the mass media make decisions for them, then we're going to continue seeing the regular Americans dying in some far off land over weapons of mass destruction, or overthrowing a dictator that the US once supported, or whatever. - FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+52What I don't understand... Is if Ron Paul supporters have no lives, how come it's always the same people complaining about Ron Paul stories, but always different people posting articles about him.... hrmmmmmmmmmmm.......
(If only as many articles made Digg about Ed Brown) - g00dETH3R, on 10/11/2007, -7/+54We wouldn't need to be so vocal (or annoying as the article puts it) if the corporate media didn't ignore him. It's just as much about justice as it is about his political message, we're sick of those corrupt bastards in power molding the minds of the masses.
- WinstonFriedman, on 10/11/2007, -14/+55Paul gets people excited because he is so unique. Is he overrepresented on the internet and digg? Yes and supporters should be aware of that. At the same time, I don't think it is fair to hold that against those supporters. If everyone just supported their favorite candidate and didn't worry about electability or voting "against" a candidate instead of supporting a candidate, this country might be in a lot better shape than it is.
- kendra, on 10/11/2007, -3/+43It's obviously the Colbert Bump.
- biggsdarklight, on 10/11/2007, -8/+48 He voted against it because he's an idealogue who routinely votes against government intervention and regulation of things that he believes the market is supposed to handle. "Net Neutrality" is really net regulation. That means that the people who control the internet are not those who provide the best services but rather those who are best at lobbying congress. I'm not saying I want Verizon to control the internet either, but the alternative is having congressional lobbyists control it? It works fine right now. Why do we want to "fix" it?
- pyite, on 10/11/2007, -13/+51It's because he actually has a pro-freedom agenda. Imagine that. He is the only candidate who makes ending the War on Drugs part of his platform, for example. Refreshing!
I don't think he is electable in a nationwide election. However, I expect that he can have the same sort of impact as Ross Perot - adding a dose of sanity. - dcmjzero, on 10/11/2007, -16/+54Maybe those are real supporters who just happen to be well educated. I don't think there is some "conspiracy" among people. I digg his stories because I like his politics. And I know there are others just like me. So I don't see it as "taking advantage" of the site in a bad way. People are interested in him and digg the stories. Period.
- acudoc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42Good summary of Ron Paul's positions. This unassuming man has the ability to inspire people with a positive message. If he moves you to submit 1000s of links on him, more power to you.
- Sovereigndk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+43Ron Paul is doing something that has been abandoned by 'main stream' politicians. He brings to the table, issues that affect us. #1 being taxes and the unlawful acts of the IRS against us. He knows it, and he will confront it. Can anyone name any other politician willing to do so?
It's been a long time since any of us have seen integrity he puts forth. He is worth mentioning, because the main stream media won't.
There do seem to be many 'groups' that have jumped on his band wagon, at their own free will, and it is because his message is resonating through grass roots America with a breath of fresh air, which we all need. - acudoc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37He has flatly stated he is adamantly opposed to federal regulation or taxation of the internet. Such action goes against the First Amendment. If he voted against a so-called Net Neutrality Bill you can rest assured that there were clauses in the bill that he considers unconstitutional. We simply have not been accustomed to a politician voting according to his principles so his action may appear on the surface to be controversial or contradictory, but these humongous bills are never read by the legislators and they contain mostly posturing and shenanigans, starting with their often inappropirately-named titles! So, Asspants...let this sink in!
- Kewlduderules, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38It would not surprise me if you had PR lobby operatives in here trying to smear Ron Paul. Well, guess what, you're numbers are about 35,000 in D.C. We are the rest of America. You cannot suppress the will of the American public. We out number you. Its time for us to take America back from the corporate elitists and special interests.
- wtf00, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35most web/geeks/gamers are freedom lovers and hate restriction for every little thing.. I personally prefer my liberties over security( i just buy a gun and license I got protection, and this why we pay our taxes so we have cops)
I had hard time with thinking of voting for ron paul but I come to conclusion he not BS - epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -21/+51(comment system still SUCKS ASS)
I think because he is the only republican that makes sense and is trying to do the right thing, us digg users are not used to that. - Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39Exactly, he doesn't even know the internets very well and he already knows government shouldn't be involved in it. The beauty of principles.
- clark24, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32"Took over the web" is a bit drastic, but it's nice to see grassroots efforts regardless of what party or views you support. Votes should be won on values and principals, not campaign dollars.
- g00dETH3R, on 10/11/2007, -8/+36Ok everytime i make a negative comment about the main stream media some ***** diggs me down within minutes, no comment, nothing. I bet it's some gimp that blogs on behalf of PR firms, show yourself *****....
Whats wrong with this comment?
We wouldn't need to be so vocal (or annoying as the article puts it) if the corporate media didn't ignore him. It's just as much about justice as it is about his political message, we're sick of those corrupt bastards in power molding the minds of the masses. - Vlatro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28I guess you could call me a Ron Paul Supporter. Oddly enough I didn't hear about his campaign on the Internet, but rather by word of mouth. I was interested and wanted to find out more. Naturally, the first place I looked was online. People are quick to assume Paul supporters are blog-junkies and poll scammers, but I can assure you many are also like me. As his opponents are so quick to point out, there is very little interest in him shown by traditional media. Where else are we going to turn for information? The fact that so few people beyond the blogging world have heard enough about him to discuss his political stances with any significant background knowledge, only forces those who want to talk about it to keep their conversations online. It is important to note his position on campaign financing doesn't afford him much "air-time" on TV or Radio shows. The appearances he does make are typically by invitation, rather than paid ads made to like like talk shows (for more information on that, see Hillary's campaign).
I'm not holding my breath for his nomination, it's a long shot to say the least. Ultimately however, The failure of his campaign to spill over into other forms of media is the direct result of his supporters failing to get the word out. Posting a support blog is great if you want to help out, but it's not enough to win the presidency.
It's a shame he has no real chance of winning. I've long considered myself a Libertarian. They party has one piece of advice they repeat to their members over and over...
"Don't settle for the lesser of two evils, vote for the person who represents you best."
In Ron Paul, I finally saw a candidate who made me think, "Hey I like this guy", and not the typical, "We'll I don't think he'll ***** up as bad as the other guy". - llepard, on 10/11/2007, -10/+34The web is a great early indicator of social trends. Ron Paul takes over the web. Hmmmm..... wonder if there is something here?
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27He is just being honest. Pretty bizarre eh?
Net neutrality isn't as simple as issue as the 'feel good' moniker would suggest. You have to have an awareness for the current byzantine morass of legislation that has accrued, how legal precedents work, and strict limits on federal powers defined in the constitution. Seen in the historical context, Dr. Paul is opposed to further expansion of legislative competencies, and he is *adamant* about not allowing government to regulate content on the internet.
Laws regulating how ISPs treat content, if upheld in the SCOTUS can become a wedge for introducing more legislation that regulates the market in even more distorting and freedom-limiting ways. While the idea, (and particularly the label) of 'Net Neutrality' is appealing at first glance, it has a legislative 'pandoras box' aspect, which is cause for some concern.
Dr. Paul represents the limited government philosophy that market competition - allowing consumer choice, is generally a safer guarantor that service providers will give consumers what they want. However the fact that many regions of the USA are not served by a large number of ISPs means that in some areas the service provider market resembles an oligarchy more than a market, and they take on part of the character of a public infrastructure.
Weighing these factors against one another reveals this to be a problem of legitimate conflicts of interests, and enacting legislation on them at this (historically) early part of the life of the internet would have long-lasting consequences. Our current government is too quick to pass laws addressing percieved or real problems, often in unreflected haste. Consider that most legislators do not read through most of the bills passed in congress, and you get a sense at how irresponsible and cancerous lawmaking is today.
Lastly, the philosophy of the founders of the republic was to leave most issues of social policy to the discretion of the states and local communities. Most political issues are not black and white, but reflect a conflict of legitimate interests. It is the great strength of our system of republican government that gives states sovereignity in most public policy issues -- this allows for different approaches, and a competitve climate to exist between the states. State legislators, who are closer to their constituents than the federal government, can be more responsive to the stated desires of their constituencies. The United States of America have too long allowed their competencies to be usurped by a remote and irresponsible Federal Government.
It is for these reasons that I think Ron Paul has earned himself the position of a role model for Congress. He actually reads the bills and deliberates carefully whether they are authorized under the constitution, and whether they are an issue that requires federal, and not state, regulation.
If net neutrality is important to you, then lobby to have such a law passed in your state. If there is no *need* to enact legislation at the federal level, it should not be undertaken.
Lastly, I think the boom in Ron Paul articles reflects a genuine, passionate grassroots movement that has flocked to the interactive web in part because this candidate is being blacklisted by the media. They want to RBL the man and you are witnessing the backlash.
I understand how a boom of Ron Paul stories is annoying, and I think that we should exercise more discretion about what stories to post to digg.
Cheers. - mesler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Wrong.
He voted against it because he opposes ALL regulation of the Internet, including regulation of Internet gambling. - rabidmonkey1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25@ cnelson700
Yeah, but we need to get all that unorganized support organized and put that man in the White House. - AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -6/+28Stop trolling, he isn't a racist, how is he sexist, and what exactly do you think the role of the U.S. in the world is? Do you think we should be involved in needless wars and police the planet? I've never actually seen what it is you think about politics, just your stupid slandering.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24Well, it certainly would seem that if the digg system works at all, the number of RP supporters far outnumber the haters... It's always the same haters posting (and reading) each RP article, and if they are annoyed, they are probably hitting that bury button in droves... and yet the flood of +diggs is just completely overriding the -diggs.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Or do what someone with principles does... and simply keep the government the ***** out of meddling where it does not belong.
- bmerz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25people are claiming that it is a coordinated effort to spam Ron Paul whenever possible. I think that it is coordinated by support for his message, but not some central agenda spread through meetup groups. I discovered him through the digg comments... i think that his messages resonate well with this online community and that is why he is so popular here. For people who are new to digg.. i think that it is worthwhile that they come across a story every couple days on the guy.. and get the opportunity to check out what he stands for.
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20"The problem in washington with just about any issue is we either outlaw it, or subsidize it." - Ron Paul
Your post reveals a misunderstanding of the proper role of government, and the rule of law. It's understandable because this kind of knowledge isn't taught in schools any more. Voting against a federal law regulating oil companies is not the same as 'supporting unrestricted drilling'. Let me explain:
Ron Paul supports the rule of law, which means the constitution. The constitution only grants certain, specific powers to the federal government. Every congressman is sworn to *uphold* the constitution, which means that if they vote on a law that exceeds the lawful bounds of the federal government, they are violating that oath.
If you can't find a clause in the constitution enabling the Federal Government to tell an oil company where it may not drill, or a clause telling me what I may not plant in my back yard, then there is *no* legal authority to pass such a law. When a legislator takes his oath to the constitution seriously, that is how he must judge legislation, regardless of whether or not he(or she) thinks the law could possibly do some good.
Washington has a disease, a malady of conscience and of character which has at its root the disrespect for Constitutional Law. The symptoms of this disease can be seen at airport checkpoints, in prisons overflowing with non-violent drug users, and in the shattered streets of Baghdad. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22So much for the bot hypothesis. Maybe the haters will admit that lots of REAL people actually do care about freedom. Unlike the idiots who actually complain about hearing of a presidential candidate who supports the US constitution strictly.
They don't whine when "cat dancing on a hat" pops up 100 times in a week, but mention politics and the next president of the USA and they freak out! - Krovvy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20The thing is if the government gets involved it'll eventually be AT&T definition and more, lobbyists will get exactly what they want.
- kiddailey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Using a party label that doesn't mean anything illustrates that you're just part of the problem in this borked, two-party system we're stuck with.
Republican = Bad! Democrat = Bad! Republican = Good! Democrat = Good!! YAAAAR, I AM INFORMED, Y'ALL!
From what I see, Ron's ideals are traditional less-government-is-good Republican and not this new-age-live-in-fear-we-need-more-government variation -- something dramatically different from modern Democrats or Republicans.
If he wasn't registered in either of the parties, he'd never get a platform in the debates, would never have a chance at gaining enough votes, and never have a chance to become president. - hambend, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24I don't think digg is being gamed at all. Ron Paul may not be popular in the mainstream, but his massive successes in online polls, the huge number of searches and the enormous number of youtube views show that he is genuinely popular on the net. Those are the kinds of numbers that are near impossible for a small group of gamers to fake.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23Hey He can Digg whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants
- verb0ten, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21Looks like the red thumb is owning you...
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26ill give the ron paul supporters this much, they digg really fast. they digg stories up and negative comments down at light speed.
- kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Its called the free market, asshat.
- GARussell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15If everyone just supported their favorite candidate and didn't worry about electability or voting "against" a candidate instead of supporting a candidate, this country might be in a lot better shape than it is.
I agree, and have for years felt the same way! - tremor_tj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15It's pretty obvious it's Junkyarddawg (or however the heck he spells it) and similar cronies. I just wonder which one of them is Bigdavediode.
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19I don't see why you would tear down someone's poster without knowing anything about the candidate.
- chmcarro, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20The Preamble pretty much sums up Ron Paul's principles:
We the People of the United States, [including fetuses, excluding illegal immigrants]
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice [fair judicial process],
insure domestic Tranquility [securing boarders],
provide for the common defence,[not offense, no preemptive attacks, non-intervention]
promote the general Welfare [remove IRS, Federal Reserve],
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves[get rid of the Patriot act, restore habeas corpus]
and our Posterity [hence all the support of the younger people],
do ordain and establish this Constitution [which Congress swears to uphold]
for the United States of America [not the North American Union or the UN]. - dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I want Giuliani to be the next Pres so that THE WORLD gets ass rape for another 4 years.
Fixed it for you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 454 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is