Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Ron Paul: How a Fringe Politician Took Over the Web
wired.com — According to Technorati, "Ron Paul" (Texas Congressman) is one of the web's most searched-for terms. News about Paul has an outsize presence on Digg and reddit, two sites that allow users to highlight their preferred content. Paul's YouTube channel has been viewed over one million times, dwarfing efforts from competitors like Rudy Giuliani.
kerigirl- 2162 diggs
- digg it
- mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -141/+88Digg has had an unseemly man-crush on Ron for many weeks now and yes--it IS irritating.
- dcmjzero, on 10/11/2007, -25/+36why is it irritating? do you have something against him, or are you just sick of hearing about him?
- Herkimer56, on 10/11/2007, -39/+10Both. I'm sick of the spam here and elsewhere from the brain dead hordes of Ronbots and I don't like the man himself. He's a racist, a sexist and he's totally out of touch with the world around him. He fails to see the place of the United States in the world and he fails to see how society has progressed since 1790. The man isn't fit to be in Congress much less to be President.
- 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.
- khfn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I think Herkimer56 is out of touch with the world. Stop downing the anti-liberty koolaid, pal. This is _still_ America ... or is it?
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Herkimer, you're not even an American, so what does it matter to you who is running for President?
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nobody will see this, but in other parts of the world a lot of the news is still about America. Amazingly, the states have this absurd effect on the world, as if it was the most powerful place on the planet or something.
Oh wait...
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nobody will see this, but in other parts of the world a lot of the news is still about America. Amazingly, the states have this absurd effect on the world, as if it was the most powerful place on the planet or something.
- Herkimer56, on 10/11/2007, -39/+10Both. I'm sick of the spam here and elsewhere from the brain dead hordes of Ronbots and I don't like the man himself. He's a racist, a sexist and he's totally out of touch with the world around him. He fails to see the place of the United States in the world and he fails to see how society has progressed since 1790. The man isn't fit to be in Congress much less to be President.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -62/+19No, Digg hasn't.
It's just Alex Jones' sheeple and their sockpuppets. Most of them know or care nothing about Digg, only coming here to do a search for Ron Paul and digg anything positive.
Digg, like the rest of the non-conspiracy-universe, doesn't give a ***** about Ron "Mister 1%" Paul.- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6wake up man
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21Right, because obviously anyone that supports Ron Paul is a truther and a spammer and their opinions are therefore invalid...
- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6Finally, someone with some sense! I don't even know who this Ron Paul person is, and I already don't like him for so many reasons.
1. He's a Texan Republican Senator. I think we've seen enough Republicans in the White House for one century. I don't want to have to move to France in order to be considered a good person by the international community.
2. The people on Digg who support him make him sound like he's a god among men. I didn't register to vote so I could worship my elected leaders. I have Steve Jobs for that.
3. He's an old white guy from the same roots as our current president. I don't want to elect Bush, AGAIN! I don't want to have to assassinate someone to effect change in the political community.- strictlybogart, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3France?
- khfn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4He is NOT from the same roots as our current president, dumbass. Jr is from Mass. He is a yuppie Yale boy. Jr has given Texas a bad name.
- Durinthal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7If you took even one minute to actually look at what Ron Paul's views are you'd realize he's nothing like Bush.
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Did you know that in a perfect world our leaders are so awesome that we wouldn't mind bowing to them if we saw them in public because they had been THAT awesome as leaders?
Instead we have chimpy falling off a Segway.
- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1uh? sorry, digg double posted.
- mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5If it isn't Digg generally then why aren't the RP stories getting buried immediately? I keep seeing them on the FP over and over and over.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Because the Prisonplanet crowd is gaming digg. They're agreeing in fora at prisonplanet and lewrockwell.com what to digg and what to bury, and when to do it (since the number of diggs/buries per time unit is a factor in if something goes on thefrontpage), and they've got tons of sock-puppets. You can amuse yourself by looking at their histories - most of them signed up about 2 months ago, and for the first month dugg exclusively Ron Paul stories. After that they realized that this gave them away, and started randomly digging other stories also.
They're not only gaming Digg, either, they're gaming a fair number of sites on the web; ie they've cheated in pretty much every online poll on the planet, to the point that the modertors at pajamasmedia and 2008horserace removed Ron Paul from their polls until the ronbots stopped cheating & threatening the moderators.- loup, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Didn't I read something a while back about how digg actually profiles users and if it sees a large group of the same people digging the same stories repeatedly, it starts lowering the amount of weight they have on digg
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Pro and Anti Ron Paul spam is a problem. While the vast majority of Pro-Ron spam is being generated by people from the truther sites, it is not acceptable to lump everybody who supports Ron in with them. It is to the detriment of your credibility that you discount it all as cheating or gaming. The trolling spam of Anti-Ron Paul individuals goes virtually unabated in relation. Some people seem to be of the opinion that politics in general on Digg is bad, but that's something they'll have to address with the Digg staff. Until people are willing to work together to deal with the objective issue of real spam, there won't be any progress.
- FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The amount of Ron Paul submissions that make the front page are a *really* small percentage of what's submitted. Unless you frequent the Upcoming section, you have absolutely no idea how much of this crap comes through on a daily basis.
- DickyMcPhallus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I see Dick Cheney stories on the front page all the time. It must be Digg itself!
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Because the Prisonplanet crowd is gaming digg. They're agreeing in fora at prisonplanet and lewrockwell.com what to digg and what to bury, and when to do it (since the number of diggs/buries per time unit is a factor in if something goes on thefrontpage), and they've got tons of sock-puppets. You can amuse yourself by looking at their histories - most of them signed up about 2 months ago, and for the first month dugg exclusively Ron Paul stories. After that they realized that this gave them away, and started randomly digging other stories also.
- instruisto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We prefer "Dr. No"
- epyon180, on 10/11/2007, -22/+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.- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Give me one good reason why I should let more republicans screw America up more?
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7He is not a Neocon he want screw it up.
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Don't reply to LavaHot
He has no idea what he's talking about
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Don't reply to LavaHot
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7He is not a Neocon he want screw it up.
- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Give me one good reason why I should let more republicans screw America up more?
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -24/+25It's not just irritating, it's ironic. They're flogging a dead horse with this constant flow of information at us, the same audience over and over, and it's not affecting his ratings at all.
It's a shame his supporters are too lazy to get up off their fat arses and promote him in the "real world" where it would not only be out of our faces, but might actually make some difference.- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3wake up
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5And what? Smell the coffee? What I said was completely true, only the fatness of the arses can be debated.
Why is his rating still somewhere near 1%? Either there's a gigantor super conspiracy against the man with every tv and radio network perpetrating, which digg users unfortunately would probably believe, or this constant flow of stories to the same audience every day makes no difference.
We've already been told about the man and his promises and his beliefs. Find a new audience. You wouldn't go to the same house 5 times a day if you were a travelling salesman, and that's exactly what this amounts to.- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12You're absolutely right, however it just so happens that I like to get news from digg, including Ron Paul news.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5And what? Smell the coffee? What I said was completely true, only the fatness of the arses can be debated.
- beakerbite, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Excuse me. We are out in the "real world" showing our support and I would show you my sun burn to prove it. Just search for the forums. We correlate online, then proceed to deliver Ron's message of truth.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3wake up
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -32/+11Tell me about it. His internet presence is rapidly approaching Howard "War Cry" Dean's when he was running for president.
If I see one more 'Vote for Ron Paul' homemade banner stretched across an overpass, I am going to yak. Strike that... I am going to pull over, climb up there, rip the damn thing down, eat it, and then yak it up on whomever put the damn thing up to begin with.
Personally I know jack about the guy, but all this advertising when we are still more then a year away from the next election is making me just a bit mental. The fervor of his supporters is actually making me less inclined to vote for the guy, as I've always been more trusting of the quiet, confident type that didn't have to rely on college campus based grass roots efforts to win the primary. If you have to put that much effort into selling the guy, it's hard not to wonder what kind of person he really is under all the fluff and balloons.
I have nothing against free speech, but being flooded with all this campaign nonsense this far away from the election reminds me of how much I used to hate it when the department stores would announce their huge back to school sales the week after the fourth of July. Give it a rest already... we'll give a sh*t when timing makes it pertinent to do so. Till then, let me enjoy my summer without having to be reminded that the way this nation picks it's leader is just like the way highschools pick their prom royalty, except highschoolers tend to be a lot more civil to each other about it.- sh4unz0r, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21I'm sorry that one year is too long for you to think about something as unimportant as presidential candidates. I'm sure you would prefer that on election night there could be a one hour special game show called "Who Wants To Be the Next President?" where you can sit down for an hour an make an uninformed decision that effects the lives of millions without ruining your summer by causing you to think.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Yeah did you not catch the part of my post where I pretty much accused the whole process these days of being just like that? Did you even read my post, or did you peruse just long enough to catch the negativity of it, and then fire back with your own negativity?
I've got five bucks that says you didn't read it, and you yourself are just an empty headed puppet of the left or right fringe in this country. The fact that you didn't even read or comprehend my entire post before you jumped in with a personal attack aimed at someone you don't even know pretty much says more about your character and level of intelligence then I ever could.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Yeah did you not catch the part of my post where I pretty much accused the whole process these days of being just like that? Did you even read my post, or did you peruse just long enough to catch the negativity of it, and then fire back with your own negativity?
- BigG, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20But that is just the thing, Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't fluffed up with streamers and balloons. What you see is what you get. He sticks to the facts, his beliefs, and the Constitution. Name one other candidate that can be said to be that honest.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3You want to tell me he wasn't going for political points when he took that stab at Rudi on national television?
All politicians play the same game no matter what color state they call home. It's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Honest people could never make it beyond the state level of government, thanks to special interest groups, the right and left fringe, and multinational corporations with their bottom lines twisting in the wind.
Mr. Smith would never make it to Washington today... he'd be gunned down outside his home by the Taylors in the world on his way to the car.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3You want to tell me he wasn't going for political points when he took that stab at Rudi on national television?
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19I don't see why you would tear down someone's poster without knowing anything about the candidate.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3A: My state has laws against posting non-offical or non-approved signage such as any kind of political ads on public property, i.e. lamp posts, street signs, stop lights, and overpasses.
B: Did you not read my post? I'm at my wits end when it comes to all the hoopla surrounding Paul and any other candidate these days. We aren't anywhere near the primaries, yet we still have to be bombarded with ads, news, signs, slogans, etc. As if the most important thing in the world right now is what choice we are going to have to make more then a year from now.
C: People who really care about who becomes the next president of this country aren't going to be swayed by a cheap sign or fancy ad campaign. They are going to do research on the different candidates on their own, and make an informed decision. "Well how are they supposed to know about Ron Paul if we don't put up the Ad?" they would probably ask. How could anyone not know who the guy is at this point, as he has become something of a media darling in the last few weeks. Anyone who isn't aware of who is running at this point probably doesn't care enough to vote anyway, and those who do plan on voting have most likely made their choices already.
So for all the reasons above, the signs bug me. Generally when something bugs me enough, I do something about it. This isn't rocket science. - pissflaps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Let's be sensible and fair here - not every American voting citizen has the ability to get on the Internet. Let's be more sensible - not every registered voter is going to use the Internet to look up information about Presidential candidates. They aren't being bombarded by ads or news stories about Ron Paul - they don't even visit Digg or know a darned thing about it. Please stop throwing your perception around as if the rest of America surely holds the same.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3A: My state has laws against posting non-offical or non-approved signage such as any kind of political ads on public property, i.e. lamp posts, street signs, stop lights, and overpasses.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I will throw a tantrum everytime I see a Clinton, Obama or Giuliani sign and then we'll see who's the biggest crybaby
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Unless you are doing it in public, I don't see who exactly you are trying to compete against. What good would throwing a tantrum do anyway?
Did the flight attendant take too long to get your apple juice or what?
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Unless you are doing it in public, I don't see who exactly you are trying to compete against. What good would throwing a tantrum do anyway?
- chocolatetacos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Well, Ron Paul would need to win the primary to reach this election which is more than a year away. And the primary is in just a few months, so yeah, I'd say it's an appropriate time for people to be supporting a candidate. It's time for real people to be voting in primaries, so we don't get another Bush vs. Kerry-esque bullcrap "choice."
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Like there was anyone better running last time that didn't make it past the primaries.
The photo of all the candidates on the fliers that were sent out a month before the primaries that introduced them and explained their platforms looked like the lineup pic in that 'Hogan's Alley' video game I used to play at the pizza place when I was a kid.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Like there was anyone better running last time that didn't make it past the primaries.
- sh4unz0r, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21I'm sorry that one year is too long for you to think about something as unimportant as presidential candidates. I'm sure you would prefer that on election night there could be a one hour special game show called "Who Wants To Be the Next President?" where you can sit down for an hour an make an uninformed decision that effects the lives of millions without ruining your summer by causing you to think.
- 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.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -12/+23Ron Paul is the iPhone of political candidates.
- burtonbe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8He turns on when you run your finger across his face?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I'm sure if you are an attractive lady... That may very likely be true.
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4He's a gynecologist. I'm surprised he isn't gay, having spent a large part of his life staring down infected vaginas...
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I'm sure if you are an attractive lady... That may very likely be true.
- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Over-hyped, you mean? Or do you mean he runs safari?
- burtonbe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8He turns on when you run your finger across his face?
- luther70, on 10/11/2007, -20/+8Wow this comment had about +15 diggs 20 minutes ago and now its at -7. its almost like Ron Paul supporters travel in packs or something.
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You think? LOL
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9This Country is going to hell in a hand basket! 9 trillion in Debt 31 trillion in un funded obligations (Social Security medicare Medicaid etc..) It takes every penny the corrupt IRS collects in income taxes just to pay the interest on the 9 trillion debt, held by foreigners. We are in a war no one wants and was started to shut the oil supply down so the oil price would rise. We have out sourced every job we can, down to and including MacDonald's order takers. The country has been de-industrialized and the Senate is doing everything it can to legalize 30 million illegal aliens while leaving the borders open. Given this and a lot of other things not listed how in the hell can these Ron Paul TROLLs have the nerve to talk smack about the only candidate that provides us with a little hope. " The eyes that will not see, and the ears that will not hear, and the minds that will not think become the spears of oppression and the death of the Republic " (by me) Thanks Ron Paul Trolls!
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Very true. All the Anti Ron Paul Trolls have no grasp of politics. Their opinions are ludicrous and insulting, their comments never backed by facts or research.
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Very true. All the Anti Ron Paul Trolls have no grasp of politics. Their opinions are ludicrous and insulting, their comments never backed by facts or research.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Good, I hope it continues to irritate you more.
- dcmjzero, on 10/11/2007, -25/+36why is it irritating? do you have something against him, or are you just sick of hearing about him?
- Asno667, on 10/11/2007, -89/+11And yet he can't get on the front page of digg, wow i wish i was that popular too. Asshats.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15While the Ron Paul Digg Squad has cooled significantly, what website have you been visiting?
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Everything is relative. He gets on the frontpage daily, but probably better than 90% of RP spam gets stopped in the Upcoming section.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Yay, Digg hasn't fixed the double-posting bug. Ignore this.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15While the Ron Paul Digg Squad has cooled significantly, what website have you been visiting?
- WITFITS, on 10/11/2007, -77/+50Check out the comments on the article. Does it bother anyone else that every single comment sounds like it's from a press release? "Fueled by truth, integrity, history" ... "connects with people" ... "stands for the people". Words like "exploding", "astounding", "passionate". Real people don't talk like that. And real people don't type that well either (Capitalization? Punctuation?) I don't have a problem with grass roots efforts, but I do have a problem with them taking advantage of sites like Digg, Reddit, and online polls to push their candidate or agenda.
- 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.
- Herkimer56, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10Ron Paul supporters that are well educated? I haven't met one yet.
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5Hey everyone, instead of attacking his message, lets attack the messengers!!
- FyreGoddess, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1When people try to address his message, they are attacked even more vehemently than when people attack his supporters. Attacking Ron Paul's message gets you called a traitor and asked "Why do you hate America?" Attacking his supporters, on the other hand, is just plain fun, since they have no real retort other than to pout about it.
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Now you have. Although it depends what you mean by "well educated." I'm still a year away from finishing my PhD.
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1The last Ron Paul supporter I ran into IRL was this old redneck at a gun store, telling me how the Mexicans are overunning our country, trying to replace us, Body Snatchers style. He was very hateful and used plenty of racial stereotypes in his tirade. I wanted to tell him what a racist POS he was, but I was in a hurry that day.
- AKBryant54, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5Hey everyone, instead of attacking his message, lets attack the messengers!!
- Herkimer56, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10Ron Paul supporters that are well educated? I haven't met one yet.
- WITFITS, on 10/11/2007, -21/+16I don't disagree that they could be followers or that they could be educated. I don't think there is a conspiracy, but it does smell of an intentional group effort to amass glowing comments about him wherever he's mentioned. People are certainly free to digg stories about him here, the problem I have is when it seem like there is a push to flood sites like Digg, etc., with every story about him (and to massively dugg down comments that aren't in support of him, though that's a problem with Digg itself--dissenters have no voice). That surely is gaming the system, which goes against the spirit of sites like this.
My point about the writing of the comments was simply that they just don't seem genuine. They read like propaganda, not like genuine sentiment. It's just my observation and I'm willing to admit it could be way off base. The Ron Paul thing just don't "feel right" to me. Maybe I'm jaded.- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Maybe you're not.
http://bigdavediode.googlepages.com/diggfixexposed
Take Prisonplanet and ronspam central, lewrockwell.com, out of the equation, and there is no noticeable Ron Paul support on the net.- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'm not so sure. I think Alex Jones is a retard (although, his cameo in Waking Life (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfEuSNejejY) was brilliant), and I'm basically a socialist. I essentially like the idea that Ron Paul's particular political positions don't really matter, since he wants to reduce the scope of federal government and return power to the states - states would essentially become the ultimate authority, with the federal government basically coordinating between them. Think of all the things you hate about the federal government - no matter who you are, there is something. This is because the federal government has superseded authority from the states and exerts its power universally. Want universal healthcare and legalized marijuana? Move to a California. Want evolution taught in school and abortion bans? Move to Kansas. If states have greater freedom to legislate according to the needs of their population, you end up with 50 places, with a greater chance that one being populated with people who share your views. With federal control, you end up with one place, with a lot of people who don't. And, it's a lot easier to move politics through popular action on a smaller level, obviously.
Being a socialist, I know its ultimate failure is that it doesn't scale. 50-state socialism will fail, but it could be implemented on a local level.
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'm not so sure. I think Alex Jones is a retard (although, his cameo in Waking Life (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfEuSNejejY) was brilliant), and I'm basically a socialist. I essentially like the idea that Ron Paul's particular political positions don't really matter, since he wants to reduce the scope of federal government and return power to the states - states would essentially become the ultimate authority, with the federal government basically coordinating between them. Think of all the things you hate about the federal government - no matter who you are, there is something. This is because the federal government has superseded authority from the states and exerts its power universally. Want universal healthcare and legalized marijuana? Move to a California. Want evolution taught in school and abortion bans? Move to Kansas. If states have greater freedom to legislate according to the needs of their population, you end up with 50 places, with a greater chance that one being populated with people who share your views. With federal control, you end up with one place, with a lot of people who don't. And, it's a lot easier to move politics through popular action on a smaller level, obviously.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Maybe you're not.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -28/+15It's the standard gushing shill crap accompanying any Ron Paulism on the web. He's the Only True Patriot! The Champion Of Freedom! The One True Revolutionary! The US Only Hope Against the NWO!
Help Us, Obi Ron Kenobi, You're Our Only Hope!
It's an orchestrated PR campaign, cheap and nasty just like Ron Paul.- luther70, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I think you need to add "Ron Paul is a breath fresh air." to the Paulism
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5True. Also "He's the only one who really cares about the constitution!" (even though his voting record on issues like gay marriage, net neutrality, abortion, and the separation of church and state, not to mention his disdain for the rulings of the supreme court, shows that he only cares about the constitution when it agrees with his paleocon views).
- luther70, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I think you need to add "Ron Paul is a breath fresh air." to the Paulism
- PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -24/+8Why bother writing an entire article about how a fringe politician took over the web, when they could have just linked to a giant picture of spam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing - kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5oh. suddenly the really really really educated republicans come out of the woodwork for ron paul?
- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Education != intelligence.
You know what I think about so-called "education"? It's indoctrination. It's the molding of young minds to conform a generation.
You do not think like me.
- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Education != intelligence.
- 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.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4uhhh... steven colbert should be running for president then. he does really well in online polls.
- jmf866, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2And you are fueled by illiteracy, apparently.
- TwoDeuces, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yes, when the real people talk they say such wonderously 'real' things as: "Nucular!" and "The vice presidential office is not part of the legislative branch of government" and "Fuhq the constitution! It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
- WITFITS, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1And my comment getting massively dugg down just serves to further prove my point.
- 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.
- 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.
- adb44, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10Perhaps the article means that Paul supporters vote for the same article on every website they know carries a link to it. Other readers only vote on things they pass by anyways, but a community seeking articles and promoting them could cause this kind of effect. And don't discount the difference between internet polling and scientific polling--there's a reason it gets the science moniker attached.
- SaintMatthew, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Well, it will be interesting to see how this translate into the real world.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7It translates into less a rating under 1% and Ron Paul being omitted from debates and whatnot because outside of Digg, Reddit et al nobody has a clue who the man is.
- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4My parents don't have a clue what Digg, let alone Reddit, are. Yet when I was speaking with them on the phone (they live in NH), after hearing him speak, they mentioned him and said that they liked what he had to say.
Ron Paul's minority position stems not from his platform, but whom he opposes. He is flat out not one of the republicans or democrats of today. He walks among them, but he is not of them. In fact, he is against them and nearly everything they stand for. And so their talking heads and commentators marginalize him. And this blanket of silence causes ignorance in the land.
But there are some people who know about who he is and what he stands for. Not everyone agrees with his positions, but I suppose you could say that of anyone.
- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4My parents don't have a clue what Digg, let alone Reddit, are. Yet when I was speaking with them on the phone (they live in NH), after hearing him speak, they mentioned him and said that they liked what he had to say.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7It translates into less a rating under 1% and Ron Paul being omitted from debates and whatnot because outside of Digg, Reddit et al nobody has a clue who the man is.
- ncairns, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Poorly.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm - snapcase, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yeah, even "scientific polling" is still *****. Never trust a poll.
- SaintMatthew, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Well, it will be interesting to see how this translate into the real world.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -38/+8Define "does well". You mean he has the support of the White Power movement and the conspiracy nutcrackers of Alex Jones? Because that's all it is. Them and their legion of sockpuppets.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3You sir are a Dick Get in your car go out on the Interstate and look at the trucks and what the shipping containers have written on their sides . Hint its not made in America. Wake up you dumb ass.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3I understand why you put scientific in quotations, but why did you put 500 in quotations?
- adb44, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10Perhaps the article means that Paul supporters vote for the same article on every website they know carries a link to it. Other readers only vote on things they pass by anyways, but a community seeking articles and promoting them could cause this kind of effect. And don't discount the difference between internet polling and scientific polling--there's a reason it gets the science moniker attached.
- adb44, on 10/11/2007, -29/+42I think it's great that Ron Paul's voice is being heard, and his issues being discussed. I personally do not think his solution is the right one for these modern times, but it is heartening to see him getting recognition and people talking about the things they should be talking about.
What I dislike is that every Ron Paul article has the same signature-like comment attached to it when it comes up. Don't devalue your statements with stupid campaign slogans! - Sxeptomaniac, on 10/11/2007, -68/+34Ron Paul supporters have become Digg's equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18When is the last time you saw an article on digg about Jehovah's witnesses...? We can't be equivalent, because the huge difference is that people LIKE Ron Paul, which is why he keeps getting dugg up.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4You're using the term "people" pretty loosely if you're referring to the Prisonplanet crowd and their army of sockpuppets digging up anything Ron and digging down any article about any other candidate (and any comments critical of L Ron Paul).
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3TROLL
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4You're using the term "people" pretty loosely if you're referring to the Prisonplanet crowd and their army of sockpuppets digging up anything Ron and digging down any article about any other candidate (and any comments critical of L Ron Paul).
- sanman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Actually Iran supporters have become Digg's equivalent of Jehova's witnesses.
- NatieB, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Agreed. Buried as spam (like everything else that has Ron Paul in the title).
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18When is the last time you saw an article on digg about Jehovah's witnesses...? We can't be equivalent, because the huge difference is that people LIKE Ron Paul, which is why he keeps getting dugg up.
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -34/+186Paul does have something other candidates don't have, it's called principals.
- NecroSexy, on 10/11/2007, -32/+7He has neither.
- Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -11/+72Really? He has administrators of public schools on his team?
The correct term you were looking for is "principles".- DarkReign16, 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!- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I don't want someone who supports the Constitution too strictly, just as I don't want someone who interprets the Bible too strictly. I want someone who is open-minded, flexible, progressive and is able to interpret the Constitution in a way that adjusts for the fact that we now live in completely different times.
- fuzzywigs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0My question to you is- have you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Have you read the Communist Manifesto? After reading all three which one does our country now follow?
I believe you can not have an opinion like yours if you are well read., there is a case from1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, which our government now has overturned ..are you aware?
Do you believe we are free or do you believe we are all slaves? And again being educated on these issues are important.
- fuzzywigs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0My question to you is- have you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Have you read the Communist Manifesto? After reading all three which one does our country now follow?
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I don't want someone who supports the Constitution too strictly, just as I don't want someone who interprets the Bible too strictly. I want someone who is open-minded, flexible, progressive and is able to interpret the Constitution in a way that adjusts for the fact that we now live in completely different times.
- DarkReign16, 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.
- 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].- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Quite accurate. Aside from the "illegal immigrant" thing, given that they do not fall within the scope of "People of the United States" (which is only citizens). We don't let people with H1B visas vote, and they're in the country legally!
- sanman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Ron Paul could be the next Truman. The established media are busily hollering "Dewey Beats Truman" well in advance, but they may end up surprised.
- 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.- bergs331, on 10/11/2007, -45/+15"No, I am not part of any organized effort to digg or post on Digg."
You joined less than 2 months ago and dugg only Ron Paul stories so I doubt that- Durinthal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'm another Ron Paul supporter. I am not part of any organized effort to spam/Digg/promote him. I was also initially annoyed by all of the posts about him here, but then I did some research and found out that I actually agree with a lot of what he says.
I also joined one day short of a year before you did. What's your excuse this time?
- Durinthal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'm another Ron Paul supporter. I am not part of any organized effort to spam/Digg/promote him. I was also initially annoyed by all of the posts about him here, but then I did some research and found out that I actually agree with a lot of what he says.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -36/+12we arent a bunch of idiots around here. a lot of us have been using the internet for a long time. you arent going to digg three thousand ron paul (or other election) articles in two months and just fly under the radar when you claim to not have any motives.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23Hey He can Digg whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Who are you talking to? Reply button - use it!
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6in much the same way that i can, but does that mean i shouldnt voice my opinion about his behavior?
i've dugg a bunch of apple and iphone articles. i dont work for apple, no one told me to digg them. but if i started to say "hey remember to buy an iphone so launch numbers look good" id expect someone to tell me to stfu.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23Hey He can Digg whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants
- 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.
- 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)- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Gee Tennessee could it be there are a lot of RP supporters on line.
Yea must be !
Well put logical question !! - 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.
- Phendrana, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10There's actually only one RP supporter. He's been using his mass voting spam bots to trick the internet.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Gee Tennessee could it be there are a lot of RP supporters on line.
- 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".- Twisty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Rock on man. Lets get his name out there then?
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2"and believes in protecting individual liberty (Ever seen him on CSPAN?). "
Wrong. He believes in states being able to establish official religions, and deny religious freedom protections to minorities. He believes in social-conservative views of gay rights and abortion rights, and is willing to use legislation to deny gays and women these rights.- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Liar.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Provably true. Look at the legislation he sponsors.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311&tab=bills
"H.R. 1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."
- The most strident anti-abortion position there is. He wants to use federal law to make it a crime to have a miscarriage, let alone an abortion.
"H.R. 300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."
- The job of the federal courts, ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION by the Supremacy Clause and Due Process Clause, is to protect people's individual rights, as guaranteed in the Constitution, against infringement by ALL levels of government. But this would specifically deny the ability to seek Federal court protection for religious freedom rights, gay rights, and sexual/reproductive rights.
He's not a libertarian. He's just another right-wing Christian who wants to legislate his morality. - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Dugg down again huh? RP supporters want to pretend he's a champion of individual liberties when clearly he has a conservative Christian social agenda he's willing to push through legislation.
- bergs331, on 10/11/2007, -45/+15"No, I am not part of any organized effort to digg or post on Digg."
- KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -43/+13by spamming everything.
- xoon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12If it is on the internet - apparently it is spamming. Anything that is "news" must be on the TV right? We all know it can't be on a social INTERNET NEWS network; that would be spamming.
Get a clue. The stupid iPhone updates and nude pics are just the same classification "spam" to a digger that wants real ***** news.
- xoon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12If it is on the internet - apparently it is spamming. Anything that is "news" must be on the TV right? We all know it can't be on a social INTERNET NEWS network; that would be spamming.
- snooly, 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.
- acudoc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17You hit the nail rigth squurely on the head. It is the Matrix. He who controls the money pulls all the strings.
- Syric, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0The Federal Reserve is the greatest thing to happen to this country since sliced bread (hyperbole- but the Fed is still good). We don't want another Andrew Jackson.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The federal reserve has a monopoly over the creation of money and is controlled by the select few private corporations who own it. It is the most undemocratic, corruption-prone organization in the nation, and it controls the entire nation's money supply.
- asspants, on 10/11/2007, -41/+25Did anyone watch what he had to say on (i'm ashamed to say I still watch this occasionally) AOTS?
He said he voted against net neutrality. But really did not understand it. He doesnt understand the internets either.
Let that sink in.- 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.
- Phyltre, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Hey, guess what? He's SEVENTY. Nobody but aging gurus really understand the internet at that age.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3then he should do what a politician is supposed to do and find out or defer to someone that does.
- 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.
- rpedro, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2"We really have no idea of what a public service is for, all we have is, *principals*! We are ...... IDIOTS!"
....?- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Testing
- Phyltre, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Hey, guess what? He's SEVENTY. Nobody but aging gurus really understand the internet at that age.
- 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?
- mesler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Wrong.
He voted against it because he opposes ALL regulation of the Internet, including regulation of Internet gambling.
- mesler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Wrong.
- theballdredge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17that depends on what he means by 'net neutrality'. if its at&ts definition, good for him. if its the EFFs, maybe not so much. but as corrosionx just pointed out, thats not so bad either.
ever notice that any time the government meddles in something it gets worse, just because of the attention?- 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.
- 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!
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Then again, he voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, which is the most ridiculous invocation of the Commerce Clause I've ever seen.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2this describes a partial birth abortion:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
I guess for a guy who's delivered 4000 babies, it just wasn't possible to stand letting these types of abortions continue.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2this describes a partial birth abortion:
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Then again, he voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, which is the most ridiculous invocation of the Commerce Clause I've ever seen.
- 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.- whatever1, on 10/11/2007, -13/+0no one is going to read all this.
- mangusp57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I DID!
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I also read it. whatever1 means no TROLL would read it
- whatever1, on 10/11/2007, -13/+0no one is going to read all this.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -24/+3Watch the idiot Ronbots DEFEND that Ron Paul wants YOU to pay more for slower connection!
Fun Fact: Did you know that the REAL libertarians, the Libertarian Party, supports Net Neutrality?- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Calling the Libertarian Party real libertarians is a joke. But I suppose you'll support anything if it helps you make a point or discredit Ron Paul supporters. This is an issue of principles...
Regulation is regulation: Net Neutrality is regulation. Two of the biggest problems blocking cheaper internet are 1. anti competition regulation within the industry and 2. regulation limiting people from setting up the physical infrastructure required to create competing services. Get rid of the regulation and the prices will come down. You'll also get cheaper telephone services and television solutions this way. Until we get the lobbyists out of washington, enjoy paying 50 USD or more for your internet.- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No, this is an issue of stupidity. You, and Herr Doctor Ron Paul, are claiming that paying more for slower internet is a GOOD THING.
The choice is between leaving things exactly like they are today, OR having the telcons assign bandwidth based on how much you pay them.
You're so tangled up in, frankly, childish ideology that you not only fail to see that paying more for slower internet is actually against your own best interests, you have even managed to convince yourself that paying more for slower internet is GOOD, even morally right!
And the libertarian party are libertarians, if nothing else so by definition. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is not. Go to Wikipedia, and look up the definition of "paleoconservative", and you'll find an exact match for Ron Paul. He's perfectly at home in the republican party, he does not belong in the libertarian party - and indeed he does not run for them.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No, this is an issue of stupidity. You, and Herr Doctor Ron Paul, are claiming that paying more for slower internet is a GOOD THING.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Calling the Libertarian Party real libertarians is a joke. But I suppose you'll support anything if it helps you make a point or discredit Ron Paul supporters. This is an issue of principles...
- 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.
- 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
- TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Just because you've read things on the internet that make you like the guy doesn't mean you should turn into a sheep.
- mRIpX, on 10/11/2007, -42/+14Quit clogging my tubes Ron
- gsurbey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Haha, I don't get why so many people dug your comment down. I don't think you're being anti-Ron Paul, I think you're being silly sarcastic and ironic. I'm a Ron Paul supporter and you made me laugh :-)
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -35/+22jesus. this is just what we need. an article about the articles we hate.
- mesler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11A sure fire way to get your time back is to read, and post comments on, the articles you hate. Good stuff.
- positron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4To quote Tonto:
"What you mean 'we' white man?"
- 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.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12well said !!
- 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!
- 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.- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15"He is the only REPUBLICAN candidate who makes ending the War on Drugs part of his platform, for example."
There, fixed it for you.- 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.- MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Dude, calm down. He was just correcting the statement because some of the Democrat canidates have supported Drug Reform.
- 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.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3this reminds me of something i heard in seventh grade at a class election assembly...
"and ill get better school lunches, and longer recesses!!!"
how exactly would he end the war on drugs? and do we really want a totaly end to the war on drugs? or just to get pot legalized?- teadrinker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Actually quite simple. He can tell FBI to not raid California for marijuana offenses....making it de facto legal there.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2no he can't. even if he were president. congress sets domestic policy, not the president.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3Ron Paul is on record as wanting to legalize ALL drugs. Yes, he wants crystal meth, acid and crack cocaine turned legal.
That will mesh very nice with his OTHER big crowdpleaser: that he wants to remove ALL restrictions on buying and owning guns.- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No he's not. Show a link... I DARE YOU TO SHOW A LINK.
Ron Paul wants to cut Federal funding on the war on drugs and repeal the national drug possession laws. That is not the same thing as legalizing ALL drugs.
It would be up to the states to decide what drugs are illegal and what the penalties should be, and I highly doubt any state would legalize the use of crack and meth.
If you have no idea what you are talking about, why post at all? It would save me the time of having to click the red thumbs down every time you decide to post some random ***** you just made up.
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No he's not. Show a link... I DARE YOU TO SHOW A LINK.
- teadrinker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Actually quite simple. He can tell FBI to not raid California for marijuana offenses....making it de facto legal there.
- TwoDeuces, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1uh... did you just imply that Ross Perot ADDED sanity to something?
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15"He is the only REPUBLICAN candidate who makes ending the War on Drugs part of his platform, for example."
- aliceinreality, on 10/11/2007, -13/+26the meta-commentary here is a little dumb, but hey, maybe more people will google him and stop supporting giuliani and mccain. =p
- nationalist, on 10/11/2007, -29/+8i say this is astroturf...
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -45/+13Been a few days since I had to bury a Ron Paul spam army story off the homepage.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Been a few days since I had to bury a comment by some loser egotistically talking about what he buried as though anyone else cared...
(oh the irony) - AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Mike get a grip and wake up!
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Go back to Prisonplanet.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Hey Dawg wake up !
Unplug from the matrix.
sheep man
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Hey Dawg wake up !
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Go back to Prisonplanet.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Mike, I think it would help if digg did more to stop these damned paid diggers.
- xoon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah, I am paid.. big bucks. I just haven't seen any checks and I don't know why...
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3 @redpixie: There may be a PR company at the bottom of the Ronspam, but most of them are just conspiracy theorists, survivalists, and white supremacists who feel that Ron Paul shares their hate of the evil World Government, the Illuminati, the Government, and the blacks, and support him with the same fervor they usually support their crazy pet theories. Most of them are amateurs. Organized yes, paid no.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Been a few days since I had to bury a comment by some loser egotistically talking about what he buried as though anyone else cared...
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -27/+14• Jan 5 2007: Introduced HR 300 (third time for this bill, also in 2005 and 2006) that would: limit the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on 1st amendment free exercise & establishment of religion issues, sexual practice, orientation, and reproduction (abortion) issues, or same-sex marriage.
• Jun 6, 2007: Introduced HR 2597 "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" making abortion murder and miscarriage involuntary manslaughter, by definition.
See for yourself: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311&tab=bills
He is FAR from a individual-rights libertarian. Instead, he would strip people of specific protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so that states can ban abortion, make homosexuality a crime, and declare official state religions.- Buelldozer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17And?
The states should have had the right to do these things ALL ALONG. I'm not saying I agree with the positions but I AM saying that these kinds of decisions should be made at the closest level possible to the people, and that is NOT the U.S. Supreme Court. The appropriate forum is the State Government.- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Consider an atheist living in Oklahoma. Is their right to attend a public school, or get employment, protected by federal courts even if the local majority is Christian? Or can they only turn to local courts, run by that local majority?
The 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, and the Constitution's Supremacy Clause don't appear consistent with the idea that states get to decide on official religions, or override individual liberties that are protected by the constitution.- jmf866, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Protection of your religion is already covered by the constitution. And, by the way, the constitution does not give you a right to have a job. If someone won't hire you because you are atheist, that is their prerogative. However, they may have to deal with the consequences of bad publicity, protests, and boycotts.
You see, all the power lies in the PEOPLE, not the federal government. - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2>Protection of your religion is already covered by the constitution.
But if Ron Paul's bill became law, religious minorities could NOT go to the federal courts to defend their religious rights. The Christian State of Oklahoma could enforce prayer and creation teaching in public schools, and there wold be no recourse.
>If someone won't hire you because you are atheist, that is their prerogative.
That would be contrary to the Civil Rights Act.- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You seem to have forgotten that Ron Paul wants to do away with the indoctrination system we like to call the "Department of Education".
- jmf866, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The constitution gives congress the authority to limit the power of the federal judicial branch. The intent of H.R. 300 is to keep federal judges out of the affairs of local groups of citizens. These cases should be settled in local and state courts. If these lower courts abuse their power, it is up to the state legislatures to address the problem.
- jmf866, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Protection of your religion is already covered by the constitution. And, by the way, the constitution does not give you a right to have a job. If someone won't hire you because you are atheist, that is their prerogative. However, they may have to deal with the consequences of bad publicity, protests, and boycotts.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Consider an atheist living in Oklahoma. Is their right to attend a public school, or get employment, protected by federal courts even if the local majority is Christian? Or can they only turn to local courts, run by that local majority?
- teadrinker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12You are both correct and incorrect. He is against federal regulation of abortion, for or against.
The states get to do whatever they want. Abortion is not a right guaranteed by constitution. Homosexuality is currently not a right, although I think it should be.
And RP is definitely against official state religions. That would be highly unconstitutional. Sure, he is for religious principles (at the state level, of course)......but not for official religion.- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1>He is against federal regulation of abortion, for or against.
That is disingenuous, when he is *specifically naming reproductive rights* as something federal courts can't rule on. If due process rights, or the right to be secure in the person, establish that state laws cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose medical procedures for her body, then to abrogate her federal protections allows states to infringe those rights.
Additionally, it's patently FALSE when you see that he has introduced, at the federal level, legislation to declare:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094
"human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and "the term `person' shall include all human life" and "the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children"
In other words, a fertilized ovum has the same legal protections as an adult.
That is the most strict, undeniable anti-abortion position possible, introduced as federal law by this "libertarian".
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1>He is against federal regulation of abortion, for or against.
- dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"Jun 6, 2007: Introduced HR 2597 "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception"... He is FAR from a individual-rights libertarian."
Whatever, what about the right of the child not to be murdered by his or her mother?- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3This is not a child, and removing it from your body is not murder.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/zygote.jpg- dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yes it is, and yes it is. We could argue forever, but the point is I am not agents individual rights just because of you cant see a human in that picture. In direct contrast to your statement, I wish to protect an individuals right to life.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2A woman does not give up ownership or control of her body just because she becomes pregnant. If the State can force her to carry a pregnancy to term for 9 months against her will, she is a slave to her womb.
And no, a zygote or fetus is not a person. That you look at a clump of cells and equate it to a full formed, independent human being reveals complete irrationality on your part. - dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Like I said, we could argue forever. I could say, "That you look at a human at an earlier stage of development and equate it to a worthless clump of cells, reveals your rather limited scope of thought." but that could be received on your end as an insult.
No a woman doesn't give up rights to her body just because she becomes pregnant, but she should not gain a license to kill just because she becomes pregnant. When she becomes pregnant, its no longer just her body, its hers and the child's. The rights at that point are (or should be) shared. That death affects more than just here, more than just the child, it affects the entire world, think about it.
All I'm really trying to say is..
Don't go around saying that someone is agents individual freedom when they are clearly not.
The issue is what the people consider life, not weather or not we support someone's rights. On either side of the argument, we are fighting FOR the rights of an individual. - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I didn't say "worthless", that's a value judgement, and depends whether the woman *wants* to be pregnant or not, doesn't it?
But a fertilized ovum is by NO stretch of the imagination a person, and is not entitled to rights. A woman doesn't "share" rights to her body just because she becomes pregnant. If she is not in control of her body, she is a slave. There's no other way around it.
Her individual rights, to choose to be pregnant and remain that way, must not be subject to removal by the state, under any circumstances. It's a matter of choice, for her alone.
And it's spelled "against". - tardmongerster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3At what point do you believe a person is a person? And what divine insight has granted you such wisdom? Since science is unable to prove at which point a person becomes a person, I choose to err on the side of caution and respect the life of all people from the moment of conception onwards. Sadly, this includes yours too.
Your "whose body is it" arguement is wrong. There are 2 separate sets of DNA in there, two separate bloodstreams, etc. Nothing gives the mother the right to destroy that life. Noone owns the mother's life, and noone owns the baby's life. They are each unto themselves.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2A woman does not give up ownership or control of her body just because she becomes pregnant. If the State can force her to carry a pregnancy to term for 9 months against her will, she is a slave to her womb.
- dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And just to be sure my comment is understood, The word YOU should have been capitalized.
"I am not agents individual rights just because of YOU cant see a human in that picture."- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Why do you believe a group of cells, that won't have a functioning nervous system for weeks, and anything resembling self-awareness for months, is entitled to legal rights that supersede the rights of the woman to control her own body?
- dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Do you believe that an inventor should be able to get a patent even though he hasn't built the final "fully developed" version of his invention? Yes? And why is that? Because the line between symbolic representation and and the thing it represents exists only in our perception. When you think about it, you are nothing but code represented by four lifeless, worthless, and otherwise meaningless chemicals. All of the code to create a human exists in those cells. If we were some other form of life, and you were inventing a human, at what point should you be allowed to patent it?
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Patenting is a meaningless argument from analogy.
A zygote is no more a human being, than individual blood cells in your body. A developing embryo, no more so than your kidney.
And what matters ultimately, is at no point does it have rights that supersedes the woman's right to control her own body. To not be pregnant against her will. - dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well you asked me a question and I answered. If a computer hasn't booted up yet, do you say that its not a computer? Its just a pile of metal and plastic? I just see it differently than you. You look at the physical first, then see the symbolic potential. I see the symbolic potential and see how it simply utilizes the physical.
Patenting wasn't meant as an analogy, I was trying to help you see why I find something important by changing the function used to apply that importance. However the above computer example is definitely an analogy. I don't know what else to say. Just that I am not "against", anyone's freedom. I understand that pregnancy is not always a welcomed thing. But the right for someone to live trumps anything. And you will not convince me that life doesn't start at conception as long as you study the situation, and report your findings from only one prospective.
- dimension128, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yes it is, and yes it is. We could argue forever, but the point is I am not agents individual rights just because of you cant see a human in that picture. In direct contrast to your statement, I wish to protect an individuals right to life.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3This is not a child, and removing it from your body is not murder.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6I see I'm being dug down by the Ron Paul squad, who don't want to acknowledge that their hero is in fact just another social-conservative who is willing to use legislation to force his views on religion, sexuality, and abortion onto others.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Well, I dugg you up for honesty. Unfortunately, the concept of honesty isn't something the majority of Digg users are knowledgable of. Then again, when you're paid to digg, honesty goes out of the window.
It scares me that people want to go out and push another Bush into power. Hasn't one tyrant been enough, or do we have to endure more? - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Thank-you. I understand the appeal Paul has, a lot of his views ARE appealing: end the drug war, out of Iraq, etc. But his clear willingness to strip people of the right to petition the Supreme Court in order to protect their rights has a chilling effect.
- abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6No, he is opposed to this.
He will push the issue to the state and local levels. Dr Paul is a liberterian - he has addressed this issue many times. - tazx, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6READ the legislation he has sponsored multiple times:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-300
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."
That is NOT a Constitutionalist position. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that constitutional rights apply to all lower governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process_clause
The Supremacy clause explicitly declares that the Constitution forms the Law of the Land, and cannot be overruled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
What he wants is for states to declare themselves officially Christian, and us poor atheists, pagans, Muslims etc. cannot seek redress from the Supreme Court.
He wants that States can outlaw homosexuality and gay marriage.
He wants abortion to be illegal.
Those ARE NOT libertarian positions.- mangusp57, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..." hence "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." comes into effect. It's a simple "IF, THEN, ELSE" equation. If congress did not write the law then the else, the 10th amendment, goes into effect and it is no longer a constitutional issue for the SCUS and Fed. Courts. The 14th amendment does not expand the scope of the 1st.
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The rights established in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are meaningless if state legislatures and courts can override them. Do you REALLY believe that religious freedom, free speech, freedom of assembly, redress of wrongs, etc. are all limited in the way you describe? That's not consistent with either the Constitution itself, nor a century of precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment - mangusp57, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'm just telling you what it says. They didn't start any of the other amendments in the Bill with "Congress shall make no law..." If you can ignore the opening statement of the 1st then you might as well take the "General welfare" clause in the preamble as a blank check for the Fed to do anything which it declares to be "promoting the general welfare" instead of the ENDS (as opposed to the MEANS) for the "How To Book" that follows the Preamble. And you might as well declare that the word "people" in the 2nd amendment has a completely different meaning than it has in every other instance of the word in that document....
OH CRAP! That's exactly what has happened. And why RP is the go to guy if you think the COTUS has any meaning at all.
But frankly, I think it's all pie in the sky, because the Constitution poses no serious threat to our current form of government.
- mangusp57, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Oh, and I don't know about where you live, but my state has a Constitution with a "Bill of Rights" that addresses such things as Religious freedom; Freedom of speech; Rights of peaceable assembly and petition.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Well, I dugg you up for honesty. Unfortunately, the concept of honesty isn't something the majority of Digg users are knowledgable of. Then again, when you're paid to digg, honesty goes out of the window.
- Buelldozer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17And?
- reddevil3, on 10/11/2007, -28/+15The over-zealousness of RP supporters is totally going to destroy his campaign.
You know, there is a reason people don't like Jehovah's Witnesses.- TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I think the Linux zealots switched focus this year for this election.
- HiCaP, on 10/11/2007, -30/+19Ron Paul has just as much of a chance to win as a 3 legged horse would have.
Damn, wake up, never gonna happen. - Azdak, on 10/11/2007, -32/+15buried as spam
- realwx, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9ditto
- xoon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Spam..
"Make your ***** 6 feet long", "FREE iPhone", "FREE XBOX 360" -- that is spam people.
This is someone trying to make a difference, just like Digg tries to make a difference with their ever growing community of social NEWS.
- redxninja, on 10/11/2007, -21/+13I want Giuliani to be the next Pres so that America gets ass rape for another 4 years.
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9well said brother. These anti Ron Paul trolls may get what they deserve soon enough .
- 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.
- 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?
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4ooooh, like home grocery delievery? that panned out.
- adam.skinner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've purchased foodstuffs online, from Amazon.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1It's called "pay per digg".
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I dunno. Try asking President Dean.
- texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Just wait til the next election (2012), when all of these 14+ year olds (not meant as derogatory) who are supporters get to vote. Hopefully they will be active about it and take over the primaries so we can actually oust the Neocons and get someone like Dr. Paul elected.
- feb420, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Doubtful.
- freehunter, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Kind of like the last huge internet thing, Snakes on a Plane. That was massive at the box office.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4ooooh, like home grocery delievery? that panned out.
- 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.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -15/+27i wonder if he will do better than the .47% he got twenty years ago in the '88 election.
- teadrinker, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4No, because if he would not get a nomination, he will not run, resulting in a near 0% vote (I am sure a few of us will put him as a write-in).
- bizchris, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Great point! I mean, who really gets more qualified over only a 20-year time span?
/sarcasm- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2And who really learns reading comprehension so he understands the difference between being "qualified" and "getting more votes than last time"?
- bobbob1016, on 10/11/2007, -25/+10I'm going to get dugg down for this, but I won't vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name on a news channel. I vote for amendments by reading what they say, not what I'm told by people. I vote for president with how I feel about the person, and their party. I don't feel good about the republican party at the moment, so I won't vote for him.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Do you'll be voting Libertarian then... Cool. Personally, I vote based on issues, because I think voting a party line is for total retards... but... if you totally want to AVOID a party... Well, that's a principle... stick to it.
(Or do you have on a red t-shirt right now, with a yellow hammer and sickle while walking around quoting Marx, Moore, and Chomsky, and only vote for collectivists?) - xoon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Wow... first off.. grab an education before you vote. "I vote for president with how I feel about the person, and their party" mmmmk.. secondly - I'm not even going to waste my time.
- sv650touring, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4That is ***** retarded logic. If you want to beelected to a major office you currently NEED either a (D) or (R) next to your name. There are scumbags aplenty with each, but it is too bad for you that RP didn't choose your favorite team. Nice principles, btw.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Do you'll be voting Libertarian then... Cool. Personally, I vote based on issues, because I think voting a party line is for total retards... but... if you totally want to AVOID a party... Well, that's a principle... stick to it.
- speedmaster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+81Ironically, in say 1800 or so, Ron Paul's views wouldn't have been "fringe" at all.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3neither would polio, TB, or annual showers.
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10You imply that old political ideals are bad.
Perhaps you have forgotten that the Nazi and Soviet regimes postdate the United States of America. New isn't necessarily better. Least of all when it's really just the old slide from freedom into tyranny. - rocket777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Don't quite get the showers comment, but if you think that the government actually solved the polio or TB problems, you are falling into the government's trap of taking credit for every private advancement. I guess you also think Gore invented the internet.
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10You imply that old political ideals are bad.
- BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Exactly. Maybe you should all buy him a time machine and send him back to the time before all the social progress that made this country great happened. Oh yeah, you can all go with him.
- kevincross, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3neither would polio, TB, or annual showers.
- 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.- schrodingercat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Sounds like a good plan. Except for the whole, we're in trillions of dollars of debt, thing. Any ideas on how to get that money?
- feb420, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Make the next generation deal with it?
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Not one cent collected by the Income Tax goes to ANY government program whatsoever.
ALL the money collected via Income Tax goes directly to pay interest on the national debt.
Currently the system we have ensures that the National Debt can never be paid off EVER.
Watch these to understand the evils of The Federal Reserve.
Fiat Empire
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531
Monopoly Men
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778
The Money Masters
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...earch&plindex=0
- rocket777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I'm not sure about the income tax being unconstitutional, but the federal reserve is, and they are just as bad as the IRS. Ron would undo that fiasco too.
- ldkronos, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Repeal the income tax? Great. So where exactly will funding for any federal programs come from? I realize a lot of things can be pushed off to become the states responsibility (and on that topic...for anyone thinking "no IRS? Excellent..less taxes!" please realize that your state taxes are thus going to increase accordingly to make up for all of these programs), but there are still certain things that are better handled in a centralized way.
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The Income Tax does not fund ANY federal program.
No money goes to the government at all. NONE!
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The Income Tax does not fund ANY federal program.
- ldkronos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Also, I forgot to ask....how exactly does a president repeal something like that? It seems to me that's more of a job for the legislative branch (or for the judicial branch to declare it unconstitutional). Is there some specific power granted to the president that I'm forgetting about? Honest question.
- schrodingercat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Sounds like a good plan. Except for the whole, we're in trillions of dollars of debt, thing. Any ideas on how to get that money?
- 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.
- mrraven200, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10In the long run we can thank the corporate controlled MSM for BOTH Hilary and Bush and for destroying anyone with principles like Dean, Paul, Gravel, Kucinich,etc. The only hope is that the 20 somethings and younger will start getting all their info from the internet causing the tee vee networks, cable news and NPR/PBS to go extinct. Geezer here who's over 40 and who been fighting this fight for a while. Hey one can dream, right?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -24/+7I think the reason Ron Paul is so popular is because too many people are getting paid to digg every little snippet about him.
- patch6, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The payment would be in the potential benefits of him taking office and at least trying to reverse the disastrous foreign, domestic, and economic policies that are going to ruin the US.
- bmerz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10exactly, that is how i felt about donating to his campaign. it is an investment. i support him and i am not being paid.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Why don't you do something worth while with your money. If you're going to donate it, give it to a cause that is worth a damn like cancer research, a children's charity or a hospital. I don't understand why anyone wants to throw good money away on supporting a campaign for a politician who will, without a shadow of a doubt, change his agenda and forget all promises if they are elected. The money only goes to create litter for cities anyway. Wouldn't it be much better to use your money to feed a hungry kid rather than on some campaign posters for a man who is getting backed with millions from big businesses?
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8This takes the cake for "most uninformed post on this thread".
Ron Paul is the most consistent and principled member in Congress today. This isn't marketing hype. I'm not saying he's perfect, but everyone in congress knows this. Lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his office door. - redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2So, are you going to deny the fact that he litterally does have an army of spammers? How can you feasibly support a person who wants to get rid of taxes and yet find money from somewhere to build a 700 mile fence, remove the wellfare system and remove female rights? As for my post being "uninformed", at least I'm not living in a fantasy world. He is paying people to spam and digg him, that is known. It's called the cheap man approach.
Is it just a coincidence that all forum spammers love viagra, cialis and Ron Paul? - senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Interestingly enough, I do cancer research for a living, and I donated to his campaign. It would be more inefficient to donate to cancer research, which pays me, who sends money to RP, than to just send him the money directly!
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I hear redpixie is being paid to troll. Of course, I have absolutely no proof to back up my assertions, but everybody else is making these sorts of claims it so I guess it's conventionally acceptable!
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"a man who is getting backed with millions from big businesses"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Did the tooth fairy tell you that?
- cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8This takes the cake for "most uninformed post on this thread".
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Why don't you do something worth while with your money. If you're going to donate it, give it to a cause that is worth a damn like cancer research, a children's charity or a hospital. I don't understand why anyone wants to throw good money away on supporting a campaign for a politician who will, without a shadow of a doubt, change his agenda and forget all promises if they are elected. The money only goes to create litter for cities anyway. Wouldn't it be much better to use your money to feed a hungry kid rather than on some campaign posters for a man who is getting backed with millions from big businesses?
- bmerz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10exactly, that is how i felt about donating to his campaign. it is an investment. i support him and i am not being paid.
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15If Ron Paul really had enough money to pay for the kind of support he receives over the Internet, his campaign would be richer than everyone else's combined.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1With a couple thousand pennies going out to digg slaves in the third world every few days? I don't think that is near enough to bankrupt a man or his supporters. Hell, I'm far from rich, but I could afford to do that if I was corrupt.
There are websites offering Digg services at very cheap rates, as we ALL know. Get your head out of the sand.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1With a couple thousand pennies going out to digg slaves in the third world every few days? I don't think that is near enough to bankrupt a man or his supporters. Hell, I'm far from rich, but I could afford to do that if I was corrupt.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Who is paying you to make the comment you just made against him? After all, everyone with political principles must be getting paid for them... right?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I don't need payment to tell the truth. It's just so funny to me that every story regarding this character is constantly making top digg spot when there's no need. If someone has a political agenda, then manipulate the media....right? If you can pay pennies to digg slaves in India to get you noticed, you do it....right?
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well if you don't need payment to tell the truth, then what would it take for you to tell the truth?
___
Digg slaves in India????? Are you serious????? LMAO!!!!! - LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well if you don't need payment to tell the truth, then what would it take for you to tell the truth?
___
Digg slaves in India????? Are you serious????? LMAO!!!!!
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well if you don't need payment to tell the truth, then what would it take for you to tell the truth?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I don't need payment to tell the truth. It's just so funny to me that every story regarding this character is constantly making top digg spot when there's no need. If someone has a political agenda, then manipulate the media....right? If you can pay pennies to digg slaves in India to get you noticed, you do it....right?
- AARTARTHUR, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I can assure you sir no one is on any pay roll !
wake up- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Right. We'll just ignore all of the websites that offer diggs for cash, shall we?
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8And what tells us you're not paid to smear him either and you are just arrogant enough to bring out the fact that there are these kinds of services?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2You confuse "arrogance" with honesty.
Look it up. He is known to have an army of spammers and there are a lot of companies out there that offer diggs for cash. Don't be so naive.- tremor_tj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5How exactly is he "known" to have this army of spammers?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2What proof do we have that the viagra, ciallis, Britney Spears screen savers and Ron Paul have an army of spammers? ***** loads of spam in our mail boxes and forums for a start.
- Zaphod2016, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7redpixie- let's avoid this whole organic/paid spam debate for a moment. Do you oppose Ron Paul on the issues? If so, which ones? Who is your preferred candidate?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Right. We'll just ignore all of the websites that offer diggs for cash, shall we?
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Nice to see all those who were paid to digg Ron Paul stories have dugg me down.
At least someone is getting their money's worth! - xoon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"throw good money away" I thought this was hilarious.
- patch6, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The payment would be in the potential benefits of him taking office and at least trying to reverse the disastrous foreign, domestic, and economic policies that are going to ruin the US.
- 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. - burzumy, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5Libertarians have always been over-represented online - probably partly due to the medium being attractive to that mentality, and partly due to the massive appeal of the image of a maverick political independent, assumed in a safe, anonymous context. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled by why Ron Paul has such a buzz about him, some of his crowd appears to regard him as some sort of post-modern political messiah. Sort of like those folks who love Gravel or LaRouche. The reality just isn't as revolutionary as the hype. I've watched the videos - the content just isn't that revolutionary (or upsetting, for that matter).
Anyway, it isn't really possible for Paul or his followers to take over the web. At worst, its a meme that is particularly prominent in blogs and Digg comment threads. The amount of attention pretty much constitutes the problem. It is annoying and repetitive, like the guy who shouts about Jesus on the corner by my work, but it isn't like he took over my block just cause he's standing out there yelling all day, you know?- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2And he's not even really libertarian. He's a strong social-conservative, and willing to force those views on others. He has tried to limit the protections federal courts provide for religious rights, sexual equality, and abortion rights.
- senatorpjt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yeah, because they aren't in the Constitution. He has said that those issues should be dealt with on a local level. Why do you c
- tazx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2And he's not even really libertarian. He's a strong social-conservative, and willing to force those views on others. He has tried to limit the protections federal courts provide for religious rights, sexual equality, and abortion rights.
