What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- lazerus9, on 07/17/2008, -3/+52We go to war with the weapons that we have!
- benologist, on 07/18/2008, -5/+4There's no concrete evidence between the sites that 'prove' social media is an important player other then they were discussing an issue that was inevitably going to be contested, and it was contested. Social media might help drive awareness to some topics but I'm pretty sure this was a coincidence.
Nobody could possibly take digg seriously with politics, not after Ron Paul failed to become Supreme Emperor of the Universe despite having the most mouse clicks on teh internetz, and the constant flow of garbage from various blogs that at their *finest* barely put digg on the same level as tabloids ensures nobody's really getting their political news here anyway, just hate-mongering and rumors from trash blogs.- lazerus9, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Then why are you here wasting yours and my time?
I believe Ron Paul was running for the presidency of the United States and I was not aware of elections for the Supreme Emperor
of the Universe!...I didn't even know they held elections for that position!
I agree with Thomas Paine when he wrote:"Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Now three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven".
Thomas Paine
Common Sense
- lazerus9, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Then why are you here wasting yours and my time?
- benologist, on 07/18/2008, -5/+4There's no concrete evidence between the sites that 'prove' social media is an important player other then they were discussing an issue that was inevitably going to be contested, and it was contested. Social media might help drive awareness to some topics but I'm pretty sure this was a coincidence.
- hiteshsharma, on 07/17/2008, -4/+19Well its for all social networking and bookmarking sites.. Anyhow Digg Rocks :)
- tkeeley, on 07/17/2008, -1/+11Absolutely, but in this case, Digg was by far (imho) the biggest player in getting this out there. The rest can't be discredited either, but Digg was the big dog.
- PolishLogic, on 07/17/2008, -7/+32Not so bad really, considering that Congress.....including Obama....pissed on the American citizen's privacy and his supporters still stand firmly behind him. Some even applauded them for it.
At least this plan came with a payoff. The FISA compromise was done for free.
Digg was all over that story too, as was the rest of the internet. Made zero difference though.- morequestions, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5At least in this case his own home state and voters will be the one's screaming in his ear to retract it. If at first you don't succeed...get a bigger hammer!
- CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -2/+6LOL
You CANNOT be serious?
So you cheer the spying on Americans when it's going on, and NOW you pretend you are offended by it?
You seriously lack even that LITTLE BIT of integrity that would permit you to admit that you defended the spying on America policy?
I'm looking at your comment history right now.
I'm curious if you'll be the lying sack of ***** you are, or if you'll admit you supported the lost of American privacy and the "right" of Bush to spy on America.
Search your history with "spying" as the term. You defend it, arguing that since Hoover did it it's no big deal.
I'll give you props for being against the FISA immunity, tho. I was sure you'd have been against that, too. Imagine my suprise to find you on the correct side of an issue.- PolishLogic, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6"You defend it, arguing that since Hoover did it it's no big deal."
You obviously don't know the definition of defend. Stating that spying on American's is not something that just popped up under Bush does not equal "defending" spying. Needless to say I'm not surprised to see that you don't bother to show the comment in its entirety, in reference to the FBI monitoring electronic communications.
"It's amazing to see so many people feign shock and dismay at this. Nothing has changed since the Hoover years, there are just more avenues to eavesdrop on now. Every American can write the FBI to request their personal file, and they'd probably be surprised to see how much information it contained. $20 is all it takes"
Doesn't seem like I'm defending it, seems like I'm merely making a statement of fact, and surprise that people don't realize that this is and has been going on.
As for defending the Patriot Act, I think you'll find dozens of comments where I say in plain English, that the Patriot Act was beyond unnecessary. The only occasions where you’d find something resembling a defense would be in response to the basement dwellers that seem to think that every email they send is read by some NSA agent with nothing better to do. This type of conversation isn't so much of a defense as it is an explanation in response to the ***** people who grossly overreact for the sake of hearing themselves bitch about “the man”.
"Imagine my suprise to find you on the correct side of an issue."
Maybe a you shouldn't jump to so many conclusions based on where they stand on the political spectrum. - obamayomama, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2PolishLogic, don't bother trying to engage in any kind of meaningful debate with CryRightardCry. This Digger is a completely disingenuous and an unashamed partisan hack. On his profile he writes:
"Humanist truth seeker who despises the liars, hypocrites, bigots, and ignorant scumbags of the right wing extremists. I'm your conscience scumbags, you can't get away. I'm here to point out your despicable ways. Cry about it."
So as you can tell, he/she is a self-appointed savior of the left with no tolerance towards others' points of view. Seems to me though, that the Libs could find someone a bit more intelligent to carry their torch, and perhaps one that understands proper word usage and grammar. - DreadPirate, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Obamayomama - not only that, in another post CRC admits to "losing his mind and acting like an ***** on digg" with absolutely zero remorse.
- DreadPirate, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Funny how I get dugg down for only repeating exactly what CRC had to say about himself. Looks like some of his followers can't stand the truth.
- PolishLogic, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6"You defend it, arguing that since Hoover did it it's no big deal."
- IconoclastStill, on 07/17/2008, -6/+21
- CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -4/+5Only for the lefties?
In the sense that it exposed right wing lies and deception?
I guess so.
You guys COULD do the same thing, you know.
All it takes is verfiable facts and...
Oh, I guess you can't use it.- withears, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3***** right.
The wingnuts like McCanus and the rest of the right-wing liars hate it when the harsh light of truth is shown upon them.
"Not a single oil spill during Katrina." LOL
Liars.
- withears, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3***** right.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -4/+5Only for the lefties?
- TYRONEBR549, on 07/17/2008, -4/+22I guess this shows why they have to get this "free speech" stuff under control. Can't have people learning the truth and acting on that knowledge. It would be their end politically. I'm sure they long for a return to the days of three controlled networks spuing their tripe and very little truth and facts.
- kemp34, on 07/17/2008, -1/+10Unless we rise up now, they will try to assert control over the net.
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3We'd all better have a backup plan, because you can bet the fascists are working on taking away the Internets. Truth in the hands of the common people is really getting in the way of their totalitarian agenda.
- kemp34, on 07/17/2008, -5/+25In spite of the fact that digg is still censored, see 1400+ diggs not reaching front page:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Something_Big_is ...
Digg does have an effect.
It would be nice to see the false dichotomy go down. Notice McCain and Obama have essentially 98%+ of the same policies. Obama bitching out on FISA, calling for youth national security squads, and saying nil about ending the global standing military presence and/or the Federal Reserve ridiculous put the nail in his coffin for me, as far as voting for him. McCain goes without saying that he is trash - he will not change anything for the better.
Also, they both have serious links to Fannie and Freddie (which have helped bankrupt our nation):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/17/politics ...
I am voting third party and encourage all to do so.- Surferess, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it has been widely noted that (1400+ diggs not reaching front page:) was a glitch that was subsequently fixed.
- kemp34, on 07/17/2008, -1/+8I hope that is true, but this is the first I have heard that. Please direct to where you saw it, I will be grateful.
- borez, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3Widely noted where?
- StingingNettle, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Dude, it just happend like two weeks ago and had a 1,000 digs under 24 hours.
- Surferess, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it has been widely noted that (1400+ diggs not reaching front page:) was a glitch that was subsequently fixed.
- goodinohio, on 07/17/2008, -4/+17They already monitor the internets. Vote Libertarian! The current two parties in control are to corrupt to salvage.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4I thought Libertarians are against net neutrality. Vote Libertarian if you want tiered internet. There fixed it for ya.
Libertarians, just like most politicians, dont give two ***** about the internet.- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Libertarians are against govt regulation of anything (they're pro-limited government). They view net neutrality as such. It's a shame, thats the one issue I'm in disagreement in. I just think that many libertarians aren't young enough to appreciate the beauty of the net and why we have to protect it.
- relic180, on 07/17/2008, -1/+7By "two parties" I think you meant one party.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/17/2008, -5/+3Uh, wouldn't the libertarians say "let the market regulate the internet" and leave it up to whoever has the biggest bank account to control the net.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4I thought Libertarians are against net neutrality. Vote Libertarian if you want tiered internet. There fixed it for ya.
- UltramegaOK, on 07/17/2008, -10/+5Digg is slightly influential, but is in no way an important "player" in American politics. Much of Ron Pauls MSM coverage can be attributed to his massive popularity on social networking sites like Digg. If it were as "important" as people make it seem, he would have been the Republican nominee.
Digg has a fairly narrow audience. The users are usually young and are more technologically savvy than their parents (thus why we get our news from the internet) . Main stream media outlets have a large audience that spans that generational divide. The truth is most Americans don't give a ***** about DIGG.
I love DIGG, but it really is just a website. Sitting behind a computer screen won't bring change to our world.
Buried for massaging the already inflated ego of Digg.- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Wow, everything you said is true yet you are being dugg down. I guess its that ego showing itself.
- jmengland, on 07/17/2008, -2/+11Digg, Reddit, Propeller, et al. are great measures of the zeitgeist that create a majority.
- tufftugg, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7 O.K. diggers, put down the bong, go outside, and just so you know, there is a big ball of flame in the sky.
- mrcoderga, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Are you not a digger?
- tufftugg, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2 Well, I haven't come out of the closet if that's what you mean.
- mrcoderga, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Are you not a digger?
- l300, on 07/17/2008, -8/+2
- JagPop, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Hmmm...I went the other way, kinda. I was raised in a staunchly Republican family (hey, I just checked the Watergate timeline and Nixon was my current age when he was elected Prez in 68 (I was 16); was 19 when Watergate was burglarized and it was just short of my 22nd when he resigned.
Guess I developed a heart watching all those Watergate hearings.
Eight months later came Operation Frequent Wind (who came up with that odoriferous name? (Frequent Wind numerologically is 66)) The image of a helicopter being pushed off the side of a ship to make room for the evacuation of Saigon is burnt into me.
You don't know disillusion until you've seen an ignominious retreat and that was preceded by Watergate.
Politics was pretty depressing back then. I really think the country went into some sort of denial-psychosis about Vietnam in the late seventies.
Then came Jimmy Carter. I know I didn't vote for him, but I liked much about him during his Presidency. Egypt was Israel's greatest enemy back then --HANDS DOWN, greatest enemy-- and Carter eliminated Israel's greatest threat (which conflict almost went nuclear in 73). Still, I was registered as a Republican, but I appreciated Carter. He had a spark of humanity about him.
Then the governor of California got the nomination as the Republican candidate.
I remember an associate telling me he was going to vote for Reagan during the primaries and I honestly (no sarcasm) thought he was joking
with me. When Reagan became the Republican candidate I was done forever as a Republican. I mean jeesh!
Guess the country needed a PR man to take us out of our post-vietnam psychosis...but, Reagan?! (From psychosis to grand delusion -- what a country.)
Did I vote for the Democrat against Bush, Sr? I honestly don't recall.
I didn't vote for Clinton, I know that. I went third party.
Then we got to vote for Joe Lieberman or Dick Cheney. How do you like them apples? (And Gore was the biggest AIPAC kiss-up BAR NONE.
!!!BAR-NONE!!!). Do you think Joe Trojan-horse Lieberman could have dropped our air cover over the east coast on 9/11 any better than Cheney? Hmmm? We'd already have attacked Syria or Iran by now if Lieberman was nearer the switch.
So I voted Nader. And today I can unhesitatingly say Nader is definitely a better Republican than McCain and a better Democrat than Obama.
So what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, head and heart. I guess I can see that Carter appealed to my heart. Yeah. And I was in my twenties. Nader appeals to my head and my heart.
- JagPop, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Hmmm...I went the other way, kinda. I was raised in a staunchly Republican family (hey, I just checked the Watergate timeline and Nixon was my current age when he was elected Prez in 68 (I was 16); was 19 when Watergate was burglarized and it was just short of my 22nd when he resigned.
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/18/2008, -1/+19The relatively free speech we enjoy on the Internet is an important defense against the rogue government, but it's extremely vulnerable. We're one false-flag attack away from having martial law declared. Do you think the fascists would think twice about shutting down these sites, or allowing on ONLY the paid shills that already infest these sites? Don't get complacent.
- jojensen, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6Go Digg!!!!! We can and will make a difference.
- shikake, on 07/18/2008, -7/+1Thailand a “Shemale” the sad story
Filed Shemale, people will not consciously think of Thailand. Thailand Shemale is a mysterious group, “their” incomparable Nenggeshanwu Jiao-yan, approached Shemale, alternative look at the beautiful history of bitterness behind the bar……
http://www.talkaboutthewoman.com/?p=72 - rondoda1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5choosehonor.com is writing a Fascist Watch List, please check.
- withears, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5That's bad news for McCanus.
- ileftfark, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Further proof that too many young adults (of which I am one) firmly believe that blogs and social media mean ***** in the everyday world.
If you disagree with this post, there's an online petition to stop me from commenting. - Meekus, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Very good article. The good thing about the web nowadays is that it is making DC much more transparent and accountable. In the older days, reality was quickly forgotten. IE - a 30 second clip of so and so doing something shady appeared only once (if at ALL) on a newscast, that only the network had archive footage of. Now, with the digital age, EVERYTHING is archived and easily accessed by the people.
My fear. Politicians, the "old guard" as the article states, puts so many government regulations that this course will change. The web, or the internet as a whole, needs to remain in the power of the people for now and forever. It is a matter of personal liberty and freedom. We must understand the importance. Those who control information, control the power. Remember 1984? How history changed at BB's whim? Possible today? Not if I have anything to say about it.- NoBailouts, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2It's sad that this article was auto-buried by Digg.
- sportsstar67, on 08/22/2008, -5/+2Digg and Youtube and the net in general are useless in politics...Paul had a lot of Internet support and failed miserably, and we all know how Howard Dean did well on the net , and we all know how poorly he did !! The net can give a candidate a brief shot, but that's it !!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is