digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ars Technica on Ron Paul Spambots

arstechnica.com — Ron Paul appears to have an almost cult-like following online, but how much of that appearance is due to the illegitimate efforts of some of his followers? A lot, some researchers say.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • danhillmoses, on 11/10/2007, -180/+280Finally, a Ron Paul article that I actually want to read.
    • Tomboys, on 11/05/2007, -61/+36same here!
      • keyboardduder, on 11/09/2007, -10/+6Ron paul is a great presidential canidate. OK, its in important point in election times and people are getting exited and they do everything they can to help. The mass media refuses to report on good candidates like him and Kucinich, so thats why they have a cult-online following. The "spammers" submit stories and glorify them any way that they can. Whats wrong with that? The news companies have orgasms over the so called "frontrunners" Ghoulface-Bomb-Iran Guliani and Lightlips-stonewalling-professional-politician-cant-think-for-herself Hillary. When people are exited about a canidate it shows passion for someone. Its not a following, its not something a non-individual would do, and its not a bad thing. You have the right to be sick of it, but don't bury it cause it has his name. Thats just plain ignorant.
    • Floris, on 11/05/2007, -92/+110Same here, because I am ***** sick and tired of ron paul every 10th article on digg, posted by users who got hired to post them. i auto bury all ron paul stories, and this one got an exception and got dugg
      • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -56/+30Well, then, ff you're so ***** sick and tired of it, why don't you just ***** NOT READ THE RON PAUL ARTICLES AND GO SOMEPLACE ELSE?!?!?! It's like the radio...if you don't like what you hear, you can turn the radio off or change the station. Don't like RP stories on Digg, don't read them! You'll be calmer that way, and feel safer in the comforting arms of Rudy Jailiani.
        • mt066, on 11/05/2007, -18/+36You can't just not read them, it's every 3rd article: "Ron Paul: Christlike Saviour or Praiseworthy Idol?" "Ron Paul Saves Kitten From Burning Building" "Ron Paul Constitution blablalbal"

          The only way would be if they made a Ron Paul section and forced every article that even mentions him in there so I could just block it.
      • Tomchei, on 11/10/2007, -44/+27Pretty sad you don't care about your personal liberty.

        Too much of anything is too much but you wanting to bury Ron Paul stories proves that the message in George Romero's Zombie movies are true; you want to ignore the problem.
        • reed311, on 11/10/2007, -20/+21Pretty sad that you think reading a few stories on a website will actually make a difference. Most people are aware of him and they just don't give a ***** anymore, we're sick of it.
        • Aiwanei, on 11/10/2007, -12/+29I care about my personal liberty but I swear some of these ron paul stories are just the same thing over and over. I'm just waiting for one where it will say "Ron Paul had a Peanut Butter sandwich for Lunch" I mean yeah people love Ron Paul great, but half the stories that make it to the front page are pretty close to the same article with just a few slight changes in details.

          Honestly I bet if all of a sudden there was at least 3 Guiliani stories on the front page you would start feeling the same way other people do.

          And if you are such a supporter of personal liberties why are you trying to silence someone's freedom of speech? you are what I call a hypocrite.
          • firekrakcer, on 11/05/2007, -8/+15I don't think he was trying to silence anyone, more like Tomchei was giving his opinion on Floris point of view.

            I am neutral as to who should be the next presedent but think I agree with the Ron Paulies on this one. If you don't want to read about him then uh don't click. I am a long time digg user and I have never felt I had to click every story I see just the ones that interest me.
          • Tomchei, on 11/05/2007, -12/+6Where have I tried to silence someone's freedom of speech?

            All I said was that he is ignoring the problem.
      • avihappy, on 11/08/2007, -7/+22-WARNING-Dangerous Concentration of Ron Paulboys Beyond This Point-Scroll At Your Own Risk-
      • sinurgy, on 11/09/2007, -9/+8Just don't read them if you don't like it for whatever silly reason. Hell I hate Apple, I could careless about Leopard or the iPhone or any of their other proprietary junk but you don't see me going into those articles and bitching! To each their own. As for people getting paid to post...paranoid much? lol...c'mon man think about it, you could get paid A LOT more to deliver pizzas!
    • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -58/+35Why? Are you seriously getting an inbox full of Ron Paul spam?

      Spambots don't have money to donate, assholes.
      • FTLJohnson, on 11/05/2007, -25/+245 Million Dollars donated by hundreds of thousands of robots.... The second renaissance has begun. Soon they will start forming the Matrix and humanity will be doomed... I for one, welcome our new freedom supporting robotic overlords. (wait, is that a contradiction?)
      • alanr19, on 11/05/2007, -26/+20So where is his money coming from? Names, corporations etc? Yeah thought not.

        By the way spambots don't have election votes either so you can kiss Ron Pauls ass goodbye when real life kicks in.

        • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/05/2007, -16/+22@ronbot:
          when he isn't elected, will 'real life' kick in for you?
        • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -3/+11If they don't have money and they don't have votes, and Ron Paul is getting money... I'm sorry, your train left the station but it was derailed somewhere around Coherentville.
        • n8glenn, on 11/08/2007, -4/+9He just raised 5 million dollars, and it came from people all over the country, are you just not paying attention?
          • NoStoppingUs, on 11/04/2007, -5/+5that will buy..what....5 30 second commercials during primetime? keep dreaming
    • Proctor, on 11/05/2007, -65/+12Are you stupid? Every story you submit, I'm going to bury it, and then send it to all my friends to bury. ***** like you shouldn't be allowed to participate on Digg.
      • bjornski, on 11/05/2007, -11/+39You have friends?
      • bentman78, on 11/05/2007, -43/+11The way the left does things. Silence critics and those they disagree with. How tolerant of you...
        • Coven, on 11/05/2007, -6/+24Because a Ron Paul supporter is on the left...right?
        • hiikeeba, on 11/01/2007, -6/+8It's the way both sides do things.
      • andshewas, on 11/04/2007, -3/+4Why would you waste your time following some digg user around, burying all his stories and bugging your "friends" to do it to? Dude, get a life. "*****" like you who dick around blindly burying stories "shouldn't be allowed to participate on digg" either.
      • rz8472, on 11/04/2007, -2/+4Way to follow his policy of freedom. I'm sure Ron Paul would be proud /sarcasm.
    • FTLJohnson, on 11/08/2007, -36/+127What I want to know is how they built ACTUAL Spam Robots!? I mean seriously.... There are Ron Paul signs ALL OVER my town. I haven't actually seen the robots putting them there... (I would really like to!) However, I am really impressed with the fact that REAL LIFE Ron Paul supporters are so skilled with robotics that they could create machines that go from small town to small town all over America putting up Ron Paul signs, effectively spamming everybody. Those have got to be some good robots, able to operate a hammer, possibly a staple gun, and dispense tape.... They really get around too. Not to mention how stealthy they are... I mean ... I have not seen ONE Ron Paul robot... NEVER! I've only run into real actual Ron Paul supporters that were human beings, so these spam bots have got to be some of the most impressive things I've ever heard people come up with.
      • andshewas, on 11/08/2007, -20/+51Yeah, the robots must drive, too. I've seen plenty Ron Paul bumper stickers. They must also walk around town leaving flyers and informational brochures. Gosh, those robots are eerily talented.
      • tyzent, on 11/05/2007, -9/+24support for ron paul in philadelphia is no joke, he had more support during the night of the democratic debate than any of the democrats. there is a ron paul rally in a week, and more people gave me ron paul flyers and pamphlets than any others (although i got a lot of legalizing marijuana pamphlets too). i'm not saying this because i'm a huge ron paul fan, just saying that those who do support him go crazy in real life too, not just on the internetting.
      • GawtMilk, on 11/08/2007, -4/+27This just in : all Ron Paul Robots are ninjas.
      • dracostimpy, on 11/08/2007, -4/+24I am unit 1105 of the newly released RP1776 model of cybertronic sign-posting automaton. Immediately cease all discussion of Paulbots, or I will use my ninja emulator programming to dispense with you for jeopardizing our mission. Asimov's robot laws to me are like the Constitution is to George Bush. You have no chance to survive make your time.
      • loudestnoise, on 11/08/2007, -5/+17No kidding, "Who is Ron Paul" and "Google Ron Paul" signs all over Nashville, TN. Must have been the robots. Damn robots.
      • thejwac, on 11/05/2007, -4/+11The signs are all over the Phoenix Metropolitan area as well. It's hard to go more than a few miles without seeing one. People who are tired of the disaster our government has become are making a stand.
      • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry there are asshats who claim to be supporting Ron Paul and are spamming your online experience. Please, let's find the people running these illegal botnets (since separate IPs are required) and bring them to justice under civil law.

        Believe it or not, there is actually a large amount of supporters out there "IRL" who rally and donate, and if you ever just want to have a sane discussion on politics we'll probably be more than happy to oblige.
    • Daedalus81, on 11/08/2007, -30/+53I exist in real life and I donated to his campaign.
      That's one. I'm pretty sure there are others.
      • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/05/2007, -23/+9well that was emo
      • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -15/+36I also donated to RP's campaign - the full legal monty of $2300 - first time I've ever done that. That's how important it is. And hey, I'd like to see whose candidacy the SKEPTICS are supporting, with their labor and/or dollars.
        • EmoSLWarrior, on 11/05/2007, -10/+4That, my friend is THE problem. There is NO ONE worth supporting this time around because every single candidate is either untenable (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, etc...) or just more of the same crap (Clinton, Ghouliani, etc...). Add to that, the fact that Americans are so split on what they believe is the most important set of issues and you soon realize it is not possible to attain consensus unless everyone drops their ideals and goes for lowest common denominator. This means that in the end, only one of the major party candidate will win in 2008. The core Ron Paul supporters will likely lean towards the right since many of the Libertarians are pretty much Republicans as it is. The less intelligent left leaning Ron Paul supporters will vote for the most likely left candidate. And then we'll have another four years of dysfunctional American politics no matter who wins.

          The only way this is going to to change is with a lot of suffering in America. That could possibly mean, economic catastrophe which will force people to pull their heads out of the sand and focus on what really matters most to America, whatever that may end up being. It could also potentially mean civil war, which some people are itching for since they are ignorant of the reality and likely see it as some new Xbox 360 game to be played in the streets. I'll give you a single example: Universal Health Care.

          People like me believe that everyone in American society should have a guaranteed floor for their quality of life. One that is provided for by the rest of society. One that is enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not necessarily comfortable. The discomfort would be the incentive for them to actually contribute to society by being productive. Yes, there will still be people who would prefer to live without doing any work and will accept that floor as perfectly fine. It's their loss, not ours.

          Others feel that providing such a floor would rob those who are productive members of society of a portion of their hard earned income and give it to someone who is undeserving. They also likely believe that there is a much higher percentage of people who would just "slack" and live off of the state. These people would also argue that if there is such a segment of society, then why would others have any incentive to be productive members of society?

          I won't get into my counter arguments here because I'm merely trying to illustrate the wide gap in beliefs for just the simple issue of universal health care. Because of this conceptual gulf, universal health care is always controversial. Trying to come up with something "in the middle" is a near impossibility. Because if it's "in the middle", then it's not going to do much good for those who actually need it and it's also going to make the people who oppose it very unhappy that it's there at all. The opposition will then do everything they can to dismantle it or to put up barriers (tax shelters, lobbyist and so forth) to funding for it. In the end, the result would be a universal health care system that is underfunded, so it can't compete with private entities (shot dead before leaving the gate).

          That is why it's not realistic to even consider alternative candidates. The time is not right. Once we can mend the rifts in American ideals, then we might have a shot at changing the system.
          • Daedalus81, on 11/05/2007, -6/+10The era of entitlement needs to end in my opinion. My family grew up in poverty with 5 children, but my parents always worked hard and never expected someone to help them. Now they live mid- town in a nice house. Two of my siblings are engineers (one with masters, one with a PHD), one is an artist, and one still in highschool.

            If you get the government out of the health care system then maybe it won't be so demonstrably unafforable for low income families.
          • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -1/+4I've been a libertarian since 1979. People are ALWAYS saying "the time is not right". So when WILL it be right? Do we have to suffer a complete wholesale collapse of everything before the time is "right" to try new ideas? It may not matter then...
          • guntario, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2"People like me believe that everyone in American society should have a guaranteed floor for their quality of life. One that is provided for by the rest of society. "

            So... You're a socialist. No wonder you're against Ron Paul.
          • EmoSLWarrior, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2@guntario

            Congrats for posting the most pointless response I've seen on Digg since I've joined. Well done.
          • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3@EmoSLWarrior: I hear ya man, but voting for the best candidate available (first or third-party) is better than not voting at all. At least then we have a less hostile environment to live in.
          • EmoSLWarrior, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1@nakani

            I agree. That's why I will vote in 2008. I'm just not sure who I'll vote for. But I know who I WON'T vote for. Ghouliani and Paul are "off the table" for me. Beyond, that I have no idea...
        • kingkilr, on 11/05/2007, -13/+10I'm supporting Barack Obama, mostly with my labor(I volunteer with their IT department).
          • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -3/+1OK...there's one honest one out there, at least... ;^)
        • clothmonkey, on 11/05/2007, -2/+8@Emo: I agree with you, more or less, but there is more to universal health care than that. A very real, very major problem is the way that health insurance companies are being run. It is utterly nonsensical that someone could in good faith hold health insurance, and then when disaster strikes, their lives are still ruined financially. This is not just about a minimum standard, although I believe that that is necessary for us to call ourselves civilized; it is about repairing an essentially corrupt system which has oriented itself to the tune of money. Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing our hospitals and doctors, I am arguing against the payment system. Detractors: please list for me the number of modernized, "first-world" countries where serious health care issues can result in such dire financial straits that your life is so totally destroyed, in an effort to preserve it.
          • EmoSLWarrior, on 11/05/2007, -2/+6You are quite right on that point. There is big business and big government collusion which is what has led us to the mess we're in now. And that is yet another split in the schizophrenic American mindset. Some people lay the blame at big government saying that we need to pare it down so that businesses can rely on a free market to allow the best to rise to the top. Others blame the loosening or outright elimination of government regulation that has allowed big business to run roughshod over the common citizen's bank account (see energy de-regulation which is putting people in the poor house). So in saying that the payment system is a core problem for American health care, you are 100% right in my opinion. But you'll get detractors saying that there is nothing wrong with it as long as their stock portfolio is benefiting from the current payment system. You'll also get the people who think that it is the ultimate sin to affect the profits of any successful business even if that business is damaging people's lives. For many, the health and welfare of business is far more important than the lives of anonymous individuals bearing the brunt of financial hardship at the hands of those same businesses. Much like war, where the enemy is made faceless, so are the victims of corporate greed made faceless.
      • Chompy, on 11/05/2007, -17/+11Let us know when you grow up and look at the issues, rather flocking to the latest "alt" candidate.
        • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -9/+11I've been watching Ron Paul for 20 years - he's still the best man for the job. A "grownup" would spare the comments and engage in honest debate. Which candidate do YOU endorse, and why?
          • reed311, on 11/05/2007, -13/+7Who you personally support should be your own business. You shouldn't wear it on your sleeve like it's the cool thing to do.
          • clothmonkey, on 11/05/2007, -3/+10@reed: DEAD wrong. First, if you're not here to debate, what are you doing commenting on Digg? Are you just here to posture for the sake of trolling? Second, if you believe you know who is most qualified to lead our country, why would you refuse to discuss it? This kind of behavior leads me to believe you are either one of the many who do not vote, or someone outside the country who genuinely does not have an opinion on the matter. Finally, if we are going to escape the issue of the MSM telling us who is electable and who is not, then we absolutely MUST try to let people know that there are indeed alternatives. To do any less is to allow our choices to be constrained by others. Personally, I am unwilling to accept that.
        • Daedalus81, on 11/05/2007, -4/+6I'm sorry that you have to presume that I don't look at the issues. You are the child here.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -5/+16I've never donated to a campaign either, and I gladly kicked my part in and I plan on taking part in the November 5th moneybomb.
        • guntario, on 11/05/2007, -2/+5I believe that a majority of Americans are feeling the same way. I have never really taken an interest to politics because I believed all politicians were corrupted. When I saw Ron Paul, I was surprised that there was a politician that not only told the truth, but without reservation. And he was voicing the things that I had been so frustrated about. How could I not donate my time and money to see that he gets into office? How could I not tell everyone I know about him? I'm pretty sure that people who are complaining just haven't gotten that fever yet. You'll all come around :)
    • boonesfarm, on 11/05/2007, -25/+26I view Digg posts through my Google portal. It would be ideal if Digg or the Google module implemented a filter that allowed me to enter a phrase, like "Ron Paul", and those posts would never be shown to me. I'd be much happier, and the two dozen RP spam artists could have the hourly Ron Paul circlejerk within Digg.
      As far as receiving junk mail regarding RP - I haven't seen it, butt he irony would be priceless. The "Mr. Smith" candidate funded by phishing and blackhat tactics? How could the Neo-Pauls justify that?
      • TheHydrogens, on 11/05/2007, -7/+17I'm not sure I understand this tactic of people that try to discredit by putting Neo- in front of any word they can think of. Do people just not know what it means? I'm fairly sure that is the case... because "New Pauls" doesn't make any sense. You can't really have a group of "New Pauls" when the guy is running right now.
        • cdahlkvist, on 11/05/2007, -8/+11I understand your loathing of the who "neo-this", "neo-that" crap. It is getting very old. However, New Pauls could very likely indicate the ones that are just jumping on the bandwagon. Sure, he hasn't run in the past but most of the Paul supporters just heard of him and think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread yet they actually know very little about him other than what a "friend" told them.

          That is a big problem in the U.S. Word of mouth politics with a severe lack of follow-up research.
        • satanatnmtedu, on 11/05/2007, -11/+10Uhh, Paul HAS run in the past as a Libertarian. You haven't heard about him because he is a kook.
      • hiikeeba, on 11/05/2007, -6/+9Then there wouldn't be any articles on Digg.
    • BobOki, on 11/05/2007, -5/+18Quote from the wired article yesterday:

      "The interesting thing was that we had the same subject line from the same IP address, and it claimed to be from different users from within the United States," Warner says.

      When did botnets use one ip?
      Why does ARS say differently.
      Who is correct here?
    • mwalker05, on 11/05/2007, -9/+21so was it spambots that made one of the longest waiting lines in history for the tonight show when ron paul was on it the other night?
    • rz8472, on 11/05/2007, -2/+9Ok, I admire Ron Paul for a lot of his views, but people need to realize he is not the end-all as far as principled politicians go.

      Why are there no articles on Senator Russ Feingold (this is from a person from California btw)? He was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, the only senator to call for censure of the President (Ron Paul has not called for either censure or impeachment directly), the first senator to call for withdrawal from Iraq, one of a tiny minority of senators to oppose media conglomeration, one of a few senators who wants to pull out of NAFTA, WTO, and GATT, is not afraid to criticize his own party, and is one of the original authors of campaign finance reform. In context, he's also under a lot more pressure to 'moderate' his votes - Ron Paul could probably vote his conscience with impunity knowing that he's a virtual shoo-in for his next congressional district election. Feingold represents a swing state (Wisconsin) where there are more Republicans than Democrats, but still manages to vote his conscience regardless of what may happen next election cycle.

      Also Feingold made and kept a promise in 1992 to not take special interest money in his campaign, which would compel an 'average' senator to vote for whats convenient even more. Also Feingold is one of the few senators who is not part of the 'millionaires' club' - he doesn't take pay raises in Congress (essentially taking a $18,000 pay cut each year), is only worth only about $200,000 in networth, has TWO mortgages on his house, and $7700 in credit card debit. It's theoretically easier for a rich guy to resist the lure of special interests since he has the personal connections and funds to compensate, but there's something about a senator who's as bad (or possibly even worse) off as the rest of us and who does the same that deserves recognition. (See here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=236730 ...

      Not only that, Feingold is one of the few senators to spend more time in his state than in Washington, takes no money from special interests, and holds a 'listening session' every month in one of Wisconsin's 72 counties where most of the session is spent simply taking down notes on hearing what ordinary people are saying, rather than trying to indoctrinate people on a specific viewpoint.

      I guess my point is... why is there a 1000-digg every time Ron Paul smiles and nothing on this man, who is just as principled, but has sacrificed much more to be just as principled?
      • endersadvocate, on 11/05/2007, -1/+10because Ron Paul has a chance of actually changing something.
        if feingold ran for president, maybe people would give him the time of day?
      • Moonrider, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Feingold is not so principled; he, along with McCain, authored and pushed through one of the worst peices of legislation ever for America's elections. The so called "campaign finance reform" law turned out to be an incumbents protection bill. This bill made it much more diffiicult for any challenger to oust an incumbent, and for alternatiive party members to even got on the ballot. They (McCain and Feingold) either knew what would come of it, in which case they have nothing but contempt for America, Americans and our elections process; or they didn't know, in which case they are very poor legislators -- no bill should EVER be passed without those writing it, introducing it, and voting on it knowing all the possible consequences, good and bad and the constitutionality of the legislation. That law is patently unconstitutional.
    • SilverRocket, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4Cuz he has two first names.
    • notanidiot, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Oh, so they want us to believe that there are people over in Korea spamming for Ron Paul. Sure! That makes perfect sense.
    • dwb1133, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1If you do not care for Ron Paul, I can completely respect that. But lets look at the facts presented in this article, namely, the lack of them. This article presents no useful data; as it is written it is nothing more than an opinion piece... No figures were presented to tell us what percentage of the emails were corrupt. For all we can tell an anti-Paul writer found a single email routed through Italy and developed this story. Terms like "many", “a number” and "suspicion" are vague; and as such hardly belong in any document claiming to present or review some form of statistical analysis. I’m NOT calling the author of this article a liar...I’m merely bringing attention to the fact that there are no facts presented...this is an opinion piece...
  • alenonimo, on 11/06/2007, -75/+24I knew it! It was too much publicity for one guy over the Internet!

    Cheap bastards!
    • Murdats, on 11/05/2007, -22/+32spam bots dont donate money though.
      • bjornski, on 11/05/2007, -16/+10No, but with internet deregulation being most likely to come from him and his candidacy, who do you think the viagra crowd is going to back?

        Like it costs them anything to send 100 million e-mails.

        He's their best bet at overturning the anti-spam laws. Of course they'll support him.
      • Gerz1219, on 11/02/2007, -16/+10No, only lonely well-paid IT workers who live in their parents' basement, and have a lot of disposable income that they can't spend on dating.
        • guntario, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2Strange... I have read a few articles that say the same thing! How easily you must be swayed!
    • Reponere, on 11/02/2007, -17/+14You wish it wasn't just the internet.
  • chupavacas, on 11/06/2007, -56/+286It is important to note that this involves a case of email spam and not Digg spam, online poll rigging, etc. I think I speak for all Ron Paul supporters when I say that this kind of action is not helping and not welcome, it creates the appearance that RP's support is manufactured and could sour the true base.
    • tempusrob, on 11/08/2007, -45/+62And the Digg spam/poll rigging doesn't?
      • vellaem, on 11/02/2007, -22/+4Silence, spambot.

        /sarcasm
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 11/08/2007, -12/+37Im not sure how you rig a poll. You could clear the cookie and vote again but I'm willing to bet it stores your IP address on the web server. So to get around that you have to spoof IP's or even easier, create a bot net. True, ron paul has a huge following on the internet. Because of this the ron paul fans vote in disproportionate numbers when a poll comes up. But I submit to you this: There are a "*****" of other candidates. If they had any real support by young people, wouldn't you think they would do the same thing?
        • Ulisses, on 11/05/2007, -14/+15Because they don't need to. They actually rule REAL polls and fundraising so why would they care to organize in a draconian fashion to flood online polls who no one but RP's supporters give a ***** about?
          • guntario, on 11/05/2007, -3/+2If the people don't care about the polls (I'm believing you'd fall into that category), why are they so upset about them?
        • StarlessKnight, on 11/03/2007, -3/+7You do realize there are candidates out there that aren't named Hillary, Obama, Guliani, etc, right? Ones that aren't leading in polls? Maybe--just maybe, I know I'm reaching here--those are the ones tcpip4lyfe was talking about. Those that could stand to benefit.
        • TheHydrogens, on 11/05/2007, -2/+16@Ulisses if that is the case, then why is there so much bitching when RP does so well in online polls? Also, I don't think you know how to use the word draconian... stick to words you know please.
        • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3"spoof IP's or even easier, create a bot net."

          Yeah, you have a firm grasp on technology if you think setting up and operating a bot net is easy. The sheer amount of effort that it would take to reel some suckers in with a virus'd up download and doing it without getting busted would probably be considerably more difficult than resetting your cable modem.
          • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3It'd take a bonified blackhat hacker, or at least, a script kiddie with "mad skillz".
      • howie, on 11/05/2007, -14/+17What digg spam/poll rigging?

        Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean that it is organized.
        • Herkimer56, on 11/05/2007, -7/+14That's not entirely correct. Go to the forums of sites like prisonplanet where they openly discuss how to game Digg and push Ron Paul stories to the front page. It happens all the time. Stormfront recently ran an article telling it's members how to spam sites like YouTube and Digg for Ron Paul.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 11/05/2007, -1/+7There are sites out there organizing burying of Ron Paul stories too. It evens out.
        • Barbosa, on 11/05/2007, -11/+5all the support rp gets from neonazis and racists is enough to keep me from voting for him (not to mention his own views).
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 11/05/2007, -1/+8In other words you were never going to vote for him in the first place and you are using guilt by association to get other people to not vote for him either.
          • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+5Right... better to have deep seeded racists in office than have them supporting a candidate. I'm also sure there are no racists supporting Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson.
      • dafragsta, on 11/01/2007, -4/+5Right... I guess there's no difference between a cold machine shotgunning the internet away at night and passionate people writing coherent responses one at a time. No difference at all.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -29/+34So, we're to believe that despite using email spam which is very ineffective, the spammers ignored Digg and the amount of traffic it gives? That despite Ron Paul stories get 20% of the coverage in Digg Election 2008 section, and 1% in mainstream press? It is plainly obvious the same people are spamming Digg with Ron Paul stories.
      • RUFuKinCrazy, on 11/05/2007, -21/+16Nice way to ignore the more likely, and true, alternative; that the mainstream press is supressing Ron Paul stories.
        • Ulisses, on 11/05/2007, -10/+17Ahahah clever.
          That was sarcasm, right?
        • Chompy, on 11/05/2007, -6/+13I guess you could say that, if "not covering" actually meant anything like "suppressing".
        • clothmonkey, on 11/05/2007, -0/+7If, as a outlet of media, you show film of people who support candidate A, but not candidate B, even though it is at the same place, the same time, and they both have vocal, visible support, is that "not covering" or "suppressing"?
    • catfish182, on 11/02/2007, -11/+9This is what i have been trying to say. The appearance on Digg makes it look like 20 people have 20 accounts and everything ron paul goes up. then the most dugg comments are simple hack written blubs about how great he is. SO now there is email spam going on. who is to blame? who knows but media will take the quickest route to get to a story and they will see the things that happen here and move on it.

      So is the paul people being mature about it and trying to show these media outlets that the email spam is unrelated to the force that is Ron Paul? NOPE.
      Instead once again we see name calling and excuses. I told you this would happen.
      why dont you direct all of those people that donated money (what all 10,000 of them?) and start a email of your own to the media saying "we didnt do the spam bot" or something.
      Crossing your arms and bitching only makes you look guilty.
      • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -5/+5Keep counting the money. $5 million last quarter, and maybe a lot more this quarter. I think only Hillary, Rudy and Mitt are doing better, Romney because he has to write checks from his own bank. All three of those candidates need tens of millions because they all have to "buy" votes. RP does not.
        • catfish182, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2see tao52nyc proves my point. What was the reply? was it something intelligent about how the media needs to get the complete story? was it something about how even though it looks similar people should not jump to conclusions? Nope it was none of that. The response was "look how much money we made!"

          maybe i am wrong. Maybe the ron paul movement on digg is doing the spam.
          i can not wait until this movement dies its much needed death.
        • catfish182, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2who is digging me down? Please say its the anti paul people. I hope it is. if its the pro paul people then its prefect and proves my point.
          Those mindless lemmings will digg down anything that sounds like a rip on paul.

          Long Live the mindless zombies of Paul!!!!!
          • superjer, on 11/05/2007, -1/+1I dugg you down because your post was condescending and just outright dumb.
            Ex1: "I told you this would happen."
            Ex2: "...start a email of your own to the media saying 'we didnt do the spam bot' or something."
          • catfish182, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1hey superjer,
            well, to be honest, if you follow the things i have posted.
            I TOLD THEM SO. thats not dumb your just late.

            My post was condescending but no different as how i get treated, along with many other people that think for themselves and only question things about the followers of Paul. so i may be bitter and it hurts my overall case but i can live with that.

            as for your second example which i assume you think is the dumb part. is it dumb for spamming (sorry its not spam when the church of paul does it) the media outlets or is it what i told them to say?
    • dtschwe, on 11/05/2007, -4/+23this could be about the worst thing a supporter could do considering how often popular online support for Ron is labeled "spam."
      very few people paying attention to reports of this will say that spambots do not:
      donate $2.6 million a month
      vote in text messaging polls
      make youtube videos
      write songs
      show up to hear him speak by the hundreds and sometimes thousands
      post yard signs
      or stand on street corners passing out flyers
      • dafragsta, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Do you not see that because the neocons and Hillarycons have been decrying it as spam for the past few weeks that this is only the next logical step? It's kinda like sitting in a room telling people that plants need water, only everyone is a parrot and instead says "Brondo is what plants crave. It's got electrolytes!"

        There is steamrolling strength in numbers. Once the numbers are there, all you need is a rallying call, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, they just want someone to preach to the choir.
        • allahuakbar, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Gatorade is what plants crave. Recognize.
    • multitude, on 11/02/2007, -4/+7There is definitely tons of digg spam for Ron Paul. I've noted this in a bunch of comments, and it is entirely clear that this is happening. It just so happens that it's tougher to research than email spam because of the fact that digg databases are closed. If digg staff wanted to look into the problem I'm sure that they'd have some pretty clear statistics about what is happening, but it seems that they have little incentive to do so.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3I say Digg support, you say Digg spam. Digg is a democratic system. It might be equally prone to corruption, but right now someone else is prevailing, and you can't stand it. I say let the Digg team investigate any charges of Ron Paul spam.
  • dartmanx, on 11/06/2007, -46/+23The man is trying to hold Ron Paul down! Too bad he voted against the "Anti-Man Keeping Ron Paul Down Act of 2007" since it wasn't specifically authorized by the Constitution.
    • pasatiempos, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Freedom of speech. It's not necesarilly agreeing with you, but letting you speak your mind nonetheless.
  • Ades, on 11/10/2007, -56/+246well, you see hordes of ron paul supporters on the streets even on the democratics debate... i guess these people are real life "spam-robots"..
    • alciadanet, on 11/06/2007, -28/+84It's always the same group of 200 people, traveling around the country, from event to event.
      ;-D
    • Paroparo, on 11/05/2007, -18/+22I would think them existing in real life, and in great numbers kind of disqualifies them from being spambots.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/02/2007, -26/+16That's funny, I haven't seen any... oh wait thats because, overall they don't exist.... unless you watch the same youtube video over and over and don't get out much.
      • andshewas, on 11/05/2007, -6/+17Ron Paul has thousands of meetup groups with tens of thousands of members. You can very easily check there for pictures of the groups at rallies and straw polls. But no, it's just easier to assume the majority of Dr. Paul's supporters are the same computers that send you penis enlargement ads, isn't it?
        • Chompy, on 11/01/2007, -3/+10There's HOJILLIONS! And he's a DOCTOR!
        • Herkimer56, on 11/01/2007, -5/+6It's still an insignificant number of people when compared to the number that it will take to get him the nomination. Ron Paul is good at turning out his cult members for public events but a couple of hundred supporters isn't enough. You're about to discover this when the Iowa caucuses happen.
          • andshewas, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2You missed the point of the thread.
        • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -2/+3The Iowa caucuses are bought and paid for. Ho hum. Let's reserve comment until there is real voting, like in New Hampshire.
      • pasatiempos, on 11/05/2007, -1/+5What about on the internet? On DIGG no less. Are we all spambots? Do you actually think you're not talking to a real human being?
        His message is a real positive one. If you haven't checked it out I'd suggest you gave yourself the opportunity to do so.
    • SOYSOY, on 11/05/2007, -3/+12dont forget all the "spam signs" as well!!!
    • isellmacs, on 11/05/2007, -2/+9Thats one thing I don't get; How can people call legitimate votes from legitimate American citizens who choose to vote for a less corrupt canidate as "spam"?

      How is it that mary-loo-beth-ann-christine-franks and billy-jo-bob-hank-arron-franks can sit around praying to God and have the divine media (Fox) tell them which way to vote, and some how THEIR vote is more legitimate than somebody such as I, who actually READS and LISTENS to what's going on, and makes an informed choice.

      I don't like the way bible-belters usually vote, but they still have the right to vote. They don't like the way I vote, so my vote should be discounted?

      They parade 10 old rich white republicans, and 9 out of 10 are incompentent sounding and speak openly about how they are going to ***** this country COMPLETELY and sell out to this or that special interest group And then you have 1 guy who stands up and says "Hey, maybe we should follow traditional AMERICAN (constitutional) and traditional REBUPLICAN (remember when they supported the constitution?) values, and NOT ***** the coutry"

      Is it so really hard to believe, that so many Americans would say "Hey, maybe instead of watching our government collapse under it's own corruption, we'll actually DO SOMETHING about it!" Voting for RP is doing something about it. Far better to have RP than another neocon.
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2or 'phony voters', in Limbaughese.
    • BESTenemy, on 11/05/2007, -4/+3First Al Qaeda is setting wild fires, then it's spam bots supporting Ron Paul. What is is this world coming to!

      / Sarcasm
    • BESTenemy, on 11/05/2007, -2/+5Was Jay Leno's audience also full of bots?
    • Daedalus17, on 11/05/2007, -1/+4Yeah when Barack Obama came to my university campus there were the same amount of Obama signs as Paul signs in the crowd. They must be pumping those robots out of the factory in record time!
  • DBNKR, on 11/05/2007, -38/+19Until a proper virus-company like Norman and Norton say something, this is just hear-say. For this to be true, there must exist a "Ron Paul-virus", that infects your computer and spews out on polls and emails.
    • fac3less, on 11/05/2007, -3/+1That's actually an excellent idea to get the polls rigged. ;)
  • OSURoss, on 11/06/2007, -30/+17I wonder how fast this story will be buried...
  • jlink7, on 11/10/2007, -55/+189A guide to discrediting a political candidate:

    Step 1: Hire a botnet to send out a simple copy & paste job from a website that details the strong qualities of a candidate. Regardless of the positive message, spam will be regarded as spam.

    Step 2: Hire an "independant" research firm to conduct analysis on those spam emails to claim that somehow these emails are representative of the actual following of that candidates.

    Not saying that is what has happened, and is just as likely that a misguided supporter set it up, but nonetheless, it would be a simple way to discredit any politician with "only" an internet following.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/03/2007, -9/+16Thanks for l33t guide! This will bring down any candidate I want now. Do you have any for hacking runescape accounts? lol.
    • Nodaki, on 11/05/2007, -3/+8Excellent analysis jlink.
    • captnkurt, on 11/05/2007, -1/+12Step 3. Profit!!
    • mt066, on 11/03/2007, -8/+16Why is it always a conspiracy with you guys? Every time something opposes Ron Paul, all I keep hearing is "Big Government" this or "The Media(TM)" that. Maybe people just don't like him.
      • pasatiempos, on 11/03/2007, -3/+9Exactly why some people try to discredit him. Some don't like him, which is why they try to take away what he has. Credibility.
      • starvo, on 11/03/2007, -9/+4Exactly. I don't like him. I don't like his supporters, and I sure as ***** don't like reading articles or getting spam about his stupid ass. The type of people that vote for paul tend to be a bit overly-fanatical, and they tend to kind of obsess about their "thing of the moment" in this case, it's Paul. after he loses the election, they'll move back on to obsessing about Chemtrails, Enterprisemission.com, and whatever else is hip for the up-and-coming looney Libertarian* crowd.

        *Not that all Libertarians are Looney. Just the few that I've seen that support Paul tend to be.. extreme. There are also Loonies from every side of the political spectrum, and quite frankly I think every candidate sucks. I'll flip a coin or roll a dice and vote for whomever the ***** on election day. Or I'll vote for Kodos or Kang.
        • Vorin, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5I'm not a Libertarian. I'm republican, and this is the first republican candidate that agrees with my views, not the other way around.
        • BlackJackJester, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5I say, any candidate that can get this many people into this "overly fanatical" state is obviously striking a chord with people. People who support Hillary or Guiliani tend to just hear the news, say "hey, thats who i'm voting for", then sit down, and change the channel. Paul gets people excited with a message so different than the moderate idyllic views of every other candidate, and so crazy it might actually work. I'm no fan of ridiculous internet spam, but all it takes is one person to work a botnet, it takes a strong following to raise the amount of money he has.
        • yoinkdigg, on 11/03/2007, -3/+1I support Ron Paul and have never commented or dugg a story about him. Some people actually care about the state of the government and the state of the economy and actually want Ron Paul to win. Not every Ron Paul fan is a spammer, not every one is a fanatical crazy person. Ron Paul is simply the best candidate to me, and his donations and average donation show that he is for alot of people. I've never even donated or dugg a story of his, but yet I support him. Beyond the "spammers" and internet fans, he has alot of real-world pull. From people like me.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/05/2007, -8/+9The first thing should be "Think about what the candidate says and reality." People who are jumping ont he Paul bandwagon are not thinking about what he says. They are caught up in the sound bites and slogans.
      • Khendroc, on 11/05/2007, -3/+13That's BS, the reason everyone across party lines loves him so much is because he isn't made up of sound bites and slogans. He strongly believes everything he says, and his track record in congress proves that.
      • BlackJackJester, on 11/05/2007, -1/+7His only sound bite, or slogan is "Liberty", and that is fine by me. I'm personally surprised at how many hillary zombies there are out there, who are just caught up in...crap, can't even think of one thing I like about her.
      • huertanix, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3What the candidate has said is truth, and after uncountable years of BS from Washington, that in and of itself supersedes agreeing 100% with him on every issue.
  • TheRealM3D, on 11/09/2007, -51/+114Smear campaign. GG Neocons!

    Just because someone is email-spamming on behalf of Ron Paul doesn't invalidate his results in straw polls or his general popularity on social networking sites like Digg, Facebook, etc. The high level of interest and support in Ron Paul actually exists and its still growing. Attempts to discredit his campaign using stories like these reeks of desperation from the established two-parties-in-one system that has been in control of America for the last 50 years. Maybe our younger generation will wake up, really get out and vote for alternative candidates and start to effect some change.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/05/2007, -17/+20yeah, if you all stop annoying me with these ron paul posts in every digg article maybe I would care. (maybe if I was interested I would have looked up him on youtube on my own time?)
      • kazamx, on 11/05/2007, -9/+14Turn off the politics2008 section, then you won't see any more RP stuff. Happy now?
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/03/2007, -7/+15wtf? it is turned off. they submit it under different categories because the idea of spamming (real life people on digg all day, not bots) is to reach people who don't already agree that ron paul is the greatest candidate ever.
      • cranium, on 11/05/2007, -7/+10Nobody's forcing you into these threads, dumbass.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -4/+7Part of the political process is discussion. If you don't want to explain why you don't support Ron Paul, then you are wasting everyone's time by saying you are tired of reading about him.
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/03/2007, -6/+3reading about him...? the only think i have "read" is countless retarded replies to articles having nothing to do with 2008 elections.... i don't even know what he stands for, is his platform all about spam and voting for him in 2008?

          And here is the sadest part, you, like every other ronbot, come in here and *Almost never* talk about politics, you simply say crap like "ron paul, great candidate or greatest candidate?"
          I am going to go all out here on a limb here... you ron bots don't jack ***** about politics and are just a bunch of borderline emos who flock to anything (php/mysql, to ruby, etc...)
          • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+5Yep, you went out on a limb... to tell a story to satisfy your imagination. I'm sorry there is no passion in your life. We do talk about his platform, but since you feel unfullfilled, here goes (just for you... feel special?):

            Ron Paul wants to scale back the scope and influence that the federal government has over state and local governments. This was the initial intent of the federal government. He is against federal income tax because he feels the money would be better spent at the state and local level. He's frustrated with wasteful spending by a party who made their name by fighting against wasteful spending. He's also against policing the world in the name of spreading democracy. He is pro life, which I do disagree with, but he spent most of his life delivering babies, so I can at least see that his motives are compassionate rather than theological.

            Unlike most kids, I paid attention in history and civics classes. I suspect a good deal of Ron Paul's constituents do too. I work closely with a Washington lobby advocating internet privacy interests. Your move Kasparov.
          • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1i have a real job, unlike you
    • Sogui, on 11/02/2007, -17/+18Get your tinfoil hat back on!

      I'm sure anything and everything negative about Ron Paul is the result of a Neocon smear campaign...
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -8/+3It's just scary that this is coming from Arse-Technica, a site that I previously thought had exceptional integrity.
        • cramtod, on 11/02/2007, -3/+3Ars Technica puts much of the mainstream media to shame when reporting on science and technology.
          How is reporting on campaign spam analyzed from an independent source "losing integrity"?

          I'm sorry that either overly enthusiastic supporters (likely) or malicious hackers (unlikely) are giving Ron Paul a bad name.
          The Ron Paul campaign has to understand that if it tends to attract from the lunatic fringe it will have to deal with some nuts.
          • dafragsta, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I think making an article about the spambots and trying to attribute them to the perceived success of Ron Paul's campaign is what takes their integrity down a peg. It's akin to writing an article about how the pets rescued from the California fires are decisively indicative of the big picture, which must be a glowing example of conpetence. Taking a small story from one corner of the world and turning it into a sole cause for success when most people here have never seen a Ron Paul "spambot" email. It also implies that ALL Ron Paul support comes from spambots. It also doesn't give credit where it's do, with regard to campaign donations.

            Clearly the overwhelming response in this Digg submission alone is enough to indicate that Ron Paul does indeed have a very active and pursuant group of constituents who both live and breathe.
    • tomasII, on 11/03/2007, -7/+10Kinda funny that you use a smear tactic to whine about smear tactics. I don't think anyone is desparately worrying about a Ron Paul candidacy.
      • dafragsta, on 11/03/2007, -3/+2I think it's fair that the first baseless smear gets a rebuttal, don't you? Do you always have one-way conversations?
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/05/2007, -7/+8Just because Paul won these things does not make them significant. A straw poll of 50 people means very little - understand the consequences of small sample sizes? It seems that you do not. Hopefully the younger generation is not stupid enough to be taken in by Ron Paul. There is so much that he claims to support that contradicts itself if you actually think about it instead of drinking the koolaid.
      • Patented, on 11/05/2007, -1/+4Examples? Or just a reason to use cool buzz-phrases like "drink the koolaid"?
    • Pixelpaws, on 11/03/2007, -5/+2High level of support? Most of the republicans I know have never even heard of him and none plan to vote for him. The reason he gets so much attention on sites like Digg and Facebook is because he ha a remarkably vocal support base; it just happens to be a very small base. When it comes time for the primaries, I'll be (unpleasantly) surprised if he even makes the top three in any one state.
    • pikaboy259, on 11/03/2007, -4/+3Reeks of two-parties-in-one? Excuse me, Ron Paul has voted over 71% with the Republican party, hardly what I consider a "revolutionary." In fact, other than being against the Iraq War (oooh, so unique!!!!) and against the war on drugs, I'd say his voting record on abortion, the environment, taxes, and gay rights has been pretty rank and file Republican.
      • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Actually, being against the Iraq War _is_ unique. He's the only one in the Republican party with that position.
  • josh4rim, on 11/10/2007, -40/+220Well, spam bots do not donate cash. The fact the Ron Paul has raised the amount of money that he has raised shows that the majority of publicity on the net is not mostly spam bots.
    • alanr19, on 11/05/2007, -40/+7Who gave him the money? Who did he have to bend over for? He's not telling. He's in such a tight corner he'd sell his ass to satan.

      Ron Paul is a loser and his spamming buddys should just save themselves the hassle and stop bugging people.


    • feshmania, on 11/05/2007, -10/+45It should be noted that most of the donations Paul received in the recent quarter were $200 or less as well...which means they were most likely coming from independent sources (ie, no lobbyists). Ron Paul isn't "bending over for" anyone, even if you don't like him, the one thing that is hard to discredit is that he sticks to what he says he believes in (check his voting record).
      • satanatnmtedu, on 11/05/2007, -9/+3Yeah, even if what he believes in is inconsistent. Against the income tax, yet it is part of the Constitution. Against the UN, yet it is a treaty signed and ratified by the US as part of the Constitution. Believes in freedom, but denies the separation of church and state. Believes in freedom, but does not support a woman's right to choose. Believes in freedom, but will not spend money to promote birth control (see abortion). Claims to be a Constitutionalist, but see examples above.

        People who support Ron Paul are stupid.
        • SuperCow1127, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6Wait a second here... Where in the constitution does it say the government can make an un-apportioned, direct tax? Where does opposing actions taken under constitutional authority equate to opposing the constitution?
      • geminitojanus, on 11/05/2007, -7/+1$200 is also not enough to set off the alarms at a credit agency if it were deducted from your account one day, once again lending credence to the RP Spam theory.
        • nakani, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1omg u uncovered teh RP racketeering conspiracy. i'm digging u down to hide truth
    • geminitojanus, on 11/01/2007, -21/+9Or, alternative hypothesis, because the spam bots are so damned good at their job, they're directly raising money for a vaporware campaign. Number one rule of a spam bot: sell the product. In this case, the product just so happens to be a political campaign. Remember, Spam Bots don't donate cash, the people who get tricked by spam bots donate cash. You don't think those Nigerian scam spams are done by someone out for a good laugh, do you?
      • cphelps, on 11/05/2007, -2/+11Yes because people donate cash to people based on the sole fact that a spam message played a mind trick on them. ***** off you retard. People see the message and they donate, it's not a ***** trick.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/05/2007, -4/+5No. It shows nothing of the kind. Correlation does not equal causation.
      • bethehammer, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Correct in saying correlation does not equal causation. However in this situation, the desired result is monetary contributions, disregarding the correlation/causation claim and resulting direct evidence of a good following.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/09/2007, -53/+105Go to hell... We are not spambots.
    • EarlOfLade, on 11/05/2007, -33/+20Just ***** annoying!

      RP has no chance, he is a loser and you all know it, get over yourselves.
      • feshmania, on 11/05/2007, -9/+12why does he have no chance?
        • BashiBazouk, on 11/01/2007, -6/+2Because the internet does not elect candidates, old people do. Look at Dean. He was raising 5 mil a month with an average donation of $77, opposed the war and was super popular on the net and even without the scream was never a real contender once the primaries started.
          • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5I've got news for you. Old people die. Young people eventually become old people. Unfortunately, there aren't enough old people around who remember the Great Depression, or old people might be more inclined to support a true conservative before history repeats itself.
          • Moonrider, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1I'm an old person, tho not old enough to have lived during the depression -- I'm 63, and I support Ron Paul, with my money, my time, and my vote.
      • cphelps, on 11/05/2007, -4/+11Who is your candidate? I'm guessing Mr. 911.
    • ours, on 11/05/2007, -5/+38Why shouldn't you vote for someone with little chance to win? With that mentality, you'll never vote for who you want and the same people get elected all the time.
      • epsilona01, on 11/05/2007, -3/+19And this is why they constantly repeat 'he has no chance'. Repeat it enough and you'll convince the stupid masses.
        • dafragsta, on 11/03/2007, -3/+3SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

          Sorry, O'RLY made me say it.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+12Amen. Ron Paul supporters are switching parties, sending in money, and voting when I bet a substantial portion of them have been utterly jaded by the political process. Ron Paul represents America's last chance to actually make the constitution a meaningful document again.
    • deeboe, on 11/05/2007, -2/+6"Go to hell... We are not spambots."
      That sounds like spambot talk!
    • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3We are LEGION! ;)
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Hey, my mother was a spambot! Don't discriminate! Spam bots are people too!
  • dafragsta, on 11/09/2007, -51/+154What the *****?! Seriously, why are people ***** on Ron Paul's parade? Where does this come from? At the end of the day, spam bots do NOT have any ***** money. They didn't donate $3M in October. I, however, sent what I could and find this extremely destructive to the political process.
    • alanr19, on 11/05/2007, -41/+18Because Ron Paul is a LOSER
      He has spammers destroying great sites like Digg, constantly submitting whiney articles like "boo-hoo the tv networks hate me! - by ron paul" and "why doesn't everyone love me whine whine whine etc.." ***** Ron Paul and ***** his spammers.
      • feshmania, on 11/05/2007, -7/+19a very well-thought-out, intelligent retort. you have some real, legitimate points there.
      • cintek, on 11/05/2007, -13/+19Spoken like a true ass. I support Ron Paul and all he wants to do. Why? Because I can. Only idiots like you don't want the true American values that our founding fathers put in place. Remember our predecessors died to give you the right to talk in such a manner. I'm a true American and I support ANY candidate that values the same. Go whine somewhere else please
        • pikaboy259, on 11/05/2007, -2/+2American founding fathers apparently felt that certain groups should not have the right to adopt based on sexual orientation.
      • tao52nyc, on 11/02/2007, -4/+7And you will continue to be dugg down, I guess, until you can articulate which candidate YOU favor, and why.
      • BrapAllgood, on 11/01/2007, -2/+8I can't think of a bigger loser than one who runs around complaining about some other loser. Go watch Cops...it's faster and flickers nicely.
      • n8glenn, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2Nothing Ron Paul supporters can say will promote Ron Paul the way you do by railing against him in such an inane way, alanr. I think you are getting kind of agitated, why is that? Not getting nervous about his campaign, are you? If he's such a loser, then surely you can just go about your merry way and ignore him and everything will be fine. But no, you can't do that, can you? You have to go through the entire thread and try to convince people that "Ron Paul is eating babies, and his supporters are evil flesh eating virgin zombies." By the way, you really seem to be obsessed with sex, maybe you should talk to someone about that.
    • theblueprint, on 11/05/2007, -29/+18"Seriously, why are people ***** on Ron Paul's parade?"

      I'll be more than happy to stop ***** on Paul's parade... as soon as they stop ***** on Digg.
      • kazamx, on 11/05/2007, -10/+12Turn off the AmericanElection2008 section. Happy now?
        • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/05/2007, -10/+8do you keep spamming that same reply? Looking at your profile you posted this same comment twice already.
        • theblueprint, on 11/05/2007, -10/+11I don't see why I should turn off one of my favorite sections due to the bad behavior of the RonBots.

          I don't mind the legitimate Paul stories. I'm sick of the "Ron Paul is awesome/Ron Paul is our only hope" submissions... I'm sick of the weekly links to his donation page... I'm sick of the spam.

          Paul supporters "bum-rush" Digg on a daily basis. If they were to only submit newsworthy stories, and submit them only once, there wouldn't be an issue.

          Unfortunately (for everybody), there's been a concerted effort to use Digg as a means to get Paul free publicity. Hence, the incessant spamming of everything Paul related.

          • cranium, on 11/05/2007, -7/+7Poor baby...
          • BrapAllgood, on 11/05/2007, -6/+5I am sick of these contrived hit-pieces being supported by the same hypocrites who complain about too much Ron Paul on Digg. You ARE what you rail against.

            Batman would be very disappointed in you.
        • BashiBazouk, on 11/05/2007, -10/+5Ain't that the truth. I'm just waiting for the "ron paul seen going to the bathroom" article: interviewed later, Ron Paul is quoted as saying, "It was not as good as it could have been with these modern toilets and all, why if elected I'll return bathrooms to how the founding fathers intended. Nothing as good as dropping a steamer 10 feet in an outhouse". Ron Paul supporters start to build outhouses in their back yards in record numbers as a result of the interview...
        • clothmonkey, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1@Bashi: While I disagree with you, I have to admit that that was funny.
      • andshewas, on 11/05/2007, -6/+16So I'm sure you and everyone else complaining about how much Ron Paul is on digg went out and boycotted the iPhone, iMacs, Leopard, Vista, internet cartoons and the vast majority of other things I see on digg every day. If you don't like it, don't digg it. Isn't that the point? Get over yourself and stop whining when the internet doesn't cater to your specific political affiliations.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 11/05/2007, -4/+13Stop making so much sense, you'll confuse people.
      • howie, on 11/05/2007, -6/+17Who is ***** on digg? If I digg a Ron Paul story it's not because someone told me to, but because I find it interesting.

        How about *you* stop ***** on digg by digging stories *you* find interesting?

        Apparently "***** on digg" is the very same as using digg the way it was designed!
      • cphelps, on 11/05/2007, -5/+12Someone hates democracy.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 11/05/2007, -23/+10Ron Paul spammers are the destructive force here. Think of what would happen if the Ron Paul spammers succeeded. It wouldn't be long before every candidate will hire people round the clock to big up their candidate on social news sites. Ron Paul has credit due to him for being the first to think to do so, but if he succeeds we can see Digg going down the same way as TV news.
      • WilliamDavis, on 11/05/2007, -2/+14Paul didn't think to do anything. It happened to him. If the other candidates could buy what he has, they would.
        • Nodaki, on 11/05/2007, -2/+14The Paul campaign started out with 15 staffers. They had absolutely no support from corporate interests or the Internet. Then the first debate came along and people that actually want to be informed about the candidates watched. They were hooked on a man who had the message Freedom Loving Americans have been desperate to hear. It just so happens that the Internet is the ultimate medium for a candidate with a message that people want to hear. The rest is spontaneous history...Hillary/Rudy are trashed on the Internet but Ron Paul is adored. Do you want the socialist whore or the totalitarian megalomaniac in office? Or do you want the good honest intellectual who has stood up for what he believes in his entire life?
          • HollowMarkeD, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1I'm not American; I don't really have an opinion on a foreign election as its none of my business. My point is that if Ron Paul spam turns out to work we can look forward to political spam by paid spammers. Even if the current trend is all homegrown, why ISN'T Ron Paul capitalising on his success by funding a few more people to go around submitting stories. It only takes 100 or so dedicated full time staff writing on Digg, Newsvine etc to look like thousands are plugging the Ron Paul machine. People being sheep, will follow. Its very clever, the first presidential campaign with an SEO element, but its bad news for independent spam free news on digg. Check out this thread by the Ron Paul endorsed website drumming up support for Digg articles

            http://www.ronpaulforum.com/showthread.php?s=9233f ...

            Whats stopping Clinton supporters etc doing the same? Do we really want Digg to turn into a "who can pay the most bloggers" spamforum?

            Fortunetly, Digg does have a democratic way of countering this: If you do not want this to happen you can help by searching for "Ron Paul" in the Digg box and bury the stories you see there. Its also a good way to see how much the spam is submitted.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/01/2007, -14/+41) spambots operators make a LOT of money...did you think that they made $20 a day or something?
      2) spambot owners didn't donate to ronpaul, being that they are largly not from america....

      go back to aol?
      • RUFuKinCrazy, on 11/05/2007, -1/+10nice way to make ***** up out of thin air.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Yeah, they make money running scams and pitching V14gr4 r34l ch34p, not for pushing a political agenda. As others have said, they don't have super quantum mind control powers and drive other people's cars with Ron Paul bumper stickers or plant lawn signs while possessing their bodies either. That's what Hillary bots do. ;)
    • JoeVet, on 11/05/2007, -14/+7This seems a standard reply....."but RP is raising sooo much money." 3rd quarter results are Hilary 27mil, Obama 21mil, Mit 18mil, Rudy 11mil and RP 5mil. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp Looks like RP does not have even half the support of the other candidates even after spamming the internets. So your right, spam bots don't have money and thus he fails to gain on the other candidates.
      • cphelps, on 11/05/2007, -4/+15Thats because he doesn't have corporate interests giving him tons of cash to do what they say once he's elected. You'd know this if you did some research.
        • reed311, on 11/02/2007, -3/+7Irrelevant. Corporations are allowed to donate to whoever they want, it's a free county. Ron Paul himself has said that campaign finance reform is a restriction on free speech.
        • IAmCelery, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Not irrelevant. The fact that Ron Paul doesn't have corporate interests giving him tons of cash means that there are -real- people giving him this money, and so the "but RP is raising sooo much money" argument holds up pretty well. We have the people, and the people are mostly tech-savvy. Digg is designed to show the interests of the tech-savvy. I'm not sure what's so hard about this, we like the guy, we digg the stories, you can ignore them, just like I ignore half of the top ten stories on a daily basis.
      • cranium, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7You're an idiot. He's not raising a lot of money because some other more popular candidates have raised more? Puh-leeze. He's kicking ass compared to how he's polling.
      • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7The other people need to "buy" votes. RP does not. They will throw that money away by the truckload on overwhelming media blitzes, and then hold their hands out for more. Ron will spend his money more wisely and get better results in the end (which will get him more donations without even asking). And isn't a good financial steward something you WANT in a President??
    • fuzzynyanko, on 11/03/2007, -4/+8It's simple. A lot of us see the same article types on digg all of the time. It's like the first Head-on commercial. At first it's cute, and you say "neat commercial". But after seeing it for the 200th time, it gets old. There's the XBox 360 vs PS3, Blu-ray vs HDDVD, why this operating system will trounce Windows, and now, Ron Paul articles. Now, the dude makes sense and all, but even seeing too much of good stuff will annoy people. Also, commenters on all of those articles have gotten to be too predictable.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAbAIpZG7II
      • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Welcome to (virtual) reality, man. Do a little channel surfing on TV and the deluge of utter CRAP and repeated material will be much worse even than Digg.
    • multitude, on 11/05/2007, -6/+1No, Spambots don't have money. However, people manipulated because of things like spam on digg and through email do have money. Just saying that money donated disproves that the RP campaign is spreading propaganda through online means doesn't ignore the possible causal relationship where the propaganda motivates people to donate money. Your argument is flawed.
      • TrnsltLife, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Special interest groups have money. Also, people manipulated because of things like commercials on TV and radio (paid for by special interest groups) do have money.
    • stressfree, on 11/05/2007, -0/+9Don't allow others to rain on your passion for Ron Paul. The quality candidate is going to be attacked. Psychological attempt here and more to come as Ron Paul continues to place well in the first series of contests. Go Ron Paul! Spam bot here donating more cash! LOL.
  • scdicks, on 11/04/2007, -45/+27now, if they can only figure out the RP digg spam...
  • theblueprint, on 11/05/2007, -47/+31Ron Paul is a fringe candidate with (comparatively) little funding.

    His supporters are doing their level best to get him as much free publicity as possible. It's why there's a concerted effort to get Paul on Digg's front page. A lot of the Paul appeal is "fighting the man", and it appears that many of his supporters feel that the long-standing "rules of the internet" don't apply to them. Their "cause" is bigger.

    Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing Paul drop out of the race, and an end to the blatant spam-fest.
    • andshewas, on 11/05/2007, -10/+12He is in the top 3 republican candidates with regards to cash on hand. Where do you get "(comparatively) little funding"?
      • WilliamDavis, on 11/05/2007, -4/+10By listening to what the TV says.
        • clothmonkey, on 11/05/2007, -3/+4Lemme guess, Fox?
          • andshewas, on 11/08/2007, -3/+6Probably. Listening to what the TV says ***** up everyone. Why do you think we had Bush for two terms? HE CAN FIGHT TEH TERRORISTS!
      • Herkimer56, on 11/01/2007, -10/+7Mitt Romney has more cash stashed away in his sock drawer than the Ron Paul campaign will ever see. You people have been yakking about his five million dollar quarter but when you consider that the parties are saying that it will take about five-hundred million dollars for a candidate to run in the general election you can see that Ron Paul is cash poor. He may continue to get money from his acolytes but the Republican base will never contribute to some far right wing loon.
        • cranium, on 11/05/2007, -4/+12Mitt is largely funding his own campaign. Yawn.
        • n8glenn, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7Yeah, Mitt is giving himself money, and also all the special interests. Ron Paul is certainly the only one whose campaign is financially supported by THE PEOPLE! Shouldn't that tell you something? Hello again Herkimer, I've seen you commenting against Ron Paul so many times I'm starting to feel like we go way back! Seriously, are you really that worried that he might win? You sure do expend alot of energy trying to stop it.
          • Herkimer56, on 11/07/2007, -7/+3Not all of the people. Not even close.
          • FyreGoddess, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3THE PEOPLE, as in "We, the people"? Because the only candidate who is currently receiving public funding (as in, tax dollars allotted from Federal tax returns - by the choice of each individual taxpayer) is John Edwards.

            Ron Paul may be getting donations from individuals, but it's not the same as the money coming from "the people".
        • BrapAllgood, on 11/05/2007, -3/+10It's interesting how often you point to the money, Herk. Your vote must be easily purchased. I guess I'll give RP $100 in your honor on Monday and just hope it reaches you somehow.
          • Herkimer56, on 11/05/2007, -5/+4Apparently you are so ignorant of how our political system that you totally fail to understand how it works. To be elected to anything from city council to President of the United States takes money. The higher the office the more money it requires to be elected. Ron Paul hasn't got the backing to be able to raise enough money to be able to run a campaign for the primary elections and he won't be able to get but a fraction of the money needed to run a Presidential campaign. If you know anything at all about politics you would know this but instead you decide to be aggressively ignorant and try to turn Ron Paul's failures in to an attack on me. There are much better ways to piss away $100 than wasting it on some crackpot who thinks he has a prayer of being elected. Why don't you invest it in something that you really need. Go buy a clue.
          • endersadvocate, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2The largest flaw i see in herkimer's logic is that he is trying to argue that ron paul doesnt have enough money to fund the general election.
            Fortunately, we are still gearing up for the primaries and candidates dont spend nearly as much on primaries as on a general election.
            If your going to argue, at least debate something relevant.
        • andshewas, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5Congrats to Mitt Romney, then. So what?
        • conceptkid, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3Yea Romney may have alot of money. To bad he is to stupid to realize that he is throwing all of it out on a wasted, worthless campaign. He's going to be kicking himself in the pants when he realizes he doesnt stand a chance. "But Daddy, where is my college money at?" "Well sorry, son, I spent it all on a poorly organized presidential campaign! I had to show that I had more money than Ron Paul right?!"
          Has Mitt Romney made any Television ads in New Hampshire? No. Is Romney even on the ballot in NH? No. Apparently, Mitt doesnt know what to do with all the money he has, hahahahahhah.
  • alanr19, on 11/05/2007, -49/+22Ron Paul is an idiot and his handful of followers are sycophantic virgin morons.
    They should leave digg alone and go spam somewhere else.



    • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -15/+5Meaningless rhetoric. Good one!
    • feshmania, on 11/05/2007, -10/+10sycophantic virgin morons? seriously, alanr19, do you have anything intelligent to say? i don't understand how people being virgins would even factor into something like this.
      • darienphoenix, on 11/01/2007, -8/+8Your outlook on life tends to change once you've gotten laid. You don't take things so seriously, for starters. Try it and see.
        • anonydigg, on 11/01/2007, -6/+5Who says that anymore? Probably a virgin. I could be wrong and a liar but nonetheless it didn't change much for me; at least not to the extent that I would stop caring about the political process.
        • cphelps, on 11/01/2007, -4/+7Actually, no it doesn't. It's morons who think they are a badass because they got their dick wet like the billions of other people in history have, that change. Everyone else realizes that they had sex, they enjoyed it and they move on and continue to have live as normal.
    • Godwhacker, on 11/05/2007, -7/+9Span involves sending out anonymous unsolicited e-mails and messages. Since you "alanr19" have decided to post on this forum, you have in fact solicited my response, my response can not be considered "spam". Please note that my support for Ron Paul is not based in faith or in any aspects of religion or cult followings, but rather on three issue: Peace ~ Ron Paul wants to end ALL of our wars and occupations, Prosperity ~ Ron Paul wants to end the overtaxation of the American people and pull us out of the financial chaos we have been thrown into, Freedom ~ Ron Paul has authored legislation that would restore the constitution from all the assaults committed against it post 9/11. H.R. 3835, authored by Paul, will restore constitution and protect civil liberties.

      Also, I can assure you that I am no virgin, not that it would matter if I was. I will leave it to other readers to decide who is the "moron" among us.
      • Herkimer56, on 11/05/2007, -8/+9Ron Paul also wants to end civil liberties for minorities and women. His domestic and economic policies are insane and his foreign policy is one of cowardice and isolationism. He is, beyond doubt, the worst presidential candidate that I have seen since George Wallace.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 11/05/2007, -1/+7"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "
          -Benjamin Franklin
        • pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -5/+4>>Ron Paul also wants to end civil liberties for minorities and women. [...opinions...]

          And by "end civil liberties", of course, you mean ending affirmative action (I wouldn't exactly call this a right) and abortion (call it what you will, at least he backs it up philosophically instead of drowning us in faith-based inclination).
    • RonBurgundy76, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Don't rely too much on the intelligence of others... it seems to be in short supply these days.
  • AtomicNewt, on 11/09/2007, -36/+126I would like to see proof. I think RP's spam servers are located right next to the WMD's in Iraq and I hear rumors that he may have some next to the ones in Iran too.
    • dafragsta, on 11/03/2007, -2/+2Jimmy Hoffa operates Ron Paul's spambots.
    • ThreeDee912, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Take the IP's, put them into the gigantic blacklist RBL pool here: http://www.robtex.com/rbl/

      If it's only blacklisted once, it might be a spambot. If 2 or more have it blacklisted, it's 99% likely to ba a spambot.
  • PIR4T3, on 11/09/2007, -29/+84This might just be another case of trying to take the knee's out from under the man that is running far ahead of what his competition thought possible for him. Every candidate that has run for the presidency has had one or two people spamming junk mail out to the public via email. This case is no different than the spam i got when King Gorge ran in 2000 but it is getting coverage because of who the candidate is. Spam bots don't post articles on digg or respond to them to support Dr. Paul. this is called a grass roots movement for a reason. Its by the people for the people because of the people who want our country back. PS explain why a article that only has 51 diggs gets to the front page so fast when other articles about Dr. Paul that have far more diggs never can make it here?
    • betterth, on 11/01/2007, -1/+8Digg isn't an anti Ron Paul conspiracy. The diggs themselves matter, who dugg them, how connected to the submitter the diggers were, how quickly it was dugg, and much more all probably have a large influence on when it hits the front page.
    • cranium, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Like this hasn't been explained a million times. The digg algorithm adjusts for apparent attempts to game the system.
  • arjie, on 11/08/2007, -24/+11I asked this question before but digg's new comments were just coming in then and the whole thread disappeared. I'm not looking to offend, just to know. Why is the constitution seen as a holy book in the USA? Surely the purpose of democracy is to allow it to mirror what the people feel is right?
    • shadowspires, on 11/05/2007, -1/+11A "democracy" is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. This country was created to be a constitutional republic with careful separation of powers. A lot of those constructs have been eroded by the deleterious notion than popular opinion should drive federal policy.
    • betterth, on 11/05/2007, -1/+12The constitution can and has been modified a great number of times. But it should not be a transient document, changed at the current leaderships whim.
    • 00z003, on 11/08/2007, -6/+1im a ron paul supporter but i actually think that the constitution has failed and is pretty much garbage at this point.
      • crlingerfelt, on 11/05/2007, -0/+4I think the people have failed to be active participants and have just gone along to get along for far to long. If we weren't under constant attack by our "leaders" (read handful of ultrawealthy families) we might have had a chance a number of years back. "Well what do you mean by attack?" you might ask. Heavy progressive income tax on labor, retreating rights to privacy, repeated attacks on free speech, freedom of association, more agressive police tactics and weaponry (i.e. tasers, bean bags, oc gas, and thier new microwave weapons) all those lovely things are what I consider attack. Your average citizen is now working longer hours for less pay , the value of our currency is spiraling out of control so our purchasing power is dwindling (hence high energy prices and all the lovely things that come with inflation that our government's statistics don't truely reflect) So the people have failed to live up to thier responsibilities under our constitution and we are reaping the rewards of our complacency.
    • Khendroc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3The constitution protects the minority from the majority.
      • ka9dgx, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2The Constitution has been subverted as of late to protect the upper class (a minority) from the rest of us.

        --Mike--

        Don't call me SIR... I work for a living!
    • n8glenn, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Because the constitution is the only thing that limits the power of our government and protects the rights of ordinary citizens. It has also allowed us to become strong and prosperous and has inspired us to improve ourselves over time and become more civilized and tolerant. The ideals embodied in the constitution are worth fighting for, not because of the details, but because of the overall spirit and meaning. Sadly, many americans today are much like you and just don't see the importance of those values anymore.
  • AtomicNewt, on 11/09/2007, -33/+93First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Gandhi
    Welcome to Phase 3!!!
    • theblueprint, on 11/05/2007, -26/+15No, we're still laughing at you.
      • kazamx, on 11/05/2007, -7/+16Then your a sad sad person. To laugh and mock someone because of their beliefs. Whats sort of a person does that make you.
        • alanr19, on 11/03/2007, -6/+1510 But you just mocked him for his anti-belief beliefs. Shame on you.

          goto 10
        • JoeVet, on 11/03/2007, -5/+7A republican?
      • betterth, on 11/05/2007, -2/+7Blueprint, the fighting has begun, whether or not you're participating =P
      • cranium, on 11/05/2007, -2/+5@blueprint
        Go re-read your posts and then tell us you're laughing rather than fighting. If you had any credibility at all, you just lost it.
      • tao52nyc, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1What you mean "we", paleface?
      • n8glenn, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1You can laugh all the way to the ovens.
    • rv36116, on 11/05/2007, -2/+2Indeed, agreed.
    • tybris, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3Gandhi won?
      • endersadvocate, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Gandhi succeeded in fulfilling his life goal...
    • nakani, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Haha, Ron Paul's campaign was at "Phase 2" only a few weeks ago!
  • Axias, on 11/09/2007, -46/+75VERY MISLEADING TITLE? GUESS WHAT, IT'S PROPAGANDA. It doesen't take a brain surgeon to realize when a story is slanted or skewed. "Researchers: Ron Paul campaign e-mails originating from spambots", Oh really? All of them? Some of them? Most of them? If you didn't know anything about RP or didn't care, that's about all they expect you to read. A nice misleading headline. First WIRED, now ARS technica. ***** EM BOTH. Both off the favorites list, FOREVER.
    • darienphoenix, on 11/05/2007, -23/+17You're not helping his cause any - you sound just like a brainless automaton.
      • FTLJohnson, on 11/05/2007, -6/+10"Oh really? All of them? Some of them? Most of them?"

        Really? His comment seemed to have a lot more substance than yours.
        • JoeVet, on 11/05/2007, -7/+5"Oh, really" counts as substance? How sad for RP.
    • alanr19, on 11/01/2007, -14/+3You childish retard. The other team just voted you MVP. Well done.
    • Sogui, on 11/03/2007, -6/+9Wow because Ron Paul titles and the Ronbots who smear other candidates would NEVER EVER slant a title!!!

      I still remember that classic "Mitt Romney ignores a veteran's questions and flees an angry crowd" story from a couple months back.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Was that not about something Mitt Romney did himself? Is this about Ron Paul or some yet to be substantiated thing that an over zealous supporter did, and is not condoned by Ron Paul or his supporters?

        A candidate running from a question about his platform lacks the conviction to really mean it, or he'd have a good answer. Let's keep apples and apples together.
    • Axias, on 11/05/2007, -6/+10Two publications I REALLY liked, both promote a headline (which is all MOST people are going to read) which is at face value: pure opinionated BS (at worst: crafted propaganda).
      Yeah, I'm mad about it. Yeah, I'm venting in the forums. Yeah, I expect better than FOX news level of reporting from some sources.
      /Why aren't you mad? And why would ANYONE diss me for being mad about it? I'm doing the one thing I'm ALLOWED to do when I read something I don't like: I don't read it anymore. Because I vocalize this I'm a retard? More like some people can't bear hearing the sane voice of dissent. THIS ISN'T REDSTATE, you can actually have an opinion around here.
      That old "Well, so and so did this crap" is irrelevant Sogui. Call out BS every time, don't use it to justify what someone else did. Sheesh.
      • n8glenn, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3Yes Sir! dugg you up.
      • dafragsta, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2That sums it up for me too. I think would-be conspirators took one look at Dr. Paul's fundraising ticker and shat themselves. We've never been hit with a full-on attack like this before this week.
    • gaforces, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7Dugg down for having Wired on favorites.
  • KnightMareInc, on 11/05/2007, -40/+22the ron paul "crusade" started as out a spam campaign on digg, is anybody really surprised?
  • Reponere, on 11/09/2007, -14/+29This isn't your scapegoat if you're looking for a reason to step on RP's campaign or the faithful supporting base. And the idea of this email spam "souring" the already committed supporters or turning off other potential ones... please.
    • epsilona01, on 11/05/2007, -1/+13Most people ignore any spam, mostly because they have spam controls. The few people that don't know how to d