digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at johnmccain.com

How Many Points Are The McCain Trolls on Digg Getting?

johnmccain.com — Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you ’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • augustcandi, on 06/22/2008, -42/+250yea the trolls are loud over here. Its at a ridiculous state now. Its likethey just pop words out and dont really know what they are saying..just to get a rise...it pissedme off at first but then i saw how dumb they sounded and it started to look desperate...so now im cool with it..the louder they are the more worried they are or the more they are gettin paid...fine with me
    • eliot2000, on 06/22/2008, -1/+39Does anyone know what do they get for these points?
      • Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -9/+53A swift kick to the nuts...I hope.
      • dinot, on 06/22/2008, -5/+22Golf bags.
      • Technohamster, on 06/23/2008, -7/+33Into heaven. It's part of McCain's program.
      • digginghacker, on 06/23/2008, -11/+30Forty virgins.
        • takamalak, on 06/23/2008, -4/+21Just give me one experienced whore...
        • applemachome, on 06/23/2008, -4/+12Of the same gender.
        • reaper527, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3you misinterpreted the scripture, its 40 virginians according to robin williams
      • BillDoE, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5They get the same prize I will give you for getting a post on Digg.
      • dupek11, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1If they give something valuable perhaps we can oragnise a "We love John McCain day" on Digg.

        1. Make your opinions supporting John McCain
        2. ?
        3. Profit
      • biotch, on 06/23/2008, -1/+38drafted for Iran
      • amoirae, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12Tap dancing lessons from Larry Craig.
      • Jonez176, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Poop freeze.
      • johnnyboy239, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Sexual favors
    • EatingPie, on 06/22/2008, -58/+116Strikes me as hypocritical. Especially when the majority of Digg articles are coming from sites like "EyesOnObama.com" and the insanely anti-McCain "The Huffington Post."

      I don't mind political news, but saying there are a bunch of Trolls for McCain here on Digg, while ignoring the absolute bombardment of Obama Promotion going on, is just letting your ideologies cloud your views.

      -Pie
      • Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -30/+92Difference being Obama supporters aren't getting "points" for it.
        • keymanjim2, on 06/23/2008, -44/+18That we know about.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/23/2008, -23/+2nm
        • Eric3k, on 06/23/2008, -20/+15Diggs don't = points?
        • s1mph0ny, on 06/23/2008, -12/+6Any points are superficial. Ground-level political activism doesn't pay, it's about the rush, and arrogance.

          Every obama supporter would love to get a lib blog to the front page of digg.

          McCain isn't causing a conflict of interest in social websites, that conflict was already there. His campaign is simply smart enough to reward the most involved campaign relations. What are you more likely to accept, a well written blog post, or a TV ad?
      • wild, on 06/22/2008, -16/+29As a hardcore Ob ama supporter, I hate EyesOnObama. What a crap rag drummed up for Digg hits. Its awful pandering and makes us all look bad.

        At least Huffington Post has some credibility attached to it. Definitely anti-McCain, but it comes with standards.
        • benologist, on 06/22/2008, -35/+24Where does the Huffington Post have credibility attached? They exist to pander to digg users too.
        • wild, on 06/22/2008, -12/+42Credibility comes from the original writings from its huge depth of contributers. It is not a blog that just links to anything Pro-Obama like the pandering EyesOn. Its site with a liberal leaning that culminates its own content.

          Just a few of the many (and skipping higher profile name dropping like John Kerry and Kal Penn):

          -Martin Kaplan, research professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication, holds the Norman Lear Chair in Entertainment, Media and Society. He has been a White House speechwriter; a Washington journalist; a deputy presidential campaign manager; a Disney studio executive; a motion picture and television producer and screenwriter; and a radio host.

          -Gary Hart is the Wirth Chair professor at the University of Colorado, and chairs both the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project. He is the author of the forthcoming book: Under the Eagle’s Wing: a national security strategy for the United States: 2009.

          -Jeffrey Klein is an investigative journalist who co-founded Mother Jones; directed exposes of Newt Gingrich, Big Tobacco and the introduction of offensive weapons into space; co-produced for The News Hour with Jim Lehrer a series on China's economy that won a Gerald Loeb Award; and taught journalism at Stanford, San Francisco State and Cal.

          -Laurie David is devoted to stopping global warming. She founded the Stop Global Warming Virtual March at www.stopglobalwarming.org with Senator John McCain and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that is engaging religious leaders, sports figures, elected officials from all sides of the aisle, business leaders, and every day Americans to urge the United States to address the ticking time bomb that is global warming.

          -Paul Begala is a political commentator providing insight "from the left" on CNN's programs including Inside Politics. On Inside Politics, Begala and liberal commentator James Carville debate the hottest issues of the day with conservative commentator Robert Novak.

          -Greg Mitchell is the editor of Editor & Publisher magazine in New York City, and author of nine nonfiction books. His current book, published in March 2008, is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq (Union Square Press).

          -Harold Pollack is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Service Administration, and faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies. He has published widely at the interface between poverty policy and public health. His recent research concerns HIV and hepatitis prevention efforts for injection drug users, drug abuse and dependence among welfare recipients and pregnant women, infant mortality prevention, and child health. His research appears in such journals as Addiction, Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Public Health, Health Services Research, Pediatrics, and Social Service Review.

          -Cristina Page is author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for birthcontrolwatch.org. Page also is a consultant for several national pro-choice groups and her policy proposals have been adopted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Washington State legislature and the New Jersey State legislature.

          -Carol Felsenthal is a journalist who writes in-depth magazine articles about political and media figures. She has also written several biographies, including books on Katharine Graham and Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Her book about Bill Clinton’s post presidency, Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House, will be published by William Morrow/HarperCollins in May.
        • GunnerMan, on 06/23/2008, -20/+3I agree, who cares if you get points for saying your views. I just hope people look at a post before awarding points. If it is a one line bash like most of the libs here on digg are responsible for then they should not get a point. If all your inteligence allows you to write is a one or two line hate remark obviously you are not well enough informed about either persons to talk about it let alone place a vote. Luckily I think most of Digg users are under 18.

          All the anti mccain stuff/pro obama stuff here on digg..sheesh The Obama camp cant afford to give all of you awards, theres just to many. Most republicans are actually out working and making a living for themselves and don't have much time to sit around and make mindless posts.
        • lordthor, on 06/23/2008, -8/+1tl;dr
        • haydesigner, on 06/23/2008, -4/+11"Luckily I think most of Digg users are under 18."

          You'd be wrong.
      • Futurejunior, on 06/23/2008, -4/+9Digg does have an overthetop amount of Obama promoting articles, and some might even be from *gasp* Obama trolls, but what it shows is that the Obama campaign and base knows the day of the political tv ad and the campaign phone call is all but gone. Online promotion is the easiest and cheapest way to reach millions of people. While this article points out that McCain is being more blatant with his call for online campaigning, he has to be because he is basically playing catchup with Obama, who has already secured a huge internet base.
        Also, for the future, your name actually shows up when you post, you don't have to sign it.
      • Tyrghast, on 06/23/2008, -8/+11Signing my posts adds credibility to my opinion, even though my user name is proudly displayed in the top left corner.

        -Douchebag
      • DisruptionFL, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5qft. I agree 100%. I've buried everything political in recent weeks, its took much and mostly the same.
      • skipdog172, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6I find it utterly pointless to care about 'McCain Trolls'. Oh noes, we might have more than one viewpoint on digg! Anybody reading digg knows the 2 candidates and are not changing their vote based on digg numbers. I also hate the fact that now anybody disagreeing with anything Obama says or does, is somehow a "McCain Troll" even if the person disagreeing is planning to vote for Obama. I just hate this "anything said bad about Obama means you are a paid McCain troll" concept.
        • Fordi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1"I just hate this 'anything said bad about Obama means you are a paid McCain troll' concept."

          It's called 'The Republican Reputation'.
        • mystcnurse, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1It totally doesn't matter who you vote for. All politicians in the US are OWNED by AIPAC. Those who really cared about the American people, our Constitution, or any of the ideals of the founding fathers are out of the race. I'm not even going to bother. It's the same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.... only worse.
      • Fordi, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1"insanely anti-McCain 'The Huffington Post.'"

        Insanely anti-McCain. Words never before spoken. Insanely pro-McCain, maybe.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/23/2008, -12/+61I noticed that suddenly there was a huge crowd arguing in favor of torture, bombing foreign countries, killing all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay even though they're just suspects, and gleefully happy habeas corpus has been suspended for anyone accused of being a terrorist (with no thought to what happens if another Timothy Mcveigh appears).

      It's like Digg has gone off the loony bin.
      • PhantomBantam, on 06/23/2008, -10/+35digg has always been in the loony bin.
      • lisaawesome, on 06/23/2008, -2/+49You know as someone who remembers feeling the earth quake in response to the Murrah Building bombings, I find it interesting how quickly we are to label all Muslims terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was at least on the surface your typical Midwesterner. He was white, Christian, and a former soldier. But instead of making all white, Christian men check their shoes upon entering a federal building we have chosen to blame all terrorism on Muslims. Any brown person is immediately suspicious as though they are the only group to ever attack America. I don't know where I'm going with this other than I wish people wouldn't jump on this brown terror bandwagon. Violent acts come from all races, creeds, genders, countries, occupations, etc.
        • vinod1978, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4@lisaawesome-Couldn't agree with you more. Some it I believe is rallied up (like our buddies at Fox News for instance), calling anything and everything Islamic - like the fist pounding "incident", and Rachel Ray's scarf (I still don't get that).

          My guess here is that people realize that the more people that have a bit of anger towards the Muslim society - the more people that won't care about the Iraqi invasion. The good news is that I don't think it is actually working, at least that's what the numbers say.

          --www.bigredmat.com
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1The problem is once a white person blows up a building, all that crap about "enhanced interrogation", secret prisons, and "no rights' being limited to terrorists is out the window.

          The government would turn on a dime and normal citizens would start disappearing.
        • Fordi, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Nah, instead those of us who were teenage gothy types at the time got security checked constantly.
      • GunnerMan, on 06/23/2008, -26/+1Some of these "suspects" at Gitmo would love to kill every single american and european on this planet. Think of the worst serial killer you can think of and make him a thousand times worse, thats these "suspects"
        • mikeyeah, on 06/23/2008, -1/+21Really? Have you been there before? Interviewed some of them, perhaps?
        • pen25, on 06/23/2008, -1/+17haha im glad you actually believe that. now question for you. how do you now they are that bad? or even 1millionth as bad as you claim? there is no access to those suspects. so again how do you know? and if you do know why not out the info.
        • metaliq, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12wow.
          the system DOES work.

          didn't believe it, but I've witnessed it with my own eyes...
        • Futurejunior, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12Last time I checked, "wanting to kill every single american and european on this planet" was not actually a crime anywhere. Can you honestly say you've never said to your self, "I just wish I could kill that my boss" or something of that nature. Just because you wish something, doesn't make it true, or illegal. Torturing and killing people suspected of thinking bad thoughts about Americans seems just a tiny bit unethical. It's funny you mention "the worst serial killer" I can think of, every single one that came to me (John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVieghto name the first two) was a white American male. Weird
        • haydesigner, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2@ Futurejunior: "It's funny you mention "the worst serial killer" I can think of, every single one that came to me (John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVieghto name the first two) was a white American male."

          To be fair, that is likely because you only know about American serial killers. I would have to believe that serial killers in other countries also reflect the nationality of the majority.

          But they probably are still virtually all male. That should say more about people than their ethnicity.
        • breadfred, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3On the other hand, you are NOT allowed to say 'I want to kill George W Bush, the President of the USA'
        • vinod1978, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6@GunnerMan - actually no.

          In April of 2007 the BBC reported "More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers." - and there a ton of other press stories that say the same thing but I didn't list NY Times, Huffington Post, or Washington Post so you could see it's not just US Liberal media that is reporting the news - these are true facts.

          There are also many Uighurs. These are Muslim people in China who are persecuted by the Chinese regime. Some of them were sent by the Gov't of China to Gitmo. Some of them were afraid being persecuted more and went to Pakistan - they were picked up and sent to Gitmo as well. They have ALL been released for any wrong doing, but now they have no place to go as they aren't allowed back in China.

          There are thousands of horror stories about innocent people being jailed, tortured, and in some cases killed. Just because you say that everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist doesn't make it true - no matter how many times you say it.
      • BabyWookie, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2This really ***** helps explain why all of my pro-environment and anti-racist comments have been dugg down to hell recently. The McCain trolls show up in droves for those threads, denying the Global Warming and making up fake crime stats for black people. Damn right-wing scumbags have invaded Digg. :
    • Nitesmoke, on 06/23/2008, -9/+23Earlier in the election I came across an article that mentioned how a Ron Paul campaign website telling everyone to sign up for Digg and mention Ron Paul as much as possible, and Digg any positive stories about him and bury and negative ones. It blew my mind at the time I didn't realize that groups of people actually would use Digg in an organized fashion to sell an agenda. I miss being that innocent, because now candidates are even more organized awarding "points." Im gonna pretend to be a McCain supporter, and level up my 'toon so I can maybe get some hot Republican ass.
      • wild, on 06/23/2008, -1/+16"hot Republican ass"

        You don't need to get points for that. Just wait in a stall and tap your foot.
      • Twenty, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7Oh god, Ann Coulter, oh god the horror
      • JettaMan, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Can you send a link to this site that you noticed? Otherwise I'm kind of doubting your paranoid claim.
      • reaper527, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2when was the last time you saw a positive mccain story on the front page of digg? i don't think i've EVER seen one. i post what i think and could care less about some points
        • metaliq, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6it's because there's no such thing as a positive McCain story.
        • reaper527, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1@metaliq
          have you compared his oil platform versus obama's? you can't claim not to be an elitist while planning to do nothing about oil prices.
        • metaliq, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Reaper,

          Are you claiming that I'm an elitist? Or that Obama is?


          And yes. I have done some research, and, surprisingly, they both sound polarized.
          I'll quote CNN.com:
          http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/09/news/economy/candi ...

          "McCain would mandate reductions in greenhouse gasses, then largely rely on the free market to spur conservation. In order to ease the pain of high gas prices he also wants to suspend the federal gas tax.

          Obama would tax oil companies and use the money to help low income people. He would also restrict greenhouse gasses, but charge more for companies to pollute and use the money to fund renewable energy research. He also sees a bigger role for government in encouraging conservation."


          Now. Tell me what I'm missing?
          McCain wants to rely on the magical hand. Obama wants to regulate, tax, and disperse.
          Our economy is ***** up right now. Giving tax cuts and crossing your fingers doesn't fix anything. It perpetuates. It's been doing that for eight years now.


          So please tell me where I'm wrong.


          Also, you threw that argument out of nowhere, and I expect you to respond with some enlightening pathway that will work that I overlooked.
        • reaper527, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1well, it was more meant to show that the front page ignores obama's lack of an oil plan, while also ignoring mccain's dominance there. it wasn't meant to be an unrelated comment. also, i was calling obama an elitist, not you.

          in response to mccain's magic tax cuts, while obama plans to tax the oil companies (which will turn around and raise prices to offset the tax), mccain also supports drilling off shore, in the rockies, and is willing to consider ANWR. obama opposes all 3 locations, with a non-negotiable mind set in all 3 cases.

          the tax cuts will provide short term relief, the drilling will provide medium term relief, and if we are lucky enough to have either candidate promise to release some of the oil reserves, that should provide some more short term relief (neither candidate has mentioned this at all yet). this will buy time to find a long term alternative energy solution.

          obama is completely disillusioned in this regard. he says he won't support drilling because it won't have any impact for 5 years. he then turns around and says that he supports alternative fuel research. this will take 15 years AT LEAST before it is viable on a large scale. he also ignores the fact that high oil is going to make everything more expensive, and raise the cost of research.

          bottom line, mccain has a solid policy, that is yet to be mentioned on the front page.
        • metaliq, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Obama doesn't claim that it wont have an impact for five years, he claims that the amount of time that it will help is a maximum of five years.

          This is where their focuses differ: McCain wants to cause a quick relief, where as Obama is thinking in the long term. Granted, Obama doesn't have much in terms of lower current gas prices, but what, in all reality, is there that we can do? If we drill, the oil companies wont lessen prices; they will just have more oil to sell, and sell longer, thus prolonging the inevitable. Obama seems to be looking into the future and positing what needs to be done into our current state.

          We can't keep patching up a broken system. McCain is proposing to do just that. We need to seal it up and move on. In all honesty, do you think that the drilling that McCain proposes will benefit anyone outside of the oil companies that are granted access to it? I highly doubt it.

          I don't feel as if McCain's policy is as solid as you believe it to be. It may claim to be a solution, but, as it sits, it's just a way to make people happy for a short time, erstwhile screwing over the eminence of a permanent fixture.
        • reaper527, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1"In all honesty, do you think that the drilling that McCain proposes will benefit anyone outside of the oil companies that are granted access to it?"


          yes i do. the laws of supply and demand state that as oil supply goes up, oil prices will go down if the demand stays constant (or goes up by less than the increase in supply).

          in addition, like i said, the high oil prices raise the cost of research for alternatives. we need a bandaid to make things bearable in the short term so we can find a long term solution. i'm not arguing that we need to move off of oil, but research takes time. trust me, as someone who works in a research lab, research doesn't magically happen overnight because its politically convenient. (my lab is a computer related one using carbon nanotubes, not an alternative energy lab, but the same principals apply as far as the time line goes).

          also, obama has said additional drilling won't provide short term solutions, so i think you misinterpreted the story you read.
    • NuclearDruid, on 06/23/2008, -23/+8Trolls? Last I checked, people get dugg down here even for a different political view by just stating their opinion on an issue. What's ridiculous is how only one voice, on opinion is generally dugg up. And let me get this straight, I don't support McCain, or Obama, or Ron Paul for that matter. To say that the McCain trolls are ridiculous is just as ridiculous as how many people mute others on this website.
      Hypocritical, to say the least.
      • bdfariello, on 06/23/2008, -2/+9Dugg down to prove your point about people getting dugg down arbitrarily. I expect the same in turn.
        • haydesigner, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Oh no... you're not getting off that easy. I'm digging you up, darnit!
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/23/2008, -2/+11So you're basically making a comment on Digg about how you don't like how Digg works?

        2 things:

        1st - Do you regularly see comments with more than 5 negative diggs? Why? If a comment was 'muted' once it was dugg down(as you claim), nobody would read or negatively digg it after -5 & that would be the most negative that comments got. But it's not is it? Think about it....

        2nd - If you don't like Digg &/or how it works, why not just go to a website that you do like?
    • Jonez176, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Nvm..

      Note to self: stop digging while drinking.
    • evilgourmet, on 06/23/2008, -5/+24To me, trolls are offensive. So maybe it is time to stop just digging them down, and start reporting the trolls. Trolls who post multiple diggs of the same thing, trolls that post for points from other sites, trolls that post racially offensive material, and trolls that attack the Presidential candidates family members need to be reported to moderators. IMHO that is.

      Go ahead trolls, digg me down.
      • Tyrghast, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Yes the trolls are offensive and do not know how to formulate a proper argument with facts and reason. My favorite troll has to be this guy, though:

        http://digg.com/political_opinion/Stephen_Elliott_ ...

        You can be nice and respectful to the point where you're acting like their ***** smells like roses, and they'll still attack you personally and skirt the topic at hand.
      • Xviper78, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3Are they trolls, or just people with different views from your own? Is someone who posts a pro-McCain comment getting points, or are they just expressing their opinion? I don't like the racism in some of the comments I see, but it's part of life: some people are just ignorant.
        Maybe if we had some kind of ruling body that would monitor our lives for us, the world would be a better place. It would be so much nicer, wouldn't it? We wouldn't have to deal with all these silly people with their stupid freedom to say whatever they want.
      • mystcnurse, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Trolls are actually only adversaries for those who choose to think for themselves. You can recognize trolls miles away. Who really cares what they think, do or say? Because guess what? They DON'T think. Trolls are one sided and simple minded. I say, pay no attention to them and they will go away. Any intelligence on DIGG is apt to ignore them anyway. They just really aren't worth your time or energy.
    • shaun1018, on 06/23/2008, -13/+4I for one, welcome our new McCain overlord.
      • shaun1018, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Wow, digg has gotten stupid.
        Can't even detect simple sarcasm.
      • Modulo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I, for one, welcome our new hilariously original overlord.
    • apache119, on 06/23/2008, -15/+3***** you
    • boonesfarm, on 06/23/2008, -11/+8Just curious.... If there were a politically balanced blog (unlike digg), would the criticizers of McCain (or Bush) ever be referred to as "trolls"? Obviously trolling isn't just relegated to hate speech, judging by all the venom and vitriol aimed at Republicans around here. Personally I think there's plenty of criticism for the career politician AND the man with no experience. It is pretty sad that McCain and the GOP have to spoof internet buzz, but I don't think the Obama cyberlust surprises anybody. Blogging and viral hype are largely the product of the youngest demographic.... which trends to the left. So yes, they have to encourage blog presence. On Television, Kennedy killed Nixon and Reagen walked all over Mondale. Their domination of a medium didn't necessarily make them the better candidate.
      In case your wondering, I receive no points or payments for daring to go after Obama, the unqualified DNC faceman who is slightly more electable than Hillary.
      • Twenty, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Well, there's a line between actually showing your support via a democratic process and getting paid off to 'show your support.' It's like how at big tech conferences, employees stand at the back of the room to start applause. It's a squirrely practice.
        Also, it would have been much appreciated if you hadn't shown your ignorance by insinuating that Obama has 'no' experience. I won't digg you down for that, but others will. Cheers!
        • boonesfarm, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4Ignorance? Obama had two years of federal government experience before forming his exploratory committee. Can you name anyone with less experience entering the US Senate or receiving a party nomination for the office of President?
        • Twenty, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Jesus christ, it's not like he's running the whole damn show.
          Actually, before I continue, I will guide you towards presidents who have been elected without spending a year in the federal system. Governors! How many senators have been elected to the white house? And now we have 2 to choose from.
          Anyway, I think Obama's greatest strength is really his ability to identify what he doesn't know and educate himself on it. And even beyond that, he knows who to trust, not corrupted politicians who've been corporate tools for decades, but others with experience and wisdom who will guide him to make the decisions which are right for the country.
          ***** christ. The president is not THE decider. He can veto and influence all he wants but at the end of the day this is not a ***** dictatorship.
        • boonesfarm, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Governors! Great answer. Which state did Obama govern? Our 53rd state? It's one thing if you guys think an outsider would be good for the job.... there could be some truth to that. But, Obama is inexperienced. Don't even try to argue otherwise.
      • mystcnurse, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Whatever, there's no point of talking about LEFT, RIGHT, CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS in the world we live in today. It is all a bunch of hyped up BS. It's not even real. The best bet for true PATRIOTS is to simply be Americans. Your government abhors you. And they are all the same. AND I can prove it.

    • Sogui, on 06/23/2008, -6/+10It's so sad that I've put more logic and reason into many of my defenses of McCain, whether it be how McCain didn't start the Forrestal Fire, or how it's highly unlikely he ever called his wife a *****, or why the countless Huffington Post pages that hit the front page are often inaccurate, sensationalized, redundant, or flat out wrong.

      Many times I will usually get +1-10 diggs, but the total will look more like +32/-28, so many people would bury me just because I was defending McCain and yet stupid mindless comments like ***** MCSAME would be at +108 or something. It seems the easiest way to justify this mindless digging/burying is just to call everyone who doesn't agree with you a "troll".
    • unpolloloco, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2I really hope you were being sarcastic there. You're post embodied the trollish state. Props to you.
    • Aethirig, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4The John McCain trolls are really easy to spot .. they "don't" "really" "get" "the internet" "thing" and hence are prone to formulaic posts that I will digg down with a serene sense of optimism.

      I'll make it easy for you: you're fired.
    • Pedestrian101, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1They're just hoping some logic will sway the stupid young people. It's pointless though. Besides, a troll is a person who says "OBAMA08" on every Obama thread, not a McCain supporter who actually makes arguements (whether you agree with them or not).
      • herbertstrasse, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Generalize more, I implore you!
    • withears, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5You can turn you points in for discounts on Depends or Ensure.
  • alapoet, on 06/22/2008, -27/+192Pretty wild how they're even being awarded brownshirt points.
    • poiuytrewq44, on 06/23/2008, -11/+5Nazi points? (i'm not kidding, i'm not sure what he's saying by this)
      • kurttrail, on 06/23/2008, -15/+2Do you go to many sites to announce your ignorance?
      • sanman, on 06/23/2008, -25/+5Brownshirts were of course a left-wing socialist youth movement in Italy, under the socialist leader Mussolini. Nazi is an abbreviation of Germany's National Socialist Workers Party. Always good to remember reality, instead of the nonsense spewed out by the Obama-bots.

        But hey, that's the old National Socialist credo - to repeat a lie again and again, until it becomes the "truth".

        As an atheist and a person of color -- my skin's darker than your Obama Messiah -- I'm waiting for the shrill cries of racism from the Left to grow in volume and intensity, until they drown out all reason and rationality. They already played gender against Hillary, accusing her of being a bitch-queen, so now they'll play the age card against McCain, branding him the stereotypical old white male.
        • poiuytrewq44, on 06/23/2008, -1/+17Correction: Black shirts are italy (because they're very sexy, it's an Italian thing) Brown shirts from Germany.
        • iamchewy, on 06/23/2008, -1/+14Uh, no, the Brownshirts were the paramilitary organization of the Nazis. The Italian counterparts were called the Blackshirts. I'm not sure where you're getting "left-wing socialist youth movement in Italy" from, as they were both militias.
        • krisscofield, on 06/23/2008, -2/+11Mussolini was a left-wing socialist?
        • SpinningHead, on 06/23/2008, -1/+13Not to let facts get in the way of your brilliant take on history, but Hitler was sent by the army into the German Workers Party as a spy. He eventually rose within the group and had them change their name to the National Socialist Workers Party because of the popularity of the socialist philosophy within Germany. He then twisted it into his own fascist philosophy and allied with Mussolini, who defined himself as a fascist, and opposed socialism. Even his stormtroopers were made up of the right wing private soldiers (friekorp) from WW1. He was famous for making appeals for violence against Jews and communists.
        • sanman, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1Ohhh, as a spy?? By whom, pray tell?

          So the leader of the 3rd Reich was fronting for someone else? Who - the Martians?

          Mussolini was the editor of Avanti, the leading socialist journal in Europe. He was a lifelong correspondent with Lenin!

          Gee, why would Hitler say something like this:

          "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

          Is it because the Martians were controlling his lips as a spy?
        • Gutterpunk, on 06/23/2008, -0/+125 McCain Online Action Center Points for you!
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5sanman: are you ***** kidding? Hitler paid lip service to Communism while he maintained his bogus pact with Stalin and built up his military. Then he ***** INVADED RUSSIA. Not so buddy buddy in reality, huh?

          Read the OP's comment again. Hitler pretended to be a socialist to gain popularity. None of his policies had a damn thing to do with socialism. The Nazi state operated primarily through corporatism, which is pretty much the polar opposite of communism.

          Nice try, though. Hope Bush III (sorry, McCain) gave you some points for that one.
        • Retsep, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Since when did building up your military and attacking your neighbors disqualify you from being a leftist Communist? The Soviets did it pretty well for a while.

          All I can tell you is something called a "National Socialist" is not conservative.

          There was no pretending about his socialism. High taxes and massive government projects is not a quality of the right.
        • herbertstrasse, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I like how you use such inflammatory rhetoric (obama-bots etc etc) while demonstrating your own complete lack of understanding regarding anything historical.
        • solistus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Retsep: Building a millitary actually does prove they weren't communist. Read Marx. Communism refers to a society in which the state has withered away. If there's still a state, it's socialism, not communism. They weren't socialist, either, because socialism means that the proletariat controls the means of production and distribution is according to need. Neither of these things was true about the Soviet Union. The Soviets (workers' councils) were dominated by party loyalists, and distribution was subsistence level to most people and lavish for party officials. This is not socialism. This is not communism.

          Conservative by the American definition isn't the same thing as right wing. Nationalism is right wing. Corporatism is right wing. Hitler was a nationalist corporatist. Ergo, Hitler was far right.
    • sanman, on 06/23/2008, -8/+1http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks ...
      • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5David Brooks is a conservative editorialist, like William Kristol with credentials and a greater batting average.
      • ohplease, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3From the article you quoted:

        "Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck. "


        Look who gets invited to a McCain town hall meeting. McCain supporters.

        I would like to sue the NY Times for the wear and tear on my pixels this article lit lit for the 45 seconds it took me to determine that this article is complete garbage.
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4brown-nosing points? Or are you talking about Nazis?
    • Spudster, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Today's Talking Points ?

      You've got to be kidding me. I thought they tried to hide the fact that they are opinionless robots...
      • solistus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Don't be ridiculous... They don't know what robots are.
  • girwen, on 06/22/2008, -41/+197I can't check it out, I have johnmccain.com blocked on my computer and I'm not going to unblock it.
    • Simonft, on 06/22/2008, -6/+9http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Kxn-A7Sd0CcJ: ...
    • sylvok, on 06/22/2008, -11/+3Win
    • Synapse84, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1if by blocked you mean in your hosts file, then heres a really awesome website... http://64.203.107.147/

      *this post made with 90% sarcasm, 8% politics, and 2% porn*

      • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2at least it wasn't a rickroll
      • Pittance, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Could you just forward me the 2%? Thanks.
    • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -7/+14parents are pretty strict, eh?
    • MxM111, on 06/23/2008, -9/+7So, you do not understand the value of "keep your friends close..."?
    • Barackalypse, on 06/23/2008, -1/+15Smart move, I can't count the number of times I've been "John McCain roll'd" this week.
    • pintomp3, on 06/23/2008, -0/+19that's ok, john mccain has himself blocked from using a computer.
    • Player1, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7You know ostriches have a similar defense mechanism.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7Why block the website when you could just as easily not visit it? Do you get overwhelmed by random compulsive desires to view the website? Does your other personality support McCain? I mean...come on...that doesn't make much sense. =p
      • girwen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Not at all. I was at a sort of neutral website that was serving one of mcbush's video ads that was loading painfully slow and slogging my browser, so I added it to my hosts file. It's blocked just like doubleclick and the other web sleezeballs.
  • flashthom, on 06/22/2008, -90/+57It's great that McCain's campaign is rewarding the sort of thoughtful, polite political discourse among partisans that we are accustomed to here on Digg.
  • queotic, on 06/22/2008, -25/+90They must be getting a lot of points for Digg. I think I just a troll-driven frontpage story in the Upcoming US Elections page. The link was full of obvious distortions, but instead of discussing the article, a lot of the comments were the normal Obama bashing talking points. Of course, Digg was accused of being a "socialist" site lol.
    • ericmerrill, on 06/23/2008, -6/+12Yeah, we're pretty social here.

      *rimshot*
    • zooplibob, on 06/23/2008, -13/+9LOL this is awesome. How many times have you liberal Diggers tried to meddle in online polls to get Ron Paul or Obama huge numbers? Now it comes full circle where Pro McCain people are taking action and finally responding to the massive amount of liberalness we see on Digg every day.

      I too have been surprised to see a lot of pro McCain stuff dugg up lately, and I think its a positive trend. Now we will have more of a debate than a one-sided Obama fest.
      • haterrade, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3a debate is wishful thinking i must say..you know it's just going to be "he's just bush lite" vs. "yeah well he's a muslim terrorist"

        on a side note, i just saved all of you from 5 months of political advertisements
      • DDayDawg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Did you just accuse Liberals of bumping up Ron Paul? Really? I mean if there is anyone on this planet who is the polar opposite of liberalism it's got to be Ron Paul.

        Oh, and the reason people have a problem with this is that it's mindless morons sent out with marching orders. Obama was organic, as the internet should be. The internet has always abhorred pre-packaged and pre-planned talking-point monkeys. If the McCain people wanted to come here on their own and start a discussion no problem, but to be pointed in certain directions by the campaign just makes you all a bunch of asswipes.
        • zooplibob, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2Yeah and a story called "GO TO NBC.COM AND HIT VOTE ON OBAMA" isnt the same as sending mindless morons visiting Digg marching orders...
        • insertAliasHere, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2"Did you just accuse Liberals of bumping up Ron Paul? Really? I mean if there is anyone on this planet who is the polar opposite of liberalism it's got to be Ron Paul."

          As true as that is...you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard: "I'm supporting RP, but if not him then Kucinich." or "If RP doesn't get the nomination then I'm voting for Obama." Or: "RP and Dennis Kucinich would be a dream ticket!" Just goes to show that they know nothing about the candidates they support and only follow social trends.
        • DDayDawg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Zoop, no it certainly isn't the same thing. That story is posted by someone out on their own doing it and is Dugg up by people on this site. It is a far cry from a campaign giving people talking points and pointing them to sites asking them to "talk up" a candidate. Please tell me you can see the difference here...
      • MrMasterplan, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Haha! Here in Denmark liberalism is the _opposite_ of being left wing.
      • Modulo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The thing is that the bulk of the Obama supporters on Digg are just here to read our goddamn newspaper, grandpa. We aren't coming here with a specific agenda. What the McCain Astroturfers are doing is trying to make it sound like they have a chance of not getting stomped into dust in the election and denying anything negative about McCain. Or in other words, ***** themselves.
    • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Allowing anyone with an opinion to express themselves freely, and having all said expressions judged by all interested peers? Yeah, sounds like one hell of a socialist bias to me!
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Yeah, Socialism comes from societies, so if we can just get rid of societies, Socialism is ovah!
    • bernandoo, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2digg isn't on the list.. digg is pretty irrelevant when it comes to politics.
  • SheilaNoya, on 06/22/2008, -26/+266I'd like to know who pays "xdcc" for the dozens of absurd anti-Obama articles he submits every night.

    According to xdcc's many false claims, Obama is secretly gay, a Muslim, a communist, a socialist, a facist, an African spy, a drug addict, a murderer, a criminal, a secret Black Panther, a womanizer, an anti-American radical, a terrorist, an elitist, etc, etc, etc.

    The fact that he has "friends" who actually try to Digg him up amazes me since he has ZERO credibility and posts every wild lie he can find about Obama. xdcc used to claim he was a Ron Paul supporter, but now claims he is a Hillary supporter. However, from his posts, it sounds like what he really supports is just White Supremacy.
    • tcbishop12, on 06/22/2008, -5/+40I wouldn't be surprised if I were to discover that xdcc is actually Larry C Johnson or someone who works for him.
    • forthewin11, on 06/22/2008, -3/+41There's some person by the name QuadZeroRoute who does the same thing as xdcc. No credibility there either.
      • patpl22391, on 06/23/2008, -18/+2Quad is a friend of mine, don't presume to know more than you really do about anyone who comments on the internet.
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -2/+9Who's presuming what? Act like an asshat, lose credibility. I fail to see the problem here. Nobody is saying your friend has no credibility in real life, just that the content posted to this site associated with that user is utter crap. If you don't want your opinions commented on by others, don't post them to a ***** social news site.
        • obelisky, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3he a punk
    • Pherdnut, on 06/22/2008, -3/+11He reads a lot of total crap, whoever he is.
    • spookyttws, on 06/23/2008, -5/+38But..but..Barack Obama is every one of those claims. Even the ones that contradict each other. That's what Fox News told me. And their a popular TV channel, there's no way they'd risk journalistic integrity just for dirty the name of one man.
      • theaceoffire, on 06/23/2008, -4/+25*they're
        Sorry, it was bothering me.
      • spookyttws, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5To be fair, I was quite drunk when responding to that comment. I'm am also quite annoyed with my misuse of their/they're (I'm a grammar geek at heart). Hell, I'm really surprised I came off as lucid and sarcastic as I did. Either way I think this libel is *****.
    • 2h3px, on 06/23/2008, -3/+16It's the PATRIOTS I tell you.
      • ediscoolyo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1the LaLeLuLeLo?
      • magus_melchior, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"They've got the eeeevil SCUD missile, and we've got the Johnny Freedom Patriot Love-bringer missile! 'Mother, I hope it lands on us, so that we too may taste liberty.'"
    • str1fe, on 06/23/2008, -5/+14I'm pretty sure it's impossible to be socialist and fascist at the same time.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 06/23/2008, -4/+10You'd be wrong.
      • Technohamster, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5Well the nazi party was also known as the National Socialist party, and they seemed pretty fascist.
        • Unknown038, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4yes, but these and other totalitarian regimes (USSR, GDR, etc) werent actually socialist or communist, they simply used socialism's/communism's appeal to the lower class to advance their agenda.
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Yes, but they weren't actually socialist. Hitler took on the name for his party because it was popular in Germany at the time. He executed prominent Communists in his death camps along with Jews, gypsies and other groups he thought of as inferior. Mussolini never even pretended to be a socialist and launched his career as a staunch anti-communist. Name one major policy of the Nazi regime that would be supported by Marx.
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7Unknown: to be fair, the USSR started as an earnest attempt to apply Marxism to Russia. Lenin was an active theorist and wrote extensively on his interpretation of Marx and his adaptations to it to fit the reality of Russia (a poor agrarian society rather than the advanced industrial societies Marx wrote about). One can bicker about when, exactly, "things went wrong" - the easy answer is Stalin, but one can point to some of Lenin's later actions and see the beginning of the end, as it were, and one can make a pretty strong case that the whole idea of a "vanguard party" was such a corruption of Marxism that it was doomed to fail from the outset, but it didn't start as simply a totalitarian regime or hardliner coup. The GDR, of course, was formed long after "the Fall," at the height of Stalin's power, so it never had an 'earnest' revolutionary foundation, and by that time the Marxist rhetoric coming from Moscow had clearly morphed into a cynical attempt to maintain an air of legitimacy and convince the increasingly impoverished masses that things would get better soon. Khrushchev was probably a true believer, coming into an already-"corrupted" Soviet state and working tirelessly to purge traces of Stalinism and set the USSR on what Khrushchev thought was the true Marxist path, but Khrushchev was no scholar of Marxism and his vision wasn't really any more accurate.

          I got off on a bit of a Soviet history tangent there, but I think I made my point. The USSR ended up no more truly socialist than Nazi Germany, with an entrenched elite showered with riches while the masses toiled with little hope of upward social mobility and the constant threat of violence at the hands of the State (sounds chillingly like Marx's description of capitalism to me), but it's worth pointing out that it did, in fact, have "authentic" radical origins. Hitler never believed in anything that anyone but him would be likely to consider socialist, although he certainly had his philosophic theories of the state in order to justify his atrocities too.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Seriously, why isn't the "commie-nazis" Simpsons clip up on YouTube?
    • soracross, on 06/23/2008, -1/+23Hey, comon. "xdcc" is just being Fair and Balanced.
    • Hangly, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5African spy???
    • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+12I got bored last night and decided to skim through the Obama articles to find the corrective on his position on immunity. It was 6 pages of anti-Obama articles from the same three people submitted OVER and OVER again, often the same article linked through a separate blog.
    • pault107, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Check out xdcc's record:

      http://zuubu.runhost.net/?username=xdcc
      • Biohazard6601, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7i met someone in RL (i had to say it) who believed Obama and McCain are the anti-christs, its against their religion to vote for a democrat (christian), Obama wanted to enslave whites, he was a womanizer, his wife is racist, he is a terrorist, Obama was born in the middle east, Obama is Muslim, and the apocalypse is coming.
        Eurofags, i know why u think we're stupid.
      • SpacePoet, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Ew, I like that zuubu thing, very cool.
    • Naieve, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7You mean Obama isn't a gay womanizing radical Black Panther terrorist spy who was taught the art of murder in his manchurian candidate maddrassa while smoking crack with his elitist communist and socialist friends?
    • Nanite, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Lisa: You're a member of the Stonecutters, Grampa?
      Abe: Oh, sure. Let's see...[pulls out wallet, starts going through
      it] I'm an elk, a Mason, a communist. I'm the president of the
      Gay and Lesbian Alliance for some reason...ah, here it is. The
      Stonecutters.

      First thing I thought of after reading your post
    • onlinetreason, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1who pays for the Obama diggs?
  • rebotfc, on 06/22/2008, -21/+94This is the same system Scientology uses, instead of points they are 'up stat'.

    At it's base it is about propaganda efforts to undermine free information and democracy.
  • isparadiselost, on 06/22/2008, -31/+136McCain is a joke. He has no chance whatsoever of winning the presidency. He's a loose cannon that has about as much in common with true conservatives as oil has with water. He was chosen by the PTB to ensure a Democratic win for POTUS. Wasting your time dealing with his alleged trolls/trolling is just that - a waste of your time. He couldn't lick a postage stamp and his loss in November make Reagan's landslide victory look like a nailbiter.

    The GOP is imploding and its implosion will complete this year thanks to their horrific choice of candidate. Yes, many GOP member will hold their nose and vote for that POS but many will either sit it out, vote third candidate, or write in their candidate. The neocons divided the house and a house divided against itself can't stand.

    RIP GOP. (Good riddance!) Hopefully a true conservative party will rise like a phoenix from the GOP ashes and I will no longer have to register as an Independent.

    To you democrats out there, do NOT allow Obama to choose Billary as his VP!!! Doing so ensures a Billary presidency within 18 months of inauguration day. Think LBJ.
    • PaulLev, on 06/22/2008, -11/+10I'm thinking the GOP will be going the way of the Federalists and the Whigs in the next 16 years...
      • WhoismP, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0Psssst....the Whig party was just the latter name for the federalists. Then they were the barn-burners, free-soilers, "no nothings", THEN the repubicans. So, your comment is inferring that they get a new name change.
      • Modulo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1may I suggest, "the Rich, Stupid or Racist Party"?

        Truth in advertising is good.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/23/2008, -11/+5I agree if Obama takes Hillary as his VP then Hillary will make another run for the White house afterwards.
    • futureisours, on 06/23/2008, -39/+9I think Osama will lose alone on his ambivalence towards rising gas prices and his stance on offshore drilling. McCain is going to sweep him up with the masses of lower and middle class non-elitests who are just trying to scrape by,
      • kurttrail, on 06/23/2008, -6/+18LOL! Off-shore drilling won't do ***** for prices for ten years or more, and how much do you think the price for a gallon of gas will rise in that decade? Much more than can be offset by the meager reserves off-shore, that is for sure.

        And by "non-elitests" do you mean stupid? Because only an idiot would think that off-shore drilling is gonna have any short-term impact on gas prices, and base their vote for President on it!

        Yeah, I am calling you an idiot.
        • inboxnews, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Sheep.
        • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1The promise of future capacity would curb the current speculation sigificantly. (BTW, even the liberals acknowledge it will only take 5 to 7 years to bring capacity online).

          And, guess what we'll be doing in 5 to 7 years? Yeah, driving our gas automobiles.
        • thelizardreborn, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0The problem with politics is that everything is based on short-term gain. "If it won't effect the next 4 years, it's not my problem."

          I don't expect either McCain or Obama to be different from this on more than one or two issues, but I think offshore drilling is an important one.
      • weaponR, on 06/23/2008, -6/+11I see what you did thar. You changed a consanant in between two vowels to another, but different consanant! Youuuuuuu and your tom foolery! sheesh so clever! ;-)

        Go to hell.
      • SquigglyP, on 06/23/2008, -2/+16Could you attempt to have a discussion without resorting to name-calling like a small child?
      • halfdirt, on 06/23/2008, -2/+10Go ahead and vote for McDonald's if you want. Oops, I mean McCain. McCain and his delicious hamburgers.
      • Nitrodist88, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6You can be a middle-class elitist? Wow, make up some more words...
      • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4His ambivalence on rising gas prices? He said that long-term rises are inevitable until we break from oil dependency, but that the suddenness of the current rise is unacceptable because of what it does to working class people. That's not ambivalence; that's compassionate realism. Prices will rise over time; this is basic economics. That said, until we can transition off of gasoline, the primary concern is how quickly prices rise - quick rises are bad because they outpace wage growth. You can disagree with his policy position here, but you haven't done that; you've repeated the standard anti-Obama trick, which is to pretend that he doesn't have one.

        McCain, on the other hand, admits he hasn't got a ***** clue about economic issues.
        • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Translation: I don't have anything resembling a short-term policy, you'll have to wait until we go electric.

          You've shown his policy position to be that he can observe current conditions. So, we really don't have to pretend that he doesn't have one - you've just proven it.

          The same people that decry the speculators don't realize that the promise of future capacity (from domestic drilling, oil-shale, etc) might actually drive down the price due to speculation.

          That's how the commodities markets work... speculate on the tightness of supply.

          The funny thing about it, McCain and Obama (and the rest of the country) are on the same page about the long term solution - get rid of gas-powered autos and eliminate our oil dependency.

          McCain is the only one that has a plan that could be considered near-term.
        • solistus, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2You are talking out your ass about energy speculation. Prices will not drop much now because the price of futures for 10 years from now start to drop. Given that an oil-based economy is utterly unsustainable and even the oil execs admit we'll hit peak oil in the next 15-25 years, it is absolutely irresponsible to go drilling more. It's bad for the environment and will have virtually no effect on gas prices.

          You know what would REALLY ***** with gas prices? A war with Iran. Iran controls the Straits of Hormuz, where about 80% of the world's oil passes through each day. They also have ships capable of dropping tons of mines all throughout the Straits, effectively blocking oil commerce through the area. This could cause gasoline prices to double overnight and lead to gas rationing and crises around the world. Even if this worst-case scenario doesn't happen, there would be a MAJOR disruption in oil markets, and, if Iraq is any barometer, the prospect of the US going to war yet again in the Middle East will drive prices up like crazy on short-term speculation (you know, futures that are NOT 10 years off?).

          McCain has no short-term solution to the crisis. Nobody does. The only way gas prices are going back to $2 a gallon is if we subsidise it even more. In Greece, the price of gas works out to over $10/gallon. Most non-OPEC countries already pay far more than we do. Feel good measures like adding a tiny, insignificant trickle of supply from a couple new offshore drills that won't even produce oil for years will not fix the world's energy market. Pretending this is just a short-term market irregularity rather than proof of an impending oil crisis doesn't help anything. If McCain were really committed to a rapid transition off fossil fuels, he would not be proposing new drilling that would start producing around 2020. If we're still using gasoline then, we're screwed.
    • TinternAbbot, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7"He was chosen by the PTB..."

      Uhhhh, if the PTB is the republican voters, then sure.
    • JinnRikki, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9Oh I do love a conspiracy...how will she do it. Make it look like an accident, you know, he is very careless with a bowling ball.
    • Gimpyfuzznut, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5Unfortunately, I think he still does have a pretty good chance. I think you are giving Americans too much credit if you think people are smart enough NOT to vote for McCain. Just look at the idiot two posts up.
      • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Stupid people are perfectly capable of voting for Obama, too. The classic Democratic mistake is to assume that all Democrats are smart and all Republicans are stupid. Meanwhile, the Republicans work their campaigning magic and convert a few stupid Democrats, whereas Democrats do little more than offend the stupid Republicans.

        Stupid people are the majority. Don't forget that. It's a scary demographic reality for a democracy, but it is, in fact, the reality we face.
      • klipseracer, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1To stereotype all americans like that makes you a hypocrite. Saying WE Americans are not smart shows how stupid and ignorant you really are. No wonder you guys talk with that stupid accent. You've all got dog ***** in your mouths.

        Back at ya with the regional profiling. Fag. (+1 sexual profiling)
    • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1He's practically tied in the polls with Obama, so does that make Obama a joke?

      The fact is that McCain is the strongest candidate to lead the country. He's more towards the center than Obama, which means he represents a greater proportion of the people. The fact that some of the people in the center haven't figured out that Obama is far out in left field doesn't surprise me considering his favorable coverage in the MSM.

      When the truth comes out, McCain will seem like the John Birch Society compared to Obama.
      • Tebixan, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4He was somewhat centrist 4 years ago. To win over the far right voters during the republican primary, he's flipped on several stances to fall in line with most conservative views on every issue.

        Also, I don't know if you consider ABC & Fox News to be MSM, but they've been favoring McCain in most stories.
        • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1What stances has he flipped on?

          The only notable "flip" was his stance on off-shore drilling - and that one is EASILY understood considering gas has gone up from $1.50 to $4.00+ a gallon since then.

          I would expect a candidate to change his stance if the situation warrants it. Being inflexible about malleable issues shows a lack of thinking and reasoning.

          As far as MSM news coverage - you can read about it here:
          http://www.journalism.org/node/8197
      • Blaiden, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0 Eventhough I disagree with you, I had to Digg you for obscure John Birch Society reference.

        FNORD!
      • gobbleplex, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I like how any insignificant lead McCain holds is "An insurmountable lead" yet if Obama has a lead equal to or a few points more than that, it's "virtually insignificant."
        • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Where does anyone say that McCain has in "insurmountable" lead? I haven't seen that anywhere - even in the conservative media outlets...

          Any lead within a polls margin of error is statistically insignificant, and it's been shown that even polls that are outside that margin of error are also prone to error.

          The only true poll that is never statistically insignificant will come in November...
      • SpacePoet, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Obama pushed to the biggest lead so far against McCain this weekend, what are you looking at that says it's practically tied?
    • Spudster, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Actually McCain was their smartest choice. In terms of defusing the rhetoric of Obama, McCain is the closest you can get on the republican side to bipartisanship. The others like Rudy and Romney would have gotten dominated by Obama for being way too "traditional washington."
    • hrhs556x, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Just because Digg is 95% Obama doesn't meen that the rest of the country is, i understand how Obama gives everybody here a boner but that doesn't make him a lock for president..... anybody remember Bush 2004?
  • JasonHears, on 06/22/2008, -11/+197I noticed this on reddit too. Isn't this walking the line of violating digg's tos? Section 5.9, under "User Conduct" states: "giving or receiving money or other remuneration in exchange for votes; or participating in any other organized effort that in any way artificially alters the results of Digg's services;"
    • Simonft, on 06/22/2008, -3/+77you read a tos?
    • SethEllis, on 06/22/2008, -35/+12It couldn't be any worse than what McCain's opponenets have done to Digg already....
      • chicofaraby, on 06/23/2008, -4/+24Digging up stories they like?
      • twiztidsinz, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9Yeah.... damn that free will.. damn it to hell!
      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5I digg up Obama stories and I have nothing personal to gain. Im just a true believer.
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9I think it's a good head's up -- they've been too busy setting fire to the United States Constitution to read Digg's TOS. Now that they know I'm sure they'll respect it.
    • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2It doesn't look like Digg is on the list of recommended blogs/sites, so technically, McCain's campaign isn't organising any efforts on Digg, as far as we know. I think we would need definitive proof that someone was rewarded for a post on Digg by the campaign to prove abuse of the TOS, and even then I'm not sure what Digg could do about it, since there would be no real way to identify any particular user as a bribed troll rather than just a troll.
    • klipseracer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Someone should make a mockup, but have it work the other way... And Issue Drebin points.
    • rondigg1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Sounds like it. But there doesn't appear to be any prohibition on the McCain site against reporting bogus but plausible "comments" made by supposed supporters. They're apparently manually confirming each report. A sustained flood of bogus reports could really derail the McCain troll reward point gravy train...
    • s1mph0ny, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1While what McCain's site is doing clearly undermines digg, digg users who follow the mccain points system are not violating this rule. Rules of an organization are for the members of the organization only. As none of the digg users are handing out points to other digg users for the spamming, there really isn't anything digg can do from that portion of the TOS.

      Of course, anyone engaged in spamming is already in violation of the terms.
    • Pillage, on 06/23/2008, -7/+2as opposed to the Huffpo army and the Dkos brigade?
  • dupswapdrop, on 06/22/2008, -22/+41Help McCain spin the down drain! Vote for anyone but McCain!
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Mcain is lame.
      Hey, at least its a near rhyme.
  • longtext, on 06/22/2008, -18/+175Wow, Obama's Web 2.0 strategy includes a vast social network to get people together and discuss ideas and sow the seeds of person to person networks, whereas McCain's web 2.0 strategy is incentivized trolling...how progressive. Why can't the GOP focus on doing positive things rather than muckraking?
    • BishkekBuddy, on 06/22/2008, -6/+37In case you hadn't noticed, there's a dearth of "positive things" about their candidate...
      • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3He makes a great barbecue. Prefers the dry rub, I hear.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/22/2008, -7/+52"Why can't the GOP focus on doing positive things rather than muckraking?"

      Because they have been successful at political character assassination since the 1960s. Why would they change a strategy that has worked for them for decades?
      • rvandy, on 06/22/2008, -5/+29The GOP's two slogans, courtesy of the Simpsons: "We're pure evil" & "We want what's worst for everyone."
        • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5Stonecutter bastards! They held back the electric car and made Steve Guttenberg A STAR!
    • rewinn, on 06/23/2008, -2/+13"incentivized trolling" - excellent characterization: short, accurate, and funny!
    • matador3, on 06/23/2008, -11/+6"Wow, Obama's Web 2.0 strategy includes a vast social network to get people together and discuss ideas and sow the seeds of person to person networks, whereas McCain's web 2.0 strategy is incentivized trolling"

      I fail to see the difference.
      • Risingashes, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4It's okay, one day if you try hard enough you may be able to.
      • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6Then you're an idiot.

        (Hint: Obama's method involves his campaign creating a place for his supporters to come together and discuss campaign issues; McCain's involves his campaign incentivising his supporters going to other sites and copy-pasting his campaign talking points for him for "points")
      • matador3, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Lol, successful trolling and 25 McCain points for me. Cha-ching
  • sleepyjjk, on 06/22/2008, -21/+143Does this explain why there are so many Anti-Obama comments now?

    In a way, I hope that's the reason. But it seems to be infecting the whole digg community to go against Obama now. Come on guys, we're better than that.

    Do we really want to see another Republican in the White House?
    • tbhurst, on 06/22/2008, -3/+30Perhaps it could also explain the instances of triple and quadruple postings of posts with "McCain" in the title submitted by the same person.
      • charm803, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4I wonder if one could trade points for something useful, like a time machine.
        • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2You mean to go back to before the primaries started and search for an electable GOP candidate?
    • n8o8, on 06/22/2008, -16/+10The whole polarization thing of "a vote for x is a vote against y" is what got us into this mess to begin with. There are legitimate issues with Obama worth talking about, and certainly more than a fair share of legitimate reasons why McCain shouldn't be elected. Vote on principles and ideas, not on context of opponents or personality. In other words just do a RonPaul write in! :)
      • solistus, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4What about the 98% of us for whom Ron Paul is absolutely nowhere close to our "principles and ideas?" The ones who think things like banning gay marriage or revoking the right to abortion are bad principles, or that the gold standard is a bad idea?
        • ProfessorFoo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Wait, there are more people like me on digg?
    • PhantomBantam, on 06/23/2008, -15/+19No. Some of us legitimately don't like either candidate, so we 'attack' Obama since he's the only one being supported on digg. Not malicious, just adding to the conversations.
      • brad3378, on 06/23/2008, -5/+3Ditto
        • theaceoffire, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7I don't mind people being suspicious of his motives, etc. It just bothers me to see crap like the Muslim thing and so forth.

          It honestly bothers me that someone can call him a child murder and get positive diggs. (This is not figurative by the way).
      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5We can't vote against people. We need an endorsement to debate properly. The choice isn't Obama or not Obama.
    • crowbar77, on 06/23/2008, -6/+7No most of us are critical of him because of his policies, not because were McCain trolls. I really don't think you have to worry about to many of those anyway, most of his supporters are 60+.

      btw Republican or Democrat, it doesn't seem to matter anymore. The whole 2 different views thing doesn't exist anymore, it's more of an illusion to make you feel like you have a choice.
    • OffPiste, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1Yes, now if only one was running.
    • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -2/+12anyone who reads the comments regularly will probably have noticed this as well. in the past week or so the amount of anti-obama comments have increased dramatically. I've seen threads where every anti-obama comment was dug up, and every pro-obama comment was dug down. A month ago you'd never see a thread like that.
      • brianjlowry, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Digg is a bunch of flip-floppers. It was the FISA bill that did it, no?
    • NightVortez, on 06/23/2008, -10/+7I don't care if he's Republican or Democrat, I cannot support someone who infringes on the second amendment right by making semi-automatic weaponry illegal, or someone who supports universal healthcare, hell even his foreign policy isn't exactly peaceful. Not issues which I would vote for or against but he seems to repeat the same thing more than Rudy Giuliani and what's worse he gets praised for it. His whole campaign is like a long giant commercial with slogans attached, doesn't effect how I feel about him as a person but it gets quite annoying and it really hurts when I keep seeing it on digg.

      Either way there is no way I'm supporting the lesser of two evils, if people really agree with most of his views then I'm not going to stop them from supporting him, but I can't stand being labeled as a McCain supporter when I express my subject matter on it.
      • phauna, on 06/23/2008, -2/+4You're against universal healthcare?
        • Dragular, on 06/23/2008, -5/+4yeah it's called supporting the constitution.
      • xenuxenuts, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7I don't understand this right wing phobia of universal health coverage. Do you support universal fire protection coverage? The fire dept is more socialized than what people want health care to be. Police protection is a mix of socialized and commercial programs, though I wouldn't say that some of our cops are a shining example. The military is a great example of how a socialized program can work. After all, the mercenaries in iraq aren't going to win any popularity awards, but most people support the government controlled troops.

        The fact is the state provided many services, many of which it does better than commercial companies could. Our health care system does not work. And it's not going to get any better as we watch the middle class shrink.
        • bdfariello, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1One of my friends went to Australia (a country with universal healthcare). He had appendicitis while he was there, went to a hospital, and waited for three whole days because the hospital wouldn't admit him because there were other people ahead of him in line. By the time he was admitted, his appendix was on the verge of rupturing.

          I'm not a big fan of universal health care either, and though I understand it probably won't be too common an occurrence, the fact that that sort of situation CAN occur scares the crap out of me.

          Lastly, it's obvious that the US can provide the best health care in the world, provided you can afford it. If it wasn't, then you wouldn't hear stories of rich people from countries with highly rated health care (example: Pavarotti, from Italy, before he died) flying to the US to be taken care of. I think the competition between different hospitals and the drive for doctors to constantly better themselves is what makes that happen. If there were a more socialized health care system, where would the motivation be?
        • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3They are afraid of Universal Healthcare because they think it's more important to get their hangnail treated than for a "lazy" poor person to get help for a terminal illness.

          They will also say that free-market competition is 'good' (for services our lives depend on) - What they don't want to address is that the fact that our system allows profiteering is precisely what demands companies do everything they can to avoid treating you in order to 'keep costs down'.

          In their mind, it boils down to "You want healthcare? Get a job!" If you are out of a job you can ***** off and die as far as they're concerned.
      • twiztidsinz, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Right to bear arms does not specifically imply guns, arms can be any kind of weapon. You can support the 2nd Amendment without being pro-gun. And I'm pretty sure our forefathers didn't have semi-automatic weapons in mind when the wrote that.
      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Then support a candidate. We could your insight.
      • BabyWookie, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Not the universal health care! Such evil!

        /sarc
    • d722002, on 06/23/2008, -7/+2Yes.
    • ccarlson22, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3No.
    • 22catches, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Maybe.
    • BabyWookie, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2This really ***** helps explain why all of my pro-environment and anti-racist comments have been dugg down to hell recently. The McCain trolls show up in droves for those threads, denying the Global Warming and making up fake crime stats for black people. Damn right-wing scumbags have invaded Digg.
  • sylvok, on 06/22/2008, -26/+5How well does he pay, I'm up for some black propaganda =D

    For those who don't understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda
  • slapshot24, on 06/22/2008, -12/+29Add this to the list of facts about McCain that are being Googlebombed to the front page of Google:
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Googlebombing_Mc ...

    • dexter411, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Wow. You don't see the hypocrisy in that statement?
  • eliot2000, on 06/22/2008, -25/+65So THAT'S where they're coming from. Posting for points.

    on an unrelated note, I'd like to say that John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.

    (I'm getting a travel mug!)
    • geoken, on 06/22/2008, -1/+14Do I get points if I digg your comment?
      • eliot2000, on 06/22/2008, -2/+9I think you should. I submitted arandom comment from LGF as my own to see if a confirmation email appears or something.
        • 4321234, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6***** John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin. NOT!
          (let's see if the spider/bot can tell the difference).
      • JinnRikki, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Sold your soul for a travel mug eh?
    • magus_melchior, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Wow... and people read that and think, "That John McCain, he's got a better plan than Obama."

      "And I often wonder, where can one find a drug that would make one so delusional?"
  • neuromachine, on 06/22/2008, -38/+10Huh? I thought there was only Obama and Ron Paul trolls on digg?
    • ericmerrill, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2There are also some good old non-partisan tedious trolls!

      And a couple of the long neon-haired, outtie-bellied ones too who really are some nice guys and don't deserve the bad rep.
      • zombies187, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Thats amazing. I'm practically all of those things. Except nonpartisan. :)
    • 1timeuser, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Don't look at me. I'm just the Mega Blocks troll. LEGO is going down.
  • tbhurst, on 06/22/2008, -5/+24I don't get it. What do the accumulated points get you?
    • nblsavage, on 06/22/2008, -5/+54A 6 pack of Ben-Gay and a months supply of Polident.
      • moeursalen, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2That Larry Sinclair guy again?
      • MicheleFloyd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Or 5% off your Colonial Penn premium.
    • mrzeero, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5X number of minutes in the men's bathroom with Larry Craig.
    • mediaspree, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1About as much as digg comments points get you.
  • KLBP, on 06/22/2008, -17/+96I was noticing a sudden spike in pro-McCain/anti-Obama posting/diggin. I've also noticed more concerted efforts to digg down anything remotely negative to McCain. Now I know why this is happening. It is all too apparent that folks need to make a concerted effort to counter this by becoming more active and taking more effort to digg up/down comments in threads. What is helpful is to add fellow Obama supporters to your friend's list so that you can watch what posts they are digging and commenting to so that you can digg up their comments when appropriate.

    With that said, I don't encourage digging comments one way or another just because they are pro-Obama or pro-McCain. Not every pro-Obama/anti-McCain comment is worthy of being dugg up by Obama supporters. Comments that are dugg up should still add value to the discussion.
    • crowbar77, on 06/23/2008, -7/+16I don't think i've ever seen a positive McCain story on the frontpage... There are about 15 a day on Obama, i think you guys have em out trolled already.
      • KLBP, on 06/23/2008, -4/+11I don't ever look at the front page personally. Where I have really noticed a surge in McCain-bot digg activity is in the comment sections where there has been a noticeable change in digging and burying of comments.
        • crowbar77, on 06/23/2008, -9/+4Umm yeah i doubt that. Most of McCain's supporters are old and don't use digg, hell most of them i doubt even use the internet. Did you ever consider it's because digg is getting away from being Obama's personal propaganda site?
        • soracross, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Really wanting some points, huh?
        • coffeebaby, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2i've noticed that too. it must be a really nice travel mug...
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2@crowbar -
          Troll or not, if you expect people to take your comments seriously, you might want to try posting thoughtful, intelligent, supported comments without simple spelling &/or grammar mistakes.
          eg.
          "Most of McCain's supporters are old and don't use digg" - REALLY? Do you know most of McCain's supporters? It's impossible for you to support that statement so why make it?

          "...not because were McCain trolls." - You mean "not because WE ARE McCain trolls." If you want to shorten WE ARE it becomes we're(note the apostrophe!). Otherwise, you are referring to past tense, like in "We were McCain supporters but now we support Obama"

          btw Republican or Democrat, it doesn't seem to matter anymore. The whole 2 different views thing doesn't exist anymore, it's more of an illusion to make you feel like you have a choice.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2There's no need to friend Obama supporters, because common sense and a very low viewing threshold will help you spot abuses. You can, however, ask your like-minded friends to help you digg out an insightful comment that's been unfairly buried, or bury an insidious one that's been unfairly promoted. Strong stuff, these powers the digg admins have given us.
  • OJdidntdoIT, on 06/22/2008, -83/+21Obama has ruled the front page since Ron Paul was beaten. His trolls are all over this damn website.

    I don't mind to see a Mccain Troll every now and again.

    *****.

    FYI, I'm Black and OJ Didn't ***** DO IT!
    • sugarazor, on 06/22/2008, -5/+35Well that last part just pretty much confirms you're not black and you're a troll.
    • jforjools, on 06/22/2008, -6/+19Obama does not actively urge his supporters to make anti-McCain comments. He also don't post 'talking points' for blog-supporters.
      • KLBP, on 06/23/2008, -4/+6This is an important point. Nobody encouraged me to start digging up pro-Obama stuff and I get no rewards from someone for making pro-Obama posts. Heck I was even a Digg member from long before Obama even announced his candidacy, I just wasn't very active because I rarely found stuff I was interested in until this campaign came along. I simply digg what stuff interests me. I do bury a lot of stuff, but I try to limit what I bury to troll posts, posts that misrepresent an issue, smear posts, etc.

    • geoken, on 06/22/2008, -6/+14Actually, the only thing the last part confirms is that the poster is an idiot.
    • freshgrease, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2Lies! All of them! /s
    • SquigglyP, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7which thing did OJ not do? Murder two people, run from the police while threatening his friend with a gun (which he was never charged for, but was obviously guilty of, since that chase was on every TV on the planet), or the thing where he tried to steal back some of his sports memorabilia?

      Cause he did all of those.
      • OJdidntdoIT, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1He's never done nothing!
      • girwen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I personally think oj is guilty of the double murder. I do know that his right, if any, in the memorabilia is now nullified by the judgment obtained by the Browns and Goodmans.
    • FecalHurler, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1If the glove don't fit, acquit?
  • whataboutdave, on 06/22/2008, -43/+23Yeah, because Digg is overrun with pro-McCain comments...

    /s
    • Jumpeplowski, on 06/23/2008, -4/+5You shouldn't be Dugg down for that... I haven't seen a McCain troll in weeks and I visit Digg regularly and look at hidden comments.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/23/2008, -4/+6Really?? That's all I've seen this week..

      pro-McCain/anti-Obama stories get made popular around 11pm EST and by midnight anything pro-McCain/anti-Obama has +50 diggs and any attempt at correcting the inaccuracies have -30ish diggs. I havent bothered checking them again in the morning so I'm not sure if the tides change at all.
  • samoan27, on 06/22/2008, -48/+19Not half the points the Obama Trolls get.
  • georgemason01, on 06/22/2008, -45/+22Right, because this is so much different from what Obama is doing:

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Barack_Obama_rec ...

    I can't wait to vote for a candidate who supports expanding FISA, supports the REAL ID act, does not oppose nation building, won't commit to withdrawing troops from Iraq before 2013, wants to continue loaning billions per year to Israel, continues to vote for Iraq war funding, supports continued sanctions against Iran, and voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

    Change I can believe in.

    Republicrats '08.
    • jforjools, on 06/22/2008, -6/+13If you read the link, you'd know different.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/23/2008, -9/+1Yer obviously just saying those words to incite anger.
    • charm803, on 06/23/2008, -4/+7You obviously didn't read the article.

      Obama has to tackle rumors McCain and his campaign started, and is using his senior staff to handle them.

      He started a page where you can forward to friends, and only the TRUTH is debunking the rumors.

      McCain is actively telling them to SUBMIT them to websites.
  • goodnrg, on 06/22/2008, -9/+22Having a web site to fight smears is a bit different than giving people points to promote a candidate online, but hey, you shot got at least 5 points!
    • Pherdnut, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7And in this, goodnrg demonstrate how such measures backfire. This makes it likely that claims made by any McCain supporter will be dismissed without consideration. What a lame campaign effort.

      No wonder Hillary took it to a career-breaking point of no return. She must have understood that getting a chance to run against McCain was a virt