Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
McCain Attacks Obama's Holocaust Museum Statement
huffingtonpost.com — The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem. How low will he go?
JekJob- 965 diggs
- digg it
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -83/+19Meeting with the Iranian leader that believes the holocaust never happened and trying to talk with him?
Or that Obama doesnt realize that the Iran president was an instructor of the Basij ( kids who were handed plastic keys to heaven in exchange for running over landmines and charging into enemy fire with no weapons as human shields)
Anything to get Iran a nuclear weapons - yes its hypocritical of Obama.- neognostic, on 07/23/2008, -13/+53Ignorance of the facts never seems to bother you does it? Obama did not say he would meet with Ahmadinejad, he said he would meet with the leaders of Iran, who happen to be the clergy since Iran is a theocracy.
Secondly, even after attacking Obama on this thoughtful plan, Bush is now having meetings at a Diplomatic level with Iran at this moment.- funkyloki, on 07/23/2008, -4/+17Man, that Bush is such an appeaser.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/23/2008, -12/+5The Europeans and the United States are meeting with Iran's representatives so that when the talks fail, Europe can pass tougher sanctions and either Israel or the US can carry out additional measures....bombing runs. We just want to cross our t's and dot our i's before we ***** them up. By the way, the talks failed already....if you were a supporter of John McCain and read my blog, you would have been informed of it yesterday.
http://quadzeroroute.blogspot.com/
http://digg.com/world_news/Iranian_nuke_letter_red ... - archiesteel, on 07/23/2008, -2/+10Stop whoring your blog.
- bababoosh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1How else is quadzeroroute supposed to get people to read his wait.. it's nothing but a bunch of links to other people's stories. Stop whoring your "blog".
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -17/+8"Obama did not say he would meet with Ahmadinejad, he said he would meet with the leaders of Iran, who happen to be the clergy since Iran is a theocracy."
Who is the head spokesperson of Iran?
Ahmadinejad - not the Clergy
"Bush is now having meetings at a Diplomatic level with Iran at this moment."
Sorry moment came and went - and strict orders NOT to meet with Ahmadinejad - result - Iran still wants nuclear fuel.
So what facts are you questioning?
Seems like you have none and have not proven anything of mine incorrect.
But then this is from Huffington post and you must defend good sources. /S- soot, on 07/23/2008, -4/+11They didn't say spokesperson, they said leaders.
Of course Ahmedinejad is the 'spokesperson'. - vinod1978, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3@jabberwolf - So when did talking to our enemies solve anything? Remember a little thing called the cold war? Well we didn't stop talking to the Russians. Remember something called Vietnam? The Chinese were selling arms to the communists over there, yet we continued talking with China and eventually they have become our allies, and we work closely with them. Talking to leaders that do not agree with us is the only way we have a chance of solving issues. If all we do is use force, we will have more violence on American soil. 9-11 will look like birthday party if we continue down this path.
Republicans are trying to put fear in everyone and their only solution is to invade...well guess what - it doesn't work. You can't go to war with an ideology. Of course, maybe you would like to loose another trillion on another war, or completely collapse our fragile economy, or loose thousands more soldiers and accomplish absolutely nothing. If this is your goal, then you are completely on the right track.
Idiot. - khail250, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Nuclear fuel, BINGO! not bombs you moron
- bababoosh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1jabber, please do us all a favor and just stick your head back in the hole. yours is a tired lot. and more of the country is starting to become aware of this.
- soot, on 07/23/2008, -4/+11They didn't say spokesperson, they said leaders.
- MattB123, on 07/23/2008, -7/+12Meeting with != siding with.
You have to start somewhere.- Mystlyfe, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1I love how the Republicans ignore this fact. They assume if you meet with people you automatically want to side with them.
- aftern9ne, on 07/23/2008, -5/+11And that is exactly where our foreign policy has failed in recent history. Meeting and talking with other countries should be our primary diplomatic strategy. I don't care how controversial that country may be.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6No it has not been a failure on our part.
The United States, Europe, China and Russia have met with Iran plenty....something like 25 times over the -past five years. They are getting ready for additional sanctions and possibly a bombing run next. - aftern9ne, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4And how many times has President Bush met with Iran's leaders?
- licnyc, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Everyone forgets Iran was ready to negotiate with US through the swiss, they were willing to recognize Israel, abandon nuclear program and help fight terrorism. After Iraq they were scared and were willing to sign on the dotted line- Bush asshats rejected them out of hand because they didn't want to appear weak.
Watch frontline
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6No it has not been a failure on our part.
- licnyc, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4In a Bush administration about-face, a top U.S. diplomat will take part in talks with Iran this weekend on the disputed Iranian nuclear program. (July 16)
even Bolton suggests Israel talks with Iran
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/05/ ...
Note that all the news articles mention talks with "Iran" not Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is the president, the clergy run the country. This nonsense you are peddling is more mindless fodder to rally the misinformed around lies. - Mystlyfe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0I suppose you'd prefer to let Iran sit and boil some more? Or would you want to invade? That worked SO WELL with Iraq.
- neognostic, on 07/23/2008, -13/+53Ignorance of the facts never seems to bother you does it? Obama did not say he would meet with Ahmadinejad, he said he would meet with the leaders of Iran, who happen to be the clergy since Iran is a theocracy.
- alapoet, on 07/23/2008, -24/+127There's nothing McCain wouldn't do or say to get elected.
Fortunately, this time there's nothing he CAN do or say that will get him elected.- oOLiquidNightOo, on 07/23/2008, -6/+22you underestimate the lengths the GOP will go to get him elected.
- RobotLeAwesome, on 07/23/2008, -6/+32you underestimate the stupidity of Americans.
- LukasSmith, on 07/23/2008, -26/+11Lol the only things Obama says are "change" and "hope." Maybe he should learn some new words. Maybe words like No when they call his name out for a vote on FISA. OH wait he already voted for FISA, my bad.
- OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9^^ case in point
- zeptobyte, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11I wonder why everyone mentions FISA as a reason for not voting for Obama, when McCain voted on it too.. zomg Obama's not a perfect candidate; who knew? He's still much better than McCain.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7I forget- how, exactly, did McCain vote on FISA?
Oh, wait- he didn't. My bad. - rpgmaker, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Well, in all honesty, it would've been better for Obama if he hadn't voted on FISA.
- LukasSmith, on 07/23/2008, -6/+2Yeah because we can have 30 articles on digg.com a while back against FISA but when Obama votes for it its ok, because McCain did too. See how sick that is?
- Nin10dude, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Obama isn't perfect, frankly, there are plenty of others I wish were running for the Democratic party. However, he's the much lesser of two evils.
"Yeah because we can have 30 articles on digg.com a while back against FISA but when Obama votes for it its ok, because McCain did too. See how sick that is?"
It's not okay, I'm pissed about it. I don't know anybody who's fine with it. Just because it's not plastered all over digg doesn't mean it's not okay. Naturally, since the majority of us are obviously liberals, McCain's slip-ups are going to get more attention than Obama's. That doesn't mean we don't already know and dislike Obama's... we just don't get as much pleasure from hearing about them as we do McCain's.
- jemka, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10Is it just me or do these ***** politicians spend way too much time talking about each other and not enough on EXACTLY how they are going to make change on the bad and sustain the good? I don't give a rats ass about any of this other ***** and I'm damn sick of hearing about it.
- scottsutherland, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2We know, we all know, but the sad truth is that the vast majority of americans aren't involved and don't care much about politics. Psychologically speaking, people who have little commitment to an issue tend to stay away from the side receiving many ad hominem attacks. It's pitiful, but it's the truth.
- Swordman554, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Welcome to America.
- flink405, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2ABC news reported the same thing about Obama:
From ABC news blog ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/ob ... )
"Once again an Israeli journalist asked the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee how he’d help prevent a second Holocaust. "Senator can you assure Israel that there will be no second Holocaust despite Iran's threat to wipe us off the map?" he asked.
Obama demurred, saying that it wasn't appropriate to answer the question there.
"This is Yad Vashem!" the journalist responded.
Obama said he would answer the question at a later press availability."- StarlessKnight, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Perhaps a dodge, perhaps not wanting to get caught in the "Iran said..." if that's the statement Iran didn't actually say it was just interpreted that way.
- archiesteel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4...except Iran never threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
- slifty, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5you underestimate the power of the dark side.
- whorunbartertwn, on 07/23/2008, -3/+0It's a misleading title, since apparently McCain didn't do or say anything here.
- saxmaster, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3There's nothing POLITICIANS wouldn't do or say to get elected. Unfortunately, whoever you vote for you're going to get a politician.
- spreadfred, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0there's nothing obama wouldnt do or say to get elected
there's nothing ronpaul wouldnt do or say to get elected
etc.
- MrMick, on 07/23/2008, -12/+51McCain and his campaign staff clearly know no shame. To win, they will say anything, do anything, and lick the boots of anyone they think might help them. Bush's presidency was a disaster for the United States (except for the wealthy); a McCain presidency would make Bush's two terms look like a garden party.
- theotheragentm, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Last I checked, the wealthy still had the same crappy dollar that I do. Wasn't perfect for wealthy people either.
- boot20, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11The wealthy buy and sell other monetary units as well...so, no, they don't have the same dollar you do.
- LukasSmith, on 07/23/2008, -17/+3Wow yeah as if that couldn't be said of Obama. OH wait he is Obama! The holy Messiah. Praise be to his perfect clay feet. Can't wait till he falls. Democrats actually think there exists no criticism of Obama. Mainly because they live in conclaves in places like digg.com masturbating each other with huffington post articles and making sure nothing but Praise be to Obama articles get noticed. The only reason Obama is being left alone is because of the race card. Even Jay Leno dares not make a joke. The New Yorker learned their lesson. The only problem with Hillary was she wasn't black enough. But I fully expect America to wake up and realize Obama is not the Messiah and the only change he offers is more melanin in his skin.
- whaleyboy69, on 07/23/2008, -10/+2Your comment is demonstrably false.
The irony, however, is spot on.
You have one candidate (Obama) whose message bends depending on the direction that the wind is blowing. He is feckless, immature and inexperienced. Despite those clear shortcomings his supporters accuse McCain of exactly those weaknesses which he doesn't have.
I personally had enough of this feckless style of "triangulation" while Slick Wilie was in office. I don't particularly like McCain but I sure like him more than the other clown. - nretamp, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5My new favorite is the ad blaming Obama for high gas prices... "Who's responsible for high gas prices? Obama, Obama, Obama...." Seriously, pandering to the idiots who only vote along party lines is getting old and ***** like this has to stop.
- LukasSmith, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1My new favorite is Obama fanatics making up ads that don't exist to make it "appear" Obama actually gets bad press. Please. Obama has the finest card in America. The race card. He is untouchable. Hopefully America can see through the melanin on their own.
- theotheragentm, on 07/23/2008, -9/+2Last I checked, the wealthy still had the same crappy dollar that I do. Wasn't perfect for wealthy people either.
- apothekari, on 07/23/2008, -10/+60Desperation makes politicians say the darndest things!
- booksnmore4you, on 07/23/2008, -12/+33Dear McSame Camp:
Crying "never again" is in no way selfsame with committing to U.S. military intervention for every place in the world where genocide is happening. There *is* such thing as the U.N, after all, of which U.S. troops ought play their part, including in dealing with situations of genocide.
"Never again". That's right. Because the U.S. will take leadership in the global community, to get that same global community to take actions against genocide. I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand how very different that is from "going it alone in the world" as has happened for the past 8 years. - swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -6/+59"...negative campaigns don't work. They don't work [in Iowa], and they don't work here in New Hampshire" (John McCain)
"Overheated rhetoric and personal attacks on our opponents distract from the big differences between John McCain's vision for the future of our nation and the Democrats'."
(McCain Campaign memo)
"he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues. We expect that all supporters, surrogates and staff will hold themselves to similarly high standards"
(McCain Campaign memo) - ethaberecht, on 07/23/2008, -8/+30Genocide is awful and I understand what Mr. Obama said a year ago. The US has not put a premium on stopping genocide. It has put a premium on affecting oil producing areas of the world.
Nothing he said in that museum was a lie. Anyone walking through a museum like that (the three I've been to are terrifying) will be (should be?) deeply moved and want to do something, anything, to prevent atrocities like that from happening again.
In response to Mr. McCain's comments today I would ask what is his stand on Darfur or the Congo is and what our place in altering what's going on in those areas?
http://www.darfurscores.org/barack-obama vs http://www.darfurscores.org/john-mccain
I couldn't find scorecards on the Congo but here is are links to simple searches that seem to lean more favorable towards Obama hear as well.
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&newwindow= ... vs http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&newwindow= ... - lajaw, on 07/23/2008, -27/+8The Obamanation of Desolation is out to get even you. Don't be fooled fools.
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Then enlighten us. How is he "out to get us"?
- lajaw, on 07/23/2008, -15/+3He and his kind will continue to take away your liberty. When was the last time a presidential candidate promised more liberty?
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -2/+12Can you be more specific? "His kind will take away our liberty" is as vague as "winning in Iraq".
- rhabd0mancer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7"He'll git er guns!!"
- funkyloki, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5@lajaw: Are you a McCain supporter, or more to the point, do you support any presidential candidate? I ask because your statement, "When was the last time a presidential candidate promised more liberty?" would seem to include McCain and anyone else who has announced to run. BTW, Bob Barr and Ron Paul both promised more liberty, so that kind of blows your whole comment away. Doesn't it?
- lajaw, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2IF you understand the concept of Liberty, then I need not explain. I don't support either of the candidates from the two major parties. I can't support Bob Barr, because he is an insider. Nader is a goofball and McKinney is worse. That leaves the Constitution Party whom I like, but am realistic in that they don't stand a chance.
I hope that this election will wake up people and open minds, eyes and hearts. This country isn't socialist, isn't fascist and isn't a kingdom. But we are doomed if we don't start to exercise our rights and demand freedom and liberty. - dinot, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"But we are doomed if we don't start to exercise our rights and demand freedom and liberty. "
Again, can you be more specific? How are we "doomed"? What will happen when we're doomed? How do we exercise our rights? Which rights are you talking about? Do we just go out on the street and yell "freedom!!!" like in braveheart?
- mummbleswers, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"Don't be fooled fools" - God I loved your cereal! And are you guys planning on making another A-Team film any time soon?
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Then enlighten us. How is he "out to get us"?
- mommacat, on 07/23/2008, -9/+25never again can we have another idiot running the country like bush or mccain. They spin everything, even the damn holocaust into some twisted abortion. I am sick of these hardcore lunatic fringe facist republicans like mcsame!
- barstegry, on 07/23/2008, -6/+0Are you kidding? Do you honestly think it is only the repubs (of which I am so not a member). Pick a politician and you will find spin and BS. I appreciate and agree with your point, but don't be so naive as to think it is the repub machine alone.
- Cuchanu, on 07/23/2008, -7/+30SERIOUSLY?? WTF happened to the straight shooter McCain?
I guess the Republican war machine got their mitts into the formerly respectable candidate and it was all downhill from there.
Every day that passes I dislike this guy more.- kingmanic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8!
It's not McCain. It's Cheney with massive amounts of plastic surgery. - seraph582, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Obama isn't making this decision any easier on us - turning into a fascist by supporting FISA and talking about lowering corporate taxes and all. ***** both of them. Don't pretend voting dem or rep. will fix ANYTHING. They're both the ***** same.
- Cuchanu, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I'm taking the wait and see attitude. I'm pretty sure that neither will fix things but I have convinced myself that McCain will only make it worse, so I'll vote for Obama and "hope" for the best.
- msheidi, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0the election is being man handled, by the liberal press
- thereisnostate, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1He sold his soul to AIPAC.
- kingmanic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8!
- krische, on 07/23/2008, -32/+26What is this, like the 5th HuffingtonPost article on digg today?
Seriously, we get it. You don't like McCain.- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -17/+14Who cares where it's from? Its message is relevant, unlike what you have to say.
- krische, on 07/23/2008, -11/+15Uh I think we got the message the first hundred articles from them. It's just the same trash in a different bag.
- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -16/+8If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.
- MrTulip, on 07/23/2008, -5/+9yeah, but all those huffpo submissions are making the politics and the election section almost unreadable. nine articles at the same time? please.
and btw while i agree that the 'msm' reporting is far from insightful and interesting - compared to "journalistic" output of the pandering penwhores of ariannas ***** it's downright pulitzer material. - johnnyboy239, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6As long as the articles have something important to say then it's justified. However @jek caring where something is from is what distances those who are educated from those who are not,
you must always take the source into consideration when you read anything because the ideas and opinions of the source will affect the article, taking the source into consideration is one of the only ways to eliminate a bias (or at least understand it) - JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4I suppose you're correct, you should take the source into consideration. However, I did not submit those nine articles. I submitted one and I think this one is a legitimate story. And it wasn't submitted just because it was on Huffington Post.
If you actually read the article, it doesn't even glorify Obama. This isn't a poorly written/researched article, it is factual and it cites quotes from McCain aides. But of course it's going to be biased, its a liberal publication. - krische, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5So because it uses quotes from McCain aides, its all of a sudden credible? I'm sure those same quotes could be spun into a positive McCain article much like Huffpo spins it into a negative.
The problem with sites like Huffington Post is you are letting them do all of the thinking for you. You are no longer deciding for yourself. Instead, you are reading articles with a clear agenda to make you think a certain way. Try finding an unbiased source for information and interpret it yourself. - JekJob, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2No I'm saying how could they be spinning this? The aides said what they said. Obviously it's a bit sensationalist, but that doesn't mean the information is wrong.
I'm not some Obama nut, and I'll just as soon criticize him than I will McCain, as I did for the FISA bill, etc. Please don't tell me I can't think for myself.
- KaiSe7eN, on 07/23/2008, -13/+7I dugg up JekJob. You're a ***** retard krische
- krische, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Yeah, how retarded of me to question the validity of all articles on Huffington Post when they clearly have a left leaning agenda.
- mummbleswers, on 07/23/2008, -6/+5The new right-wing trend on Digg is to trash articles just because they come from the huffington post regardless of the content or if the article is correct. That's why I think most of you guys are spineless morons! Yeah, that's a bit harsh, but any time I want to get facts out of people for why they don't like the article I get dugg down with no response. And this will get dugg down also, but I don't care b/c I still stand by the fact that right-wingers on here are completely and utterly full of *****. Give me a Fox news article with no holes in it and I'm there! I will read it and not complain like a little bitch. Why? Because it's information. Go ahead and dumb yourself down or ignore real conversations by just saying "huff spam!" but we all know the truth. You have nothing to stand on so you criticize the source, not the article. Pathetic.
- krische, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4I think its time you take the blinders off and stop thinking in terms of right-wing and left-wing. Why don't you try thinking for yourself. The reason I don't like this article and most other articles from Huffington Post is not because of the story the article is reporting, but the left-leaning spin they put on it. I mean god forbid they just present the story and let us make our own decision. Instead, Huffington Post does the thinking for you by focusing only on negative stories about McCain.
- dkapuchino, on 07/23/2008, -6/+5I'd love to see these articles reaching the front page, if they come from a source I can actually rely on.
Do you obama fans want to continue stoking each others egos and fapping to huff post articles, or do you want to try and affect the way others think? If it's the latter, start posting from more credible sources. - mummbleswers, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5See krische, I can respect that - an actual reply, and you feel like there's a left wing spin on this article. But why don't you guys ever refute what exactly in the article is leaning left? Prove the article wrong then! I'm bagging on people who have nothing and just say "huff spam" thinking that's gonna disprove the article's contents. And I hate to burst your bubble but I do think for myself, I use terms like "right-wing and left-wing" because that's what is happening in the world of politics. I personally would prefer a no party system, but that's not gonna happen so I address what is here, now. And dkapuchino, that's exactly what I'm talking about, no real facts proving your argument, then you go off on some Obama *****. I mean dude, how do you reply to something, with more of the same *****?
- JekJob, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I agree. If you dislike the Huffington Post, that's fine. But if you're going to bother making a big stink about it, then at least provide a "credible source" that disproves what they report.
- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -17/+14Who cares where it's from? Its message is relevant, unlike what you have to say.
- somberlaine, on 07/23/2008, -8/+14Hey, I dont care for McCain...but enough of that pic.
- thirdcoastborn, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5it's a nice picture
- charm803, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Yeah, it catches his good side-
covering his old cronie face.
- charm803, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Yeah, it catches his good side-
- thirdcoastborn, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5it's a nice picture
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/23/2008, -8/+12Wait a minute... Did the McCain camp just say that Obama should be pushing for troops in the Congo? How come McCain hasn't been pushing for this himself?
- MadOgre, on 07/23/2008, -19/+26Is there a way I can filter out just submissions from the Huffington Post?
- thatsmyaibo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I hope Google is smart enough to add that feature. It can just be called the "stop the 1 sided ***** stories" button.
- skoles, on 07/23/2008, -7/+21Honestly I would love, just for once, a mainstream news station picks up on one of these Huffington Post/ThinkProgress stories and investigates and broadcasts it.
Just tell people the hard ***** truth for once instead of these sugar coated interviews they do.- KaiSe7eN, on 07/23/2008, -11/+3Or maybe an article from Cosmopolitan? Since Digg embraces it so much now.
- krische, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6Well, one has to question if there is some "hard ***** truth" in Huffington Post/ThinkProgress stories to begin with.
- neveroddoreven, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1If mainstream news became like Huffpost spam we'd be doomed and the rest of the world would be like digg readers. Maybe commercials will occasionally have a rickroll "Just kidding we're not take a commercial break!"
- projectI, on 07/23/2008, -15/+10how about this? ***** All Politicians?
- Wangzero, on 07/23/2008, -11/+11I like how every story of McCain that get submitted to Digg ends up with the double facepalm image to the side :)
- KaiSe7eN, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5He's not lying, those thumbnails have been infesting the front page and they're all linked to McCain articles, wtf Digg......
- sircomix, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6Who combs the old man's hair, anyway?
- wonderworm, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1 Careful about the hair "you c_u_n_t!"
- rz8472, on 07/23/2008, -7/+10Looks like McCain's age hasn't stopped him or his campaign from acting like babies.
- SSPink, on 07/23/2008, -9/+14Wow, only July and they are getting awfully desperate.
- RobotLeAwesome, on 07/23/2008, -5/+6::facepalm::
- Marlon, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4double facepalm
- Marlon, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4double facepalm
- CptSaladin, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5I don't think any political candidate can really commit our country to ending genocide across the world. It's just too ridiculous of a statement. Especially for a country actively engaged in two wars with another big one pending, I don't think we really have the voluntary man-power to stop the over half a dozen genocides taking place right now across the world. McCain's camp is trying to pick at ridiculous points when all the while his ignorance is shaming his own party nearly every time he speaks.
- barstegry, on 07/23/2008, -15/+3Interesting - thumbs down clicks on pro-Obama comments either create no change in the "+" number or actually increase the number while thumbs up on comments that are critical of the huffblow "articles" (I use that term very loosely) result in negative votes or no change..
Interesting.....- nblsavage, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9Try refreshing the page genius.
- Serphyas, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A
- SSPink, on 07/23/2008, -1/+10Other people are clicking those buttons as well. When you click, it gives you the updated total, including your vote AND all the other votes that have accumulated since you last updated the page.
Idiot. - barstegry, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3it's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy....
fish on, you dumb *****... don't wait for MENSA to call anytime soon my friends.... - FredFredrickson, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Come on guys, take it easy on him. If he's anything like McCain, this could be his first day on the internet, so he doesn't get things like this yet.
- johnnyboy239, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2@sspink I'm guessing, well at least hoping that that was his point that there are so many people supporting the pro-obama and negating the anti-huffington comments
Not that digg itself is manipulating the system, that would be over the top ridiculous for anyone to say.- nblsavage, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2you are being far to generous johnnyboy.
- eltrev, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1we have another dim bulb here
- mattyx, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9Desperation leaves a sour smell....
- EvansHall, on 07/23/2008, -13/+5I have not seen one pro-Obama article on Digg for a while now. Just anti-McCain stuff.
Obama is running a positive campaign. His supporters on Digg are not.- FredFredrickson, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6Your point?
- zombies187, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Fair enough. But just wait till he is president. Itll be wall to wall complaining. Even from supporters till the next election. Thats how it works baby!
- whiterice0, on 07/23/2008, -23/+12Huffingtonpost.com -- buried.
- mummbleswers, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4you cry like little girl. buried.
- canofig, on 07/23/2008, -5/+10Dugg because I want to see McCain in every top story's thumbnail in a dejected pose!
- SwedishNinja, on 07/23/2008, -21/+16"The McCain campaign"
"How low will HE go?"
I don't know how low HE will go, but his campaign staff might possibly say some things that could be perceived as low.
Buried for HuffingtonSpam- SSPink, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9HE is the one that said Obama was willing to lose a war to win an election, and that may be the single lowest thing I've ever heard in presidential politics.
- neveroddoreven, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1really thats the lowest thing you've heard in presidential politics.. you must not be listening
- xDynaBlade, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Buried for being moronic.
- SSPink, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9HE is the one that said Obama was willing to lose a war to win an election, and that may be the single lowest thing I've ever heard in presidential politics.
- aehtra, on 07/23/2008, -13/+4Big deal.
I question Barack Obama's commitment to preventing future genocide over his support of the ethnic cleansing going on right now against the Palestinians.- dkapuchino, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2Hey, *****, I'm getting sick and tired with your *****.
The palestinians are one of the top growing populations in the world.
For every 1000 palestinians, 3 palestinians day every year. In return, another 30 are born. In fact, the palestinains are only #187 (!!!!) in the world in their annual death rate. That's better than Israel, New Zealand , Iceland, Australia, Canada, Argentina, The US, Holland, France...
Israel, with all their nukes and smart missiles, must really really really suck at genocide if after ALLLLLL the palestinians they kill every year, they still have one of the lowest death rates globaly.
As for sources?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_years_on_top.as ...
http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2
- dkapuchino, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2Hey, *****, I'm getting sick and tired with your *****.
- dildoolielly, on 07/23/2008, -4/+19Really, is this is the best the GOP has? This guy is dumber than Bush, wait a sec, ok, yeah he is as dumb as Bush!
In the Naval Academy McCain finished 5th from THE BOTTOM of his class of nearly 900. Clearly he's not too bright. He still can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. And for God's sake, he doesn't know how to use a computer!!! His father the admiral helped him pass in the Academy, but he couldn't help him become an admiral. I can see why he doesn't want his full Naval record to see the light of day.
This ***** relies heavily on his military background to aid his campaign but, why does he refuses to release his military records?! A man who hides his history, is not destined to be a leader that can be trusted.
He also left his crippled wife who waited loyally for him, while raising his children. He cheated on her and then married a billionaire 18 years his junior.
I love that the internet, and specifically digg, is exposing this melting, reptilian lunatic for who he really is. he's on par with your favorite senile grandpa who says wacky, ignorant ***** that you brush aside because deep in your heart you know that the sane people are gonna win the country back this november.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the insane.- johnnyboy239, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4Ok, I don't like McCain, but this comment was just stupid, didn't finish the naval academy at the top of his class who cares? Cheated on his wife.... ok we were arguing against using this kind of argument for Bill Clinton, why change it now?
There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize McCain on, don't fall to standards like this, we leave that to the republicans.- chr00t, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Totally agree w/Jonnyboy239....
- chr00t, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4I'm no McCain fan, but I seriously doubt he is as dumb as you say. I also dont agree w/what he did to his original wife either, but I dont know the whole story and I doubt you do either.
As far as not making Admiral....wtf?
I think being a POW for several years had something to do w/not making admiral. I know if I was a POW and was lucky enough to make it home alive, I sure as hell would NOT stay in.
- johnnyboy239, on 07/23/2008, -7/+4Ok, I don't like McCain, but this comment was just stupid, didn't finish the naval academy at the top of his class who cares? Cheated on his wife.... ok we were arguing against using this kind of argument for Bill Clinton, why change it now?
- thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -15/+10I need a way to filter out certain news sources. This is ***** ridiculous. I'm e-mailing digg.
- exomni, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5This is nothing compared to Cracked articles, or Zero Punctuation.
- thedogfatherx, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Yep those to. At leasted cracked articles are funny.
- mummbleswers, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4We're all very proud of you - what made you think I give two ***** about what you email digg.
- thedogfatherx, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1It's to e-mail them and make a suggestion on making digg better you ***** ***** waste of skin.
- FrenchAnarchy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1What? I think I hear the faint sound of a very whiny bitch...
- exomni, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5This is nothing compared to Cracked articles, or Zero Punctuation.
- MrTulip, on 07/23/2008, -19/+10at this time there are 9 articles by huffpo on the election page. srsly digg, that mag is trash. i have nothing against their political stance but they lack depth, style and decency. also intelligence.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8"I have nothing against them, but they are just disgusting, worthless, vile scum."
Uh... right. Because anyone who has an opinion different from yours shouldn't be allowed on Digg.- MrTulip, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1what? i thought i made clear that i have nothing against their political views. why the word twisting? i just don't like their fox-style quote mining and stuff like that. the flood of huffpo articles is beyond good and evil theses days imho.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Word twisting?
"i have nothing against their political stance but they lack depth, style and decency. also intelligence. "
I'm sorry, but even without any sort of exaggeration, you come off as having some sort of personal bias.
- FredFredrickson, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8"I have nothing against them, but they are just disgusting, worthless, vile scum."
- chrissku, on 07/23/2008, -5/+17John McCain has been acting like a little bitch ever since Barack went overseas. It's all jealousy.
- FrenchAnarchy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4The ol' man is getting cranky; probably missed naptime.
- UnaaitOnsSteeds, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2The USA is nothing more than Israels lapdog :
At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."- ShimonDigg, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0What the hell does this have to do with Jews or Israel?
Also, how could Sharon talk to Peres, considering that he's in a comatized vegetative state, you moron?- UnaaitOnsSteeds, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Dear ShimonDigg
The conversation between Sharon and Perez took place on 3 October, 2001
The connection to Israel is the fact that the USA presidential 'hopeful' say exactly what Isral wants to hear. Like Obama claiming that Jeruzalem is and will remain Israel undivided capital.... - ShimonDigg, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1That quote is false and has been debunked numerous times.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issu ...
You probably also think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real.
Try harder.
- UnaaitOnsSteeds, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Dear ShimonDigg
- DevilInPgh, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Urban legend FTL:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issu ...
- ShimonDigg, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0What the hell does this have to do with Jews or Israel?
- thirdcoastborn, on 07/23/2008, -7/+22I wish the people here that are burying these articles would just bury it and move the ***** on. Why the ***** do you have to tell us that your buried it.. Nobody gives a *****. Just bury the ***** and move the ***** on. ***** pussies
- badfrog, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7I buried your comment.
- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7I buried yours.
- Maximilian000, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I buried you both
- badfrog, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7I buried your comment.
- Shoebox639, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1I actually have no faith on the US government to ever stop or prevent another genocide. "It's just not our problem" trumps "never again" to a lot of American politicians. Clinton ***** up on Rwanda and Bush ***** up on Darfur. Clinton however did act in Kosovo. It's pretty obvious though, why he took action in Kosovo, but left Rwanda to the UN.
- msheidi, on 07/24/2008, -5/+0If obama gets elected, we will be a muslim nation or we will not exist.
- Cuchanu, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Seriously just when I thought your comments couldn't get any funnier, here you are again.
You know I hope you remember everything you said and in 8 years look back on Obama's presidency and remember all the stupid things you said about Obama legalizing honor killings, Forcing Islam on us, destroying the US, etc.
- Cuchanu, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1Seriously just when I thought your comments couldn't get any funnier, here you are again.
- geekee, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Right, and Obama has every intention of allowing the same to happen in Iraq with his leave no matter what policy that he's espoused for the last 2 years.
How dare McCain point out what Obama actually said?
- msheidi, on 07/24/2008, -5/+0If obama gets elected, we will be a muslim nation or we will not exist.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -14/+9Thank god! It's been a full nine minutes since I've seen another Huffington Post article on the front page...
- gtluke, on 07/23/2008, -19/+14BURRY HUFFINGTON POST
- Takfam, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7Agreed. HuffPo is as bad as Fox these days.
- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4I admit it's biased, but it just balances out Fox.
- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Yes, but the Huffington Post wears its bias on its sleeve, whereas FOX pretends to be a legitimate news outlet.
- FrenchAnarchy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Burry? Is that short for Burrito perhaps?
- Takfam, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7Agreed. HuffPo is as bad as Fox these days.
- soinie, on 07/23/2008, -7/+3The clown McCain just can't lick enough Jewish ass can he?
- ShimonDigg, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Did you even read the article? What the hell does speaking out against genocide have to do with "jewish ass"?
- soinie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Pandering, ever heard of it?
- wkenri, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Come on now, we must be kind to the slow, literal ones who have never seen a shade of grey.
- ShimonDigg, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Did you even read the article? What the hell does speaking out against genocide have to do with "jewish ass"?
- McShr3dd3r, on 07/23/2008, -6/+16If Obama said the sky was blue, McCain would say it's in fact red and that thinking the opposite will lose the hundred year war.
- geekee, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Obama's the one calling a blue sky red. McCain is the one saying "open your eyes, the sky's blue"
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -13/+8Digging HuffPoo articles spreads cancer.
- DesignNerd, on 07/23/2008, -6/+4I love all of the ***** "shamed" images of McCain that accompany all of *****-up's *****. Just sayin'.
- Inohavehalos, on 07/23/2008, -12/+7The McCain Facepalm is getting annoying, huffingtonpost
- f4nt0m4s, on 07/23/2008, -11/+7It's ironic, so many Digg users are opposed to mass genocide...Saddam Hussein was a perpetrator of mass genocide himself;
http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhuma ...
Surely some good came from removing him from power. If you are going to take the position that the United States can influence the world in preventing mass genocide, then you better have a good premise in defense for not removing Saddam from power, and then staying around to clean up the mess.- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Yeah but they didn't remove him from power just because committed genocide, it was because of oil.
If we cared about genocide we'd be in SO many other countries, like Sudan. - f4nt0m4s, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1@JekJob
That may very well be. But, a lot of the posts above are talking about how we should stop genocide.
Even if the Bush administration's means to go to war was not to stop Saddam's genocide, in the process of going to war we did stop genocide. So, on some accounts the war was a good thing, no? It seems, dare I say - hypocritical - to put down everyone who was for the insurgency in Iraq, especially those who wanted to remove Saddam from power.
Furthermore, the UN is a joke. It is run mostly by the United States. Democrats have this "we shouldn't police the globe" mindset, so if we shouldn't police the globe, who are we to tell the UN that other countries need to aid in the battle against genocide? Is that not policing the globe? The very notion of aiding in preventing genocide is policing the globe. Just because it looks better than the War in Iraq and costs less, it's still policing. Again, not to throw around the "H word," but it seems hypocritical to make that argument.
Apparently hypocrisy runs rampant amongst digg users. I don't like McCain, I think he's an out of touch hack. I'm not a Republican either. But, the Democrats aren't exactly a perfect party either. Right now, I feel that this is going to be another election between a douche and a turd.
I'm burying this ***** because it's Huffington Post spam, and its bringing out some of the most inane comments I've ever read.
(also, the fact that my original comment is getting buried when it is valid just goes to show how blind the masses are. seriously people, think for yourself. it's okay to prevent genocide when we don't have to risk anything, but the Iraq war? oh ***** that, let the people suffer. even if the primary motivation for the Bush administration was oil, good things did come from removing Saddam from power. it was a step in the right direction) - sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4That's the entire point of this story. Obama spoke out against Iraq, the Right said "WHAT ABOUT GENOCIDE?!" And Obama said, "If we're going to invade countries because of genocide, then you better put 300,000 troops in the Congo."
Obama is pointing out the hypocrisies and lies surrounding this ***** war that we've been fed since day one. First it was the flimsy, non-existent link between Iraq and 9/11, then it was WMDs, then it was "they hate our freedom!" then it was to liberate Iraq, then it was to spread Democracy in the Middle East, now it's "the surge is working!!!!" Yes... you managed to reduce violence in one area five years after we should have never been in the country in the first place, way to go there, scooter. - f4nt0m4s, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1So let's do it, put 300,000 troops in the Congo. Don't use the point as leverage against a flawed [and expensive] War that has just causes. I don't have a sense of irony, if you are going to talk the talk then DO IT. By the way, I recall both a Democratic and Republican congress pulling for this War in Iraq at the time of the initial insurgency. The entire country of America got sucked into the hype, the post-9/11 anger, the WMDs, and the liberation of Iraq. We did liberate Iraq; and, we will remain there until we have established some form of government that won't turn into a dictatorship.
"fighting genocide"...that sounds soooo good on paper...until you need to start funding your invasion, or you need to start blowing stuff up. Or until you need to start pressuring the U.N. to rally troops from other countries to support your "just cause."
Every American wants to play hero, until it comes out of their tax dollars. Or until it is at the expense of American lives. This is why other countries don't want to ***** with resolving genocide, they want to mind their own business and let other countries mind theirs.
But hey, I'd like to see Obama send 300,000 troops to the Congo. I'm sure that will boost his popularity immensely.
by the way, was this comment sarcastic: "now it's "the surge is working!!!!"
because...if the surge isn't working, I assure you, we won't be leaving Iraq until it is.- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Again, totally missing the point. Obama said if we're waging wars solely based on genocide, then we should be putting troops in the Congo. He's pointing out that genocide happens in other parts of the world, yet for some reason we're only going after Iraq.
And The Surge is technically "over." Although we have more troops in Iraq now than we did pre-surge, which really makes it more of an "escalation" than a "surge." But they love to say it worked/is working, yet when someone even mentions a timetable for leaving, the Right comes unglued and says things like "you want to lose a war to win an election!" - f4nt0m4s, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Fair enough. Apparently a whole bunch of diggers above you missed that point as well, and are pushing for resolving genocide. Which was the original point of my original post....it wasn't really directed at Obama, since he doesn't read Digg. It's just surprising to see some of the comments is all.
I don't disagree with you, I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent. I personally wanted nothing to do with Iraq, even if it meant liberating a country from a dictator. Call me selfish....and I don't want to liberate the Congo. - sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Agreed. I didn't want anything to do with Iraq either. All I was saying - and Obama is saying - If we're going to run around sprinkling our Freedom Dust throughout the world, they shouldn't use the excuse of "GENOCIDE!" when it's going on in far greater numbers in much more brutal parts of the world.
- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Again, totally missing the point. Obama said if we're waging wars solely based on genocide, then we should be putting troops in the Congo. He's pointing out that genocide happens in other parts of the world, yet for some reason we're only going after Iraq.
- JekJob, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Yeah but they didn't remove him from power just because committed genocide, it was because of oil.
- EvansHall, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3Mr. Fredrickson,
My point is that Obama supporters cannot do much besides highlight their candidate as the lesser of two evils. Is this not clear from my initial post? Did I really need to spell it out for you?- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I can certainly highlight Obama as more than just the lesser of two evils. A country that is viewed throughout the world as historically racist and ignorant to countries outside of its borders, would have its value increased dramatically simply by electing a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.
That's on top of the fact that he's a Harvard-educated, eloquent and captivating human being. He's the living embodiment of the American Dream and sometimes a symbol is what the world needs to restore hope.
Yes... Barack Obama is Batman.- EvansHall, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I think your reply is somewhat tongue in cheek, no?
Are your top three criteria for President race, college education and public speaking ability? I see that you do not talk about policy at all. - sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1In a way, it's not tongue in cheek at all. I am presenting it in a humorous fashion, but I'm not saying that my top criteria are race, education and charisma - I'm just more of the realistic type that understands what the role of a president in this day in age actually is.
I don't think Obama winning is going to solve all of our problems here at home, but I do think it will raise our standing throughout the world, which has been gravely damaged due to Bush. If we can just give off the impression that we're a civilized country and not a bunch of beer-swilling rednecks who don't care about the rest of the world, then I think a lot of our problems will begin to solve themselves.
I like Obama, don't get me wrong, and I think he'd make a good president, but I think him winning would be more symbolic than anything. It's a clear message to the world that we're shedding our embarrassing last eight years and moving forward with something new, fresh and different. It's not a sole criteria for president, I'm not voting for Obama just because he's black or charismatic, I agree with him on MOST of the issues (not all), but I do think his main selling point is his worldwide appeal, not just an American appeal.
- EvansHall, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I think your reply is somewhat tongue in cheek, no?
- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3I can certainly highlight Obama as more than just the lesser of two evils. A country that is viewed throughout the world as historically racist and ignorant to countries outside of its borders, would have its value increased dramatically simply by electing a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.
- ncc74656m, on 07/23/2008, -5/+7Have you no shame, Mr. McCain? I thought not.
- heliox, on 07/23/2008, -13/+6Huffingtonpost...what a surprise...
- kolinkoolface2, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7yet we hear nothing on this site about obama not ruling out a nuclear attack against Iran....
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL2 ...- thatsmyaibo, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1I'll believe it when I see it on HuffPost...wait a sec...
- DevilInPgh, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5*Double Facepalm* FTW
- crackberri, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1Sorry Hitler lovers, buried as spam….
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by