digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Neocons love Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton

blog.nj.com — That's why the neocons have hitched their wagon to the two most pro-war candidates running for president and who are leading the pack--for now, Rudy and Hillary. The political elites are covering their bets just in case Bush gets cold feet and doesn't attack Iran by Jan. 20, 2009. The neocons think they will be able to count on Rudy or Hillary.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • guestaccount, on 11/02/2007, -6/+55Sick, drum beats coming from both sides.
    My faith in the democrats has been lost. First by them doing nothing in Congress, now by this.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/27/2007, -13/+6Wait, democrats do things? I thought they just enjoy huge government benefits while ignoring "the simpletons"
      • guestaccount, on 10/27/2007, -2/+9I guess nothing is better than actively ***** us as the repubs have done lately.
        • Racerx52, on 10/27/2007, -2/+5So i guess passively ***** us while letting the neocons go mad is better.
        • petewiz, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4That's true in relative terms, but why elect anyone who's just going to ***** us either way?
      • robberry, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7And I thought Republicans spent all their time having furtive gay sex in public bathrooms while ignoring the will of the people and the good of the country.

        Now, shall we continue making stupid posts based on insults and stereotypes, or are you ready to join us at the grown-ups' table?
        • nicholai, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Thank you!
        • yfguitarist, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3The funny thing is, it's ok to make those posts if they're directed at repubs, but when the tables are turned, people see the unfairness of stereotypes.
      • nicholai, on 10/27/2007, -1/+8Stop fighting! Both sides have ***** up. If Ron Paul doesn't win the primary, we need to turn to a third party.
        http://libertarianempire.com/Paul.html
    • MindStalker, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Gotta wonder if all the new earlier primary = no delegates ultimately are a way for the GOP and DNC to choose the nominee dispite what the actual votes are. Especially with the talk that they MIGHT reinstate those votes. If you give the parties the ability to pick and choose what States count if the primaries are close the election can be chosen at will.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/25/2007, -7/+9Obama's against invading Iran, against nuclear weapons, but sort of a pussy on the Iraq War despite not voting to keep funding it (hopefully he'll grow a pair quickly and actually declare we'll pull out immediately). Don't blame the Democrats.
      Follow the money. Ron Paul may have made 5 million dollars through a grass roots internet campaign, but Obama has made a dozen times that through a grass roots internet and mail-in campaign. Hilary Clinton leads him by LESS THAN A MILLION DOLLARS overall and most of her money comes from Big Business and the MIC.
      • vinwal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Mrs. Obama is a member of the CFR..............nuff said
    • GruntboyX, on 10/25/2007, -4/+4Geez.....the democrats have been in congress for less than a year and we are already writing them off?? Its called Checks and balances...if you believed a Democratic congress could solve the worlds problems in 6 months then I have a bridge to sell you. With Bush in the white house and the democrats not having a 2/3 majority there is no way that a Democratic Congress is going to save the world. For anything to get done we have to have compromises and both parties are going to have to work together.

      If you believed the promises the democrats fed you then it shows how naive you are about the political process. Even if The democrats had 2/3 majority they would have never impeached Bush, Even if they had a 2/3 majority they wouldn't have brought the troops home in January. Now they might have censored bushed, they probably would have pulled funding from the war, and forced a time table withdrawl. But they are never going to push the pendulum that hard. That was the mistake the republicans made by catering to their base and the neocons. The democrats are not going to risk the moderate vote by catering to their base. It will cost them the election in 08.

      My response to everyone is PATIENCE! Nothing is going to happen until 2008 when possibly a democratic president is elected. Until then, comprising is the way of the land.

      However, to all who feel the democratic congress is weak and have lost faith. This is playing into the republican hands. you are fatigued easily and mostly likely your apathy by 2008 will cause another republican president to be elected. Then compromise will be the way of the land.

      • WiseWeasel, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2You're an idiot if you're only looking at which party the candidates are in. It's not about whether "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" are screwing us. It's about a group of individuals in both parties screwing us by squandering our resources to fight a bunch of wars we don't need or want. Regardless of which party the people you're voting for are in, it's every one of our responsibility to vote for individuals who represent our own priorities. Don't just vote for someone because they have an R or D next to their name. Instead, do some research, and make sure they're not a douche first. Otherwise, DON'T VOTE FOR THOSE POSITIONS. Uninformed votes in either party are extremely dangerous.
    • duzytata, on 10/25/2007, -3/+4Even if the Democrats did something in Congress it would nothing but a waste of time. They simply don't have the votes. Right now their kind of pussyfooting around until they can take back the executive. Then they can start to reverse the damage the GWB administration has done to the country.
      • texpundit, on 10/25/2007, -2/+10"Then they can start to reverse the damage the GWB administration has done to the country."

        Do you seriously think that a Dem president (especially Hillary) is going to roll back ANY of the power Bush has built up around the executive? If you believe that, you truly *are* deluded.

        There are only 3 SLIGHT differences between Republicans and Democrats nowdays:

        1) What corporations they're in bed with.
        2) What government bloat they waste our tax dollars on.
        3) What countries they're willing to invade/interfere with.

        If you favor one over the other, you're a partisan dupe and you deserve the government you vote for.
        • Smuikas, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Too bad we (and the silent majority) don't deserve the government they vote for. You could argue that apathy is equivalent to complacency, but really - does anyone deserve to be served by a government that would rather serve itself than the American people?
    • DutchGuilder, on 10/27/2007, -2/+8Hillary = CFR member. Rudy = CFR member. Neocons = CFR members. So, surprise, CRF members love other CFR members.
    • sailor, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4is it in bad taste to say "told you so"...the only idiots are the ones who believed Hillary's lies in the first place...uhhh...that would be all you drooling liberals out there.
      Comparing her to Rudy is idiotic...Rudy has been saying it from day one...he hasn't been lying...Hillary? I think you can figure that one out yourself.
  • FriskDown, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10So, what else is new?
  • internetcoward, on 10/25/2007, -0/+12who cares what who likes. Who do you like?
    • MrMan42, on 10/25/2007, -12/+32Ron Paul in '08! Our last hope to save the Constitution!
      • leftykiller, on 10/25/2007, -22/+5ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
      • petewiz, on 10/25/2007, -3/+9Oh no, apparently you're boring "leftykiller". You better praise Giuliani or Bush quickly, lest you bore him to death and deprive us of his brilliant commentary.
        • Elranzer, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2That's interesting, considering Ron Paul is more conservative than Bush and Giuliani.
          • MrMan42, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6Liberal: "I like the party that screws me from the left!"
            Conservative: "You're a moron! I like the party that screws me from the right!"
            Truth: You've both been brainwashed.
        • petewiz, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3I don't care if someone is "conservative" or "liberal", but if your name implies you want to murder the opposing viewpoint, you are just a sad and pathetic jackass.
    • neptunebk, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4Girls. But I am restricted to seeing them through the use of medium, the internet, only. sigh. If only I could level up in RL.
    • b3mus3d, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1"who cares what who likes"
      Well, everyone should. Because who everyone likes will eventually decide the president, and if a certain group of people or a person likes someone, they can vote, and they can even influence others' votes. Maybe enough others to make a difference!
  • swrostmore, on 11/02/2007, -5/+24This article doesn't provide any evidence that any neoconservatives have "hitched their wagon" to Hillary's campaign. On the other hand, Giuliani's foreign policy advisor is considered by some to be a founding father of neoconservativism.
    • leftykiller, on 10/25/2007, -14/+1Look at you tools.. You get all bent over these so-called "neoconservatives" but you scoff at islamo-fascism.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3Islamo-fascism isn't fascist.

        Discuss.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3For all intents and purposes, it is. Its an oppressive authoritarian ideology, which attacks individuals rights, and is homophobic, sexist, and racist. Its one we should oppose, in short, and debating over semantics is pointless.
        • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4fascism: "an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."

          Whereas so-called "islamofascism" is anti-nationalist, in that its goals is to unify states under Islamic government. Islamic radicals consider themselves their loyalty to their country as subordinate to their loyalty to Islam. Authoritarian, yes. Nationalist, no.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1For all intents and purposes, its the same. What difference does it make if its anti-nationlist if the result they desire is the same as the fascists of old?
    • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -2/+7The reason to get "bent" over neoconservative foreign policy is that it is a demonstrable failure. The neoconservative ideology RELIES on hyping the threat of an external enemy in order to consolidate power, and you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. The irony in all this is that the neoconservative policies you support have done more to increase so-called "islamofascist" recruitment than any terrorist has.
    • huertanix, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3The man that owns Fox News put $2300 on Hillary's campaign. Follow her money trail, and you'll eventually run into many media and corporate elites.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Isnt American political campaigns built on big money? Because someone giving $2300 sounds like nothing.
      • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Media and corporate elites != neoconservatives
      • petewiz, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Fox News wouldn't really mind if Hillary was the president because it would give them countless hours to bitch about the job she does.
    • sublimemm, on 10/25/2007, -1/+13Don't forget that Hillary has received more contributions from the military industrial complex than any other candidate
      • swrostmore, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Military-industrial complex != neoconservative
        • Smuikas, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Military industrial complex is served by the ideals held up by the neo-conservative movement: consolidating central power due to real or imagined threat of external forces. In the 60's and 70's it was communism - and they've only recently (in the past decade or so) found a new force to make people afraid of in islamo-fascist terrorism. No matter that there are many other kinds of terrorism out there...
        • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Neo-conservatism didnt invent islamofacism though. if anything it happened the other way round; the Islamists invented America as the great Satan, the neo-cons responded to this.
          None of those other forms have killed 3000 people on American soil. It wouldnt take any influence from politicians to make you naturally more afraid of it than other forms.
  • brokenspatula, on 11/02/2007, -29/+5This has got to be the dumbest blog post I have ever read...
    The blogger must be another ron paul loser
  • jroll8481, on 11/02/2007, -3/+55As Cornell West stated in "Democracy Matters" the actual problem in this country is that there is a lack of education when it comes to the political process. There are more than enough people in this country that want us out of this war, and want us to focus on fixing the problems in this country. Unfortunately an equally large portion of this country does not take the time to really study the people running for office, looking at their voting record among other things. They look at an election like a sports match, and they want to be on the winning side. So if the media can convince them that Hillary and Giuliani are the front runners of both parties, then a lot of people along those party lines will vote for them just so they feel like their vote wasnt wasted. Most of these people are unaware that the polls that they cite when determining who is in the front involve less than 3% of the country and are far from accurate. Alot of people think the NeoCons strictly work on the republican side, meanwhile they are not noticing that there is an equally dangerous group on the liberal side. Both are working together to take away the power of the vote by controlling the media and eliminating a chance for anyone elses voice to be heard. I am doing what I can to educate those around me, and I will cast my vote for who I believe is best for this country. However I am afraid that it will come down to Clinton and Giuliani, and if that is the case I will vote for neither.
    • FriskDown, on 10/25/2007, -3/+9I wish I could digg you up twice.
    • calinazaret, on 10/26/2007, -1/+12Bravo for being educated! I don't mind casting a "losing vote" either, I've been doing it for years. I'd rather vote for who I believe in that vote for the winner.
    • omari1914, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4I couldn't agree w/ you more...
    • GruntboyX, on 10/25/2007, -2/+5Well said, the neocons are on both sides, and can buy their votes from either Democrats of Republicans.
  • airiox, on 10/25/2007, -8/+14Is the blogger stealing a card from Rudi's deck and telling flatout lies?

    Neocons may be satisfied with the prospect of Rudi winning the Presidency, but they surely don't "love" him. And they downright hate the idea of Hilary being in charge of anything other than herself.

    The blogger basically latched on to the two most hated candidates (they should be hated for good reason I might add) and said to himself, gee I hate neocons, how can I pile on to make them look worse in the eyes of people who will believe anything they read?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3Neocons are at their heart hawks. Rudy Giuliani is a self-professed hawk. Hilary Clinton is trying to show she's got scrote by rattling her own saber. You don't need this article to know the platform these two stand on, just look at their view of the issues. Hilary Clinton = anti-torture, pro-nuclear weapons. Come on.
  • CH3CH2OH, on 11/02/2007, -1/+11Well, all kinds of weird coalitions are behind different candidates. You have nudists voting Green and Stormfront supporting Ron Paul, but that shouldn't stop you from deciding on the issues.

    Then again, follow the money to see why NeoCons choose Clinton and Giuliani ...
    • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1double post
    • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1Nudist support isn't exactly in the same league as support from radical white supremicists.
      • CH3CH2OH, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Technically, nudists don't have any support at all!
  • locitman, on 11/02/2007, -18/+3who do the LibPuss' want?
    • leftykiller, on 10/25/2007, -8/+0They say they want Paul, but they really want Kucinich...or Adam Gadhan.
    • banq59, on 10/25/2007, -6/+6What is a libpuss? Is that liberal pussies? If so as a liberal pussy I do not want nutbag conservative Ron Paul. Obama is the only hope for this country.
    • TheHydrogens, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Awesome, you added a new troll word to my ever-growing list:

      libtards, neo-stalinists, socialists, tinfoil hatters, moonbats, apologists, cut-n-runners, MoveOn.org {insert anything}, and now libpuss

      Got any others? I like to collect words that people throw out instead of thinking and coming up with a logical response to things.
      • swrostmore, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3the funniest one I've seen (besides moonbat) is "educrat," in the sense that education is bad. Or "demoncrats" from the Religious Right.
      • locitman, on 10/25/2007, -3/+1i think LibPuss pretty much sums it up.
  • br0ken1128, on 11/02/2007, -0/+16How the hell is Rudy doing well?
    • leftykiller, on 10/25/2007, -7/+3Get out of your digg bubble and you might be able to figure it out.
    • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -1/+59/11
    • petewiz, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4The same reason Fox News is as popular as it is. A lot of people don't want to know the scary facts of the situation; they want whoever's in charge to pander to them. Also, polls are a big factor in making Giuliani look like he's doing well. It's a shame that they are very rarely free of any form of bias and inaccuracy.
  • BlackJackJester, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3I don't like this article because it is obviously very biased. I agree with what he is saying, but its not good journalism.
    • reed311, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2I suppose you didn't notice this was put in the "Political Opinion" section and the submitted piece was an editorial?

      Never mind, you tried to make a clever insult against Democrats above and you failed miserably. We wouldn't expect you to pay attention to details.
    • calinazaret, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2It's a blog called "NJ Voices" where people can state their opinion. It's not supposed to be unbiased.
  • gjscds, on 10/25/2007, -2/+6This has got to be the stupidest theory I've read in years. Bar none...

    Neither G or C, by any stretch of the imagination are conservative. I've just lost all respect for Digg users...
    • oldhick, on 10/25/2007, -1/+6We've lost respect for you as well then. You need to wake up and realize that the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" have no real meaning anymore other than to misguide and polarize. As Diggers will tell you in droves, GW Bush is a "Neo-conservative". But other than his middle east policies, this is as far from the truth as possible. What is conservative about Bush pushing for immigration amnesty? What was conservative about his prescription drug plan? What is conservative about creating the Department of Homeland Security? What was conservative about the Patriot Act? What was conservative about lowering taxes while dramatically increasing spending?
      Conservative used to mean limited government and fiscal responsibility. None of these traits exist in Bush.
      As for liberal, well that word has never had any actual meaning. I think people use the word liberal to describe anything the opposite of conservative...
    • texpundit, on 10/25/2007, -0/+8gjscds, you're correct...kind of. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton are truly "conservative," as in old school conservative. They are neoconservatives. Neoconservative != Conservative.

      Both G and C are pro-military interventionism in other countries' affairs. Both are pro-big government. Both are anti-civil liberties. Both are pro-corporate welfare. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
  • r0b1, on 11/02/2007, -9/+33BUT RON PAUL WILL FIX EVERYTHING WHILE USING HIS IPHONE
    • joerad010, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1290% of all Digg articles in one sentence :-D
    • Putts335, on 10/24/2007, -2/+12I'll grab the other 10% for ya:

      AND THEN SWITCH FROM VISTA TO UBUNTU
    • FishHammer, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8only if it was ron paul will HACK everything while running linux on his iphone
    • vonfook, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Won't he get tazered by the police?
    • yahoofrom, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1If only Ron Paul can't get laid.
  • dregan, on 11/02/2007, -7/+4ugh, they're gonna win a again I just know it. Maybe if I close my eyes and wish real hard I will wake up in a world where Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both won their primaries and are fighting each other for the presidency.
    • locitman, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3admit it, you like to watch the special olympics too.
  • banq59, on 10/27/2007, -2/+11That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    RISE UP
    • gjscds, on 10/25/2007, -7/+3MOVE AWAY.
      • banq59, on 10/25/2007, -1/+7So the founding fathers of this country were wrong and should have stayed under the oppression of their current government. You don't understand what made this country great, maybe you should move. I will stay and fight.
        • Smuikas, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Just keep in mind: Soap, Ballot, Ammo. In that order.
  • Todamont, on 11/06/2007, -6/+20Most conservatives I meet like Ron Paul, because he's not a blatant fascist like all the other candidates...
    • gjscds, on 10/25/2007, -8/+2Ron Paul is a political isolationist. That'll never work in a world of global terrorism.
      • SammyJr, on 10/25/2007, -1/+8He's more of a military isolationist. He's all for free trade between nations.
      • oldhick, on 10/25/2007, -0/+9No he's not. He's a non-interventionist.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Isnt that the same thing? By not intervening you cut yourself off, making you an isolationist.
  • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -10/+1you said neocons! DUGG for intelligence!
  • leftykiller, on 10/27/2007, -20/+3Bin Laden loves the term "neocons" and has the same talking points as most Digg members.
    • FishHammer, on 10/25/2007, -1/+8I'm a conservative and I'd like you to back up that statement. You're doing nothing but being just as much of a big stupid troll as anyone else.
      • leftykiller, on 10/25/2007, -10/+0Of course you're a conservative. Every Ru Paul supporter is. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
  • azprofessional, on 11/06/2007, -2/+9Is this an attempt to lie about Rudy's popularity over and over so that eventually all the apathetic people who still consider their vote worth something will surrender and vote for this lunatic?

    "Remember, everything else wrong in the country is irrelevant, only who wants war is important, thats it. And Rudy, will personally find Bin Laden, have him rebuild the towers by himself and free Iraq from civil war single handedly. Evidence is for the weak, hype and fear are all you need to control people so, RUDY RUDY HE'S OUR MAN, IF HIS CREEPY ASS CAN'T DO IT, NO ONE CAN, WOO YAY RUDY, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 X 1,000,000 YAY RUDY!"
  • Chassit, on 11/06/2007, -1/+16The three most terrifying words in the world atm, Giuliani, Clinton and Neoconservative. Haters of America and freedom. Every last one of them.
    • dregan, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2atm, why is that word so scary? I think it's nice to have convenient access to my money wherever I am.
      • thugok, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Thanks to my debit card I no longer pay $2.50 to get $20 from an ATM.
      • r0b1, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2ATM? Ass to Mouth. Now that's scary.
  • ZenFountain, on 11/02/2007, -2/+5I'd say Hillary is a neo-con in the same respect that Bill was. What we did in the former Yugoslavia republicans would be considered neo-conservative policy, but in that case it worked because we had a clear objective and facilitated a working political solution before sending in peace keepers. I don't like Hillary for other reasons.
    • Frei, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I think the ideas behind the Iraq war and the "war on terror" were different than the action in Yugoslavia. The action in Yugoslavia was done with (as you said) clear objective and to stop ethnic cleansing and conflict to spread to neighboring countries.
      The war in Iraq was more along the line of preemptive military action only to promote and solidify American power. But as we've seen preemptive unilateral military occupation based off lies and greed don't work.
    • Beveridge89, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Lies, greed and the belief that liberty in strategic countries is the only way to bring lasting peace to America. Its an odd combination.

      But you really need to look into Yugoslavia. We've been told as many lies about there as we were about Iraq. Don't think that makes it wrong though.
      • Frei, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Please explain.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1About Yugoslavia? Basically we only ever heard half the debate for going in as peacekeepers. We would never hear about Croats who murdered Serb civilians, or Bosnian Muslims who commited genocide. The Serbs were painted as the big bad villians, the Bosnians and Croats always the victim. Im not saying that the Serbs werent the biggest commiters of genocide, or that all claims made by the new Serb nationlist movement is true, but certainly our continued denial and classification of the Serbs as the bad guys has lead to the rise of Serb Nationlism, which will ulitmately see them align with Russia, probably adopting its form of democracy along the way; that is, a dictatorship.

        Anyway, if Clinton had told the complete truth about the events, that basically everyone was trying to exterminate everyone else, he probably wouldnt have been able to convince congress or whatever to send peacekeeping forces. So really if a lie is told to save lives, isnt that a white lie and therefore acceptable?
  • iloveliberals, on 10/26/2007, -11/+4I like the term "neocon" that's so often bandied about. Very endearing and respectful of those daring to hold opposing points of view. It's time we introduce a counterpart term for liberals: libneck.

    Libnecks are liberal rednecks; that is, they're the liberal equivalent of a redneck. They're hicks who think associating with liberalism will elevate their perceived enlightenment, although in truth they get most of their ideas from the Daily Show.
    • banq59, on 10/24/2007, -3/+6Is the Daily Show any worse at delivering "news" than FoxNEWS? Really now think before you type.
      • iloveliberals, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0Never said I watched Fox news....that's okay, though; you just didn't think before you typed.

        While I'm here, I'll add: John Stewart is the king of the libnecks. King Libneck shall he henceforth be called.
        • banq59, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Well you made the assumption "libnecks" get their news from the Daily Show. I made the assumption "neocons" got their news from FoxNEWS.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2He was defining libnecks as people who get their news from the daily show. Your argument makes no sense.
      • dregan, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Actually, the Daily Show is in fact demonstrably BETTER at delivering news than fox. Consider the following study: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazi ...
        • dregan, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1weird link didn't work how about this:
          www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-07/st_infoporn
    • krnldmp, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4You Don't like the term Neoconservative because it is a well established term (from 1952) that has been shortened for frequent use when properly describing the bent of the clowns we have running the country today. They're not Liberals. They're not Conservatives. They're Neocons, and they have you fooled.
      • iloveliberals, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1I love the term neocon. And, now, I love the term libneck. I doubt necons have fooled me, though. Have libnecks fooled you?
    • dregan, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3show me a single redneck that watches the daily show and I'll show you that you are high on LSD. Not that I condone this sort of name calling but "Libnecks"? wow..... why don't you try again?
      • iloveliberals, on 10/24/2007, -3/+0Redlib. No. Redneck-a-lib. No. Lib-a-neck. No. Libred-a-neck. Hey, not bad.
    • robberry, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I'm not a fan of relying on a single source of news-- "beware the man of one book" and all that. Still, it has to be said that a person who got their ideas entirely from the Daily Show would be vastly better off than somebody who got their ideas entirely from Fox News, or even CNN. They'd also have much funnier submissions for YouTube.
    • swrostmore, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2neocon isn't an insult, you just don't know what it means so you think its one. To be fair, I don't think the submitter of this article knows what it means either.
    • oldhick, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1To anyone confused on what a Neocon is, check out: http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2006/05/ ...
      Neocons are not conservative republicans. Those rarely exist anymore. I hate to say it, but Ron Paul probably is the closest to a conservative. So for the few of us left who aren't socialists and aren't Neocons, we've got to find a party soon!
  • Phr00t, on 11/02/2007, -3/+6I do not see how Clinton is a pro-war candidate... Giuliani is most certainly a pro-war guy, and I would never vote for him. Looking at Clinton's "OnTheIssues.org" profile, I see this:

    Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
    Deauthorize Iraq war, and don't grant new war authority. (Jun 2007)
    This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
    Begin re-deployment out of Iraq in 90 days. (Apr 2007)
    America elected this Congress to bring our troops home. (Apr 2007)
    If Bush doesn't end Iraq war, when I'm president, I will. (Mar 2007)

    However, I do see this:

    Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)

    Rudy, on the other hand, has a ton of very scary proposals. Combining Rudy and Hillary as both pro-war candidates seems like a stretch?

    Correct me if I am wrong.
    • Godwhacker, on 10/25/2007, -6/+3Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani ~ same hooker, different dress.

      Vote Ron Paul 2008
    • tehbored, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Clinton has said that she would end the war in Iraq. She also said that she would attack Iran. It's like when Nixon said he'd take the troops out of Vietnam, he just didn't say he was bringing them home. He attacked Cambodia.
    • XtheXlanternX, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Hillary voted for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment. Hillary also gets the largest amount of funding from defence contractors. My issues with her have to do with the very ambiguity within her platform that you and I are talking about right now. I do believe she will say pretty much anything if it will get another person to vote for her.
      • Phr00t, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Her voting record actually looks halfway decent. Yes, she did vote for the Iraq war, which sucks.. but that was 5 years ago -- I hope many have learned a lesson or two from that vote (including Hillary). Hillary's words might be ambiguous to get more people to vote (Neocons).. but if she follows her voting record, she might not be so bad. *shrug*
        • RIMberry, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2You're fogetting she learned jack *****, she wants to stay in Iraq for another 4-5 years. Doesn't sound like a lesson learned to me.
    • RIMberry, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4Hillary wants to stay in Iraq for another 4-5 years and she VOTED for the war, what the hell are you talking about?
  • Fredtheviking, on 11/02/2007, -5/+2You are all a bunch of fools... don't realize what is going on here? There is a resource war going on and we want the US to win (at least for those of us that live here). The so called neocons aren't really bad guys, but particular about who should have access to the limited resources that exist. Just shut up and continue to drive your SUVs fools.
    • Godwhacker, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2There is a word for taking by force that which does not belong to you: it's call ROBBERY. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"?
      • oldhick, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1It doesn't mean as much when you're really ***** hungry.
    • swrostmore, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1It's good to know that at least some conservatives can finally admit that Bush's justification for the war was a lie, and it really is about oil.
    • Beveridge89, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1To get oil you make deals. To get an alliance with a dictatorship, you make bigger deals. To overthrow a dictator and gain an ideological ally, you fight a war and give liberty. Bush could have obtained oil deals and an alliance with Saddam which would have achieved him more than the war did and got him less stick from Western reactionaries. So, then, if it was for oil, why didnt he?
  • MikeFallopian, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1I hope you dumbasses realize that all this talk about Bush/Hillary/Rudy attacking Iran is the same exact type of fear-mongering that you claim is making us a "fascist state". The only difference is the source...
    • tehbored, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4No, they're lying about Iran. We're using actual in formation (quotes, reports, etc.). All three have made it known that they want to attack Iran. You're just an *****.
      • MikeFallopian, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0You're culling selected "in formation" while ignoring the vast amount that doesn't support your position. You people equate the faint possibility of a tactical air strike to destroy nuclear facilities with an all-out invasion. Never mind the fact that all 3 of these politicians have unequivocally stated that they will not invade Iran, and would only order tactical air strikes in the most dire of situations. Which is the same thing that the French foreign minister has said. But you idiots don't care about facts or reality if it helps your fringe candidates out, right? Disclaimer: I don't like Rudy or Hillary either, but I explain my position through reasoning rather than disinformation.
    • Chassit, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Nice strawman.
  • edrift101, on 11/02/2007, -0/+11I refuse to vote for either of them.
  • FishHammer, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2i remember when it was 'democrat' 'republican' 'conservative' and 'liberal'. now there are all these stupid subcategories and derogatory nicknames that you don't even know what they mean anymore.
    • leftykiller, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Trust me, these tools don't know what it means either. They're just parrots who think they sound intelligent by throwing neo/geo in front of select words.
      • banq59, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Politics have changed. New words appear.
      • thugok, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4neo-geo, now there was a gaming system.
    • swrostmore, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3Just because you don't know what "neoconservative" means, doesn't mean nobody else does, and it doesn't make it a "derogatory nickname." In fact, the word originated from a group of progressive conservatives who began referring to themselves as neoconservative.
  • tehbored, on 11/02/2007, -1/+8The scariest thing of all is that people actually *like* these two. Plenty of people I know support Hillary. I just don't get it. How could anyone support such an awful candidate? It's likely only because of her name; not enough people actually pay attention to the issues.
    • phoofy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Really? It always fascinates me because despite these so-called polls, I haven't met a single person who actually supports either of these two. I'd really love to meet one and hear why they they support them.
      • tehbored, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1From the mouth of a Giuliani supporter: "He just seems like he could really bring people together." I wanted to just start up an argument at that point, but it wasn't really an appropriate time for it.
      • oldhick, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1I know tons of Hillary supporters. I don't know any Rudy supporters. Most around the water cooler talks degenerate down to "remember how great things were under BIll?"
    • banq59, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3The worst is liberal women. They all want to vote for Hillary. I keep trying to get them to investigate her issues, but hey vaginas got to stick together.
    • swrostmore, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1I think the reason Hillary has supporters is backlash against the manufactured outlash against Bill during his presidency. Even though there was in fact legitimate wrongdoing by Bill, the Right went so over the top in attacking him that people tend to see him as probably a much better president than he actually was, in a kind of political martyrdom.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2We don't believe in torture, Iran, 9/11....
  • majortom1981, on 10/26/2007, -4/+1When wil lall this political garbage get off of digg? Most of the sites dealing with this stuff are ful lof out right lies when it comes to any canidate .Can digg create a politician digg so we can get this garbage off the front page?
    • MikeFallopian, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1The First Law of user-submitted content sites states that "all such sites will be filled with suck, unless they have a very narrow focus on funny-ass videos".
  • krnldmp, on 10/27/2007, -0/+10I actually investigated Hillary. I watched her speak in the senate. I read articles, including those from the heavily slanted Liberal rag The Nation. She's out to lunch. Guiliani, on the other hand, isn't worth typing this sentence. What I need from both of them is their complete removal from American politics.
  • Vzylexy, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Israel would take out Iran if they ever became a threatening force in the region.
    • krnldmp, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Easy for Israel to have you believe so long as they can get USA to do it for them.
      • RIMberry, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2You obviously have no idea what Israel's military strength is. We're the ones who always throttle Israel, after we've geared them to the teeth.
  • MrNexus, on 10/26/2007, -4/+7Neocunts
  • tonto69, on 10/27/2007, -2/+134 years of Rudy or Hillary will be like another 4 more years of Bush. Four more years of War by Proxy for Israel.

    NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL!
    • WalrusKaput, on 10/26/2007, -4/+1More Israel-bashing. Is this all your account is for, Tonto?
  • mexretroshore, on 10/26/2007, -9/+1Republican misinformation to try to discredit Hillary.
    • saigumi, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4No need, she has enough real and illegal problems she constructed.
  • pintomp3, on 11/06/2007, -1/+9if you want to figure out who will take us to war with iran just look at who AIPAC is supporting.
  • saigumi, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Wouldn't this make them NeoDems?
  • gibbwake, on 11/02/2007, -0/+11Bush is advising Hilllarys campaign. Dont vote for that evil bitch!
  • justo, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3what is the solution then? how can the people spread the word that the polls are incorrect, and hillary and giuliani are not the destined choice? people point out the problem, but i see few suggestions as to a solution (from myself included).

    i for one would find it interesting to see debates diretly between obama and paul.
  • snichael, on 11/02/2007, -7/+0Hillary, a neocon?!! Good grief, dude: whoever's kool-aid you're drinking, it's time to lay off it for awhile. Seriously.
  • JoeVet, on 10/26/2007, -5/+1Neocons must be running scared if they're trying to link Giuliani and Clinton. They obviously don't like Clinton or any Democrat and now they have a Centrist in the lead of their own party. Life must be hell.
  • 3tcp, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Neocons have their own agenda that is separate from those of the republican party itself and the majority of the conservative movement but if they can get Giuliani AND Clinton nominated it will be a greater victory for their movement than getting Bush the nomination in 2000. It's quite clear that Clinton will be very much like GW Bush as president except with expansive government run social programs and protectionist trade policies.
    • synarchy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3with expansive government run social programs and protectionist trade policies.

      Bush is guilty on both counts. New prescription drug benefit, tariffs for steel, etc.
      • 3tcp, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1True but they will be far more typical of a clinton administration. She has advocated major tariffs to penalize companies that manufacture overseas regardless of industry. The steel tariffs, while ultimately illegal according to trade agreements we had already signed, at least had the somewhat legitimate purpose of protecting an industry that is crucial for national defense. European countries achieve the same thing by subsidizing these kinds of industries.
  • ralph12c41, on 11/02/2007, -7/+1Have some more Kool Aid. Hillary a Neo Con?
  • ujin1970, on 10/25/2007, -1/+0You can get this message heard even louder if you skew it on
    http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/2117?sectio ...
  • F1R3DUP, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1It's pretty clear that the American public doesn't feel the same. Looks like they'll lose...unless they can figure out a way to rig the election. But with those new electronic voting booths that could never happen!
  • flaknugget, on 11/02/2007, -4/+2OBAMA 2008!
  • ashok, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1I'm a neo-con and I don't much like either candidate. A good neo-con has to have a grip on global politics such that he can discriminate between where American power can help, and where it will fail of necessity.

    Iraq being a failed state before our intervention, the chances for success in giving the country democracy were actually high: note how happy the Iraqis are about voting. The complaints coming from Iraqis about the gov't there are because they can't wait to vote in people who are less corrupt. They're not taking arms up against their own government: it's al-Qaeda and the remnants of Saddam's forces who have been the problem much of the time.

    I don't think either candidate can see that there are states that look like Iraq but can't be considered places where interventions will work. I also don't think either one is able to assess which nations have resources vital to the world economy that must be protected if there is to be more peace than war the world over. The oil from Iraq is sold to countries like India and China: the fear is that countries that might be stable and not warlike because of the prosperity might collapse into something a lot less stable if denied resources.
    • reaganite, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1your delusional. we had no business going into iraq. why would anyone think the US can convince these people to get along, hell, Moses couldn't do it.
  • Observant1, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2bill clinton handed over a LOT of technology to china and in a baton pass with bush rams NAFTA through without vote from the people on border/trade. hillary was board of directors to walmart 6+ years importing slave made chinese consumer goods that bankrupt American manufacturers and unemploy millions of workers, walmart building a superport in mexico for chinese supercargo ships to being in even more, to unemploy US longshoremen and truckers (GWB hands US highways to 100 mexican trucking firms) giuliani's lawfirm making millions from representing CINTRA building the NAFTA superhighway to join the US - Canada - Mexico so walmart can unemploy millions more and faster.. giuliani ex mayor of NYC, hillary now the rep for NY state.. partners in crimes of treason destroying this nation.
    OIL.. we produce lots of oil in the US but refineries and distributorships have been sold off to BP, owned by the queen of england. all of our oil exported not used domestically and what we get is imported, the supertanker corporates make the money transporting it, owned largely by the carlyle group (bush's and the queen are large members) oil spills, polluting all the way. about 70% of the LAND of the US has been handed to the UN too already, this is what the CFR and neocons are up to, destroying the US. the (un)federal (nothing in)reserve privately owned bank has twice doubled the money in circulation over the last 8 years, devaluating it into the dust... it is a very LARGE treasonous conspiracy from so many directions that most people cannot connect the dots to see the real picture. I see it plainly, the traitors need to face charges and their efforts dismantled, but they are in power.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.