TIME Mag Joe Klein:Obama Wanting To Lose War...IS ***** watch!
huffingtonpost.com — Appearing on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight on CNN, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein said that John McCain's comments Tuesday that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election were the most scurrilous he had ever heard by a major party candidate.
zaibatsu- 993 diggs
- digg it
- Fremen93, on 07/23/2008, -12/+77I keep wondering what the hell are these republicans talking about? Just how are we going to "win" the war in iraq anyway? We can never win the war in Iraq because we don't even have a clear goal that is achievable. Its like the war on drugs...will we win that war? how?? when everyone stops taking drugs? are you kidding?
I guess McCain really hopes enough idiots will think we might actually "lose" the war in Iraq if Obama is elected...- Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -7/+14We "won" when we decimated the Iraqi army, took over the capital, and achieved various military goals. That was all done before Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Everything past then was rebuilding under fire. - person425, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUWVu-pL7v8
Oh, the idiots are out there. - AchaIemoipas, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8"The day after Bush was re-elected president, there were 191,000 hits on Canada's immigration website, six times its average traffic, most of it from the U.S."
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243555- Temo1, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4"The 2006 figure marks the first time there have been more than 10,000 American migrants to Canada since 1981 and was the highest number since 1977."
"While the number of Americans moving north jumped, the number of Canadians moving to the United States declined to 23,913 in 2006 from 29,930 in 2005."
In other words, we're still getting more than 2x as many Canadians into the country as we are sending there... and it's the worst ratio in a while.
- Temo1, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4"The 2006 figure marks the first time there have been more than 10,000 American migrants to Canada since 1981 and was the highest number since 1977."
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -11/+6Facts: (agreeing with Wargalas)
1- USA beat Saddams army - we won period.
2- USA sent in surge
3- Mccain supported surge and had (from the beginning) wanted a very large presence after the war ended to make sure there was no intimidation by either side, civil war, or Iran influence and gave Bush hell about it all the time. This way to win fast and get out. THIS WAS MCCAINS GOAL.
Democrats simply complained, had no strategy, but to leave and get out. The think that maybe a second time, after abandoning Iraq after desert storm, would some how fix itself. Which it didnt the first time - lest we forget.
4- Obama said surge would never work. Voted against it and against funding troops.
5- Obama said USA would never reach any benchmarks to be reached after surge.
6- Surge worked - 15 of 18 benchmarks reached.
7- Obama now says he knew sending in extra troops would always work.
This is what Republicans are annoyed about and any other USA citizen that simply looks at the facts.- dagamer34, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9Umm, the point of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqi government. There still is no oil law for distributing profits from oil sales. Militarily the surge works and no idiot would even deny that. Saying so is tantamount to saying that our troops can't do the job. Instead, why Obama opposed the surge is because it's an escalation to make up for troops that should have ALREADY been there to finish the job the right way the first time, then come home.
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5dagamer34
That might make some sense but Obama said we should never have been in Iraq and has consistently voted against raising troop levels AT ANY TIME ( though he was never there to vote for or against going in because he wasnt a senator at that time)
This is why, and the platform he has run on, he beat Hillary Clinton. - pintomp3, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8correction:
only 3 of the 18 benchmarks were met:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/ben ...
just because republicans keep repeating "the surge is working" doesn't make it true. - regeya, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5It's easy to win when you keep changing the reasons and the goals, or at least I think that's the theory.
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2pintomp3
Ironically months ago, Democrats were the onces trying to say that more benchmarks were met ( to be able to withdraw and Republicans were not satisfied) Now those rolls are flipped.
Correction:
Why not try READING your source, as well as the date of it.
Go on, try it.
Just because you're a ***** idiot, doesn't make your facts more true!
- macweirdo42, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9At this point, I think it's just to make sure the Dems take the fall for this one. All they gotta do is keep saying this "war" is "winnable" enough time, and then they can come back after the train wreck is over and say "See, if you had voted for us, this wouldn't have happened."
- minorthreat, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8what Im trying to figure it out is... how is it possible to surrender? Who's papers do we have to sign declaring surrender? What will their demands be? Rebuild the country we destroyed? I don't understand....
- tpodr, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Occupations are neither won or lost. They just end. Hopefully this one will be brought to a close over the next 18 months. That what the Iraqis want.
- jerrycurley, on 07/23/2008, -9/+0Just ebcause idiots like you have this all or nothing pproach doesn't mean that everyone does. No one said that we were going to end 100% of terrorism. Just like drugs. NO ONE expected that zero people would use drugs. However, the number of people using rugs has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the last 30 years.
- Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -7/+14We "won" when we decimated the Iraqi army, took over the capital, and achieved various military goals. That was all done before Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner.
- duckley, on 07/23/2008, -12/+30McBush's desperation.
He continues to fall, and fall, and fall in the poll ratings:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...- HumanGlitch, on 07/23/2008, -15/+1i hope your face burns in satan's tit and you skull is crushed by psyduck's powerful beak.
- Kohaxx, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11My only concern is that a 5 point lead won't be enough if there's room for the Repubs to mess with the election system again. The fact that 40% still want to vote for McBush is terrifying in itself.
- skipdog172, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1***** you frank!
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -14/+2"MCBUSH"
That's always a laugh. Mccain was always a pain in the ass to Bush
And while mccain was giving republicans grief Obama was silent as s ghost doing nothing but simply voting his party vote.
As for poll ratings they are always skewed because you have oodles of Obama suppoters annoying the hell out of America. The sampling of Americans for these polls will always favor the people that answer the phone who are Obama supporters and fanatics. Mccain supporters will more then likely hang up.- Kohaxx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11Oh yeah I know, don't get me wrong I LOVED 2000 McCain, but then he started to run for President in 2008 and seemed to lost all of the core straight-talking values he had in 2000. If you look up where his positions were then and where they are now, he went from opposing Bush's policies to supporting and wanting to finalize all of them. Hence the name McBush.
- GliTCH82, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Dude, where the ***** are you getting your information? Have you checked McCain's positions lately?
- JuliaC, on 07/23/2008, -10/+35Don't the republicans know how to talk about anything but war? Everything is tied to war, it's all about war. Oh, and making gazillions of $.
- wattznext, on 07/23/2008, -2/+18Yes, exactly. Everything IS tied to war. High gas prices, failing economy, terrible foreign perception of our country, American citizens complete lack of faith in their government...it goes on and on...feel free to pick up what i missed in the replys.
- silicongat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Are you still thinking there's a difference between repubs and dems? They are both equally ***** garbage.
- jbenson2, on 07/23/2008, -38/+8The O-Man wanting to win the war ... IS *****.
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -2/+19Of course it is since there really isn't anything to "win" and we've already lost so much just to try and define what "win" is.
For some reason, that concept is beyond you people. But feel free to keep bashing your head against the wall.- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1True but there is alot to lose.
Don't you remember the last time we left Iraq unfixed?
Or do you really love repeating history? - dinot, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Last time, we had an international coalition backed by the support of the majority of the American people. Last time, there was actually a goal to signify winning: the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Last time, we didn't have to lie our way to war.
"True but there is alot to lose."
What the hell do we have left to lose? Our armed forces are being stretched to the limit, our economy is shattered, over 4000 of our troops have died, and for what? Seriously, I really would like an answer to that question. Has our lives, or the lives of the Iraqis, gotten any better because of this?
What, in your opinion, could we possibly GAIN from staying there any longer that would justify what we've LOST? - treehugger87, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@jabberwolf
What, exactly, would you say happened as a result of our leaving Iraq "unfixed" after the first Gulf War?
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1True but there is alot to lose.
- boombye, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7How's it feel to be that stupid jbenson?
- TBagwell, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5seriously
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -2/+19Of course it is since there really isn't anything to "win" and we've already lost so much just to try and define what "win" is.
- ErikB, on 07/23/2008, -6/+23And let's not forget that the occupation in Iraq was Bush's choice, and even if you take his word that it was a decision based on "false intelligence" (as opposed to lies), why would McCain or anyone else think that continuing the occupation was so vital? Everyone knows Bush stays in and postures about his victories to try and save face about one of the biggest personal failures of all time.
McCain looks like either an idiot or a liar to support this position.- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5Because leaving Iraq a second time unfinished didnt work.
Leaving it after Desert Storm didnt work, what makes you think it will this time?- whahaa, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8i dunno, i seem to remember the american economy going through a 10-year period of rapid growth following our exit after desert storm.
- macweirdo42, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7The Republicans are uniquely skilled in being able to turn failures into successes. Remember 9/11, and how they exploited the hell of it? I'm not saying that Bush is in any way responsible for what happened, nobody could've seen that coming - but I am just awed at how, despite the fact that it happened on the Republicans' watch, the Republicans managed to turn it around into "We're the only ones who can prevent it from happening again." Again, I don't blame Bush or the Republicans for "letting" 9/11 happen, I just can't believe the hypocrisy. How can you say that the Democrats would let another attack happen without saying that you let the first attack happen?
Ugh, or like Rush Limbaugh, and how drug users are criminals, until it's him, and then it's a disease.- whahaa, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3nobody could have seen that coming... except the guys who wrote that intelligence report titled 'osama bin laden determined to fly planes into wtc' a while before it happened...
- ogbar, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Actually, you look like an idiot or a liar. Everyone from Bill Clinton himself had information that was very solid to take us into war.
Do you people actually believe this stuff you spout?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic ...
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5Because leaving Iraq a second time unfinished didnt work.
- grlykool, on 07/23/2008, -9/+13McNasty is out.
- AxmxZ, on 07/23/2008, -8/+8Yes, losing wars does wonders for one's electability. Also, it makes it that much easier to sell white women wholesale to Osama bin Laden for crack money.
- PolishLogic, on 07/23/2008, -15/+9This election is turning into a mockery.
*****, yesterday Obama stated that the surge had worked. Changing his long running theme that it was a colossal failure.- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Well now, since it's fairly accepted that it worked we can bring the combat troops home hmmmm?
- ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3Well now, since it's very accepted that Obama changes his positions every week, we can just give the nomination to McCain?
- PolishLogic, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Wouldn't really bother me. As long as they pull them out of Afghanistan too.
- Banshee933, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Pull all our troop out of Iraq and Afghanistan.. Are you ***** insane? You Polish dont know what the hell your talking about, stay out of American politics!
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Well now, since it's fairly accepted that it worked we can bring the combat troops home hmmmm?
- AlwaysDuggDown, on 07/23/2008, -31/+10Dear digg,
We get it. You like Obama and you don't like McCain. You are way past the point where you have a chance to change anyone's mind.
You can stop the circle-jerk now.
Thanks.- wsuBobby, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6Bashing Obama on Digg? Time to live up to your name.
- Fun4Two, on 07/23/2008, -10/+5Dugg for stating the obvious about our lord and savior.
- macweirdo42, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2RAmen. Wait, you weren't referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? May you be touched by his noodly appendage and see the light.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -8/+3I just keep seeing stories like this, view them, and then think, "What about that piece was worthy of the time it takes to submit it?"
A journalist from TIME saying McCain said something mean. Really? This is "news?" - myshl0ng, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7But the material just keeps on coming. How can we ignore it?
- SethEllis, on 07/23/2008, -2/+41Wait if this story is about what Time Magazine wrote then why is it linking to The Huffington Post?
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/mccain_ ...- vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8"Power" diggers don't get paid by Time?
- person425, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Welcome to the echo chamber :-)
- boombye, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Because they wanted to show the video of the guy on CNN as well as provide a link to see more of what he's talking about.
- Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4It is the same argument that the republicans used 4 years ago. And guess what it seemed to work. If I had my way I would have the soldiers evacuated in 3 months. But that is not the case. As someone quoted once "Americans do not dislike going to war, they dislike losing wars." and for what I can tell, that still seems to be the case.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah, who wants to win a war? Am I right?
- Banshee933, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Your a fool.
- reuscel, on 07/23/2008, -7/+29This war was lost before it began. We invaded a country that never attacked us, dismantled their military, destroyed their infrastructure, and offended them with the cultural ignorance of the majority of our soldiers; and then we had the nerve to be surprised that an anti-occupation insurgency gained serious momentum. If some foreign power invaded my city under false pretenses, you can bet your ass I'd be armed, and learning how to make improvised bombs to protect my family, friends and country. Had we approached this war a little differently, and perhaps looked at it with a perspective not tainted by the post-9/11 thirst for revenge, some measure of victory could have been possible. Instead, we add it to another shameful list of American imperialist failures. I weep for my country.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2Offended them with the cultural ignorance of the majority of our soldiers? Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off about how these invading troops don't oppress their wives.
Probably why you supported the war in 2003...- reuscel, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1What the ***** are you even talking about?
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3 Terrorism is the war of the Poor, while War is the terrorism of the Rich.
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Thank you, Captain Confucius Obvious.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Yeah? Video beheadings are a calling card of the huddled masses?
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Is this the "beheading" you were speaking of? http://baheyeldin.com/technology-in-society/lesson ...
So they make their apparent "revenge" public while our government attempts to hide it's war crimes from the world and people like you lick it up.
But it's okay. They're just brown people. - dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Nope, I'm speaking of the beheading of Daniel Pearl.
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't have any point except that terrorists are okay with you.
- BowieX, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3"It would be a quagmire."
- Dick Cheney, current Vice ***** President.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2Offended them with the cultural ignorance of the majority of our soldiers? Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off about how these invading troops don't oppress their wives.
- rewinn, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13McCain's whole "losing" argument includes the astoundingly silly assumption that Iraqis will let AQ take over their country.
If they are resisting US, who are giving them hundreds of billions of dollars, what do you think they will do to bin Ladin's minions?
It won't be pretty.- evilbob333, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1The Iraqis "let" Saddam run their country for over two decades, so I really can't buy your argument that they won't just let AQ take over.
- jerrycurley, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0Wait...are you for real? Are you actually under the impression that the people "resisting" the US in IRaq right now are average Iraqi citizens fed up with the US being there?
If so, seriously, you NEED to kill yourself before it is too late. You are failed at life, and it is time to hope for an afterlife to start over.
- jakdracula, on 07/23/2008, -37/+10Hail NObama!
Hail NObama!
The great Communist Leader!
Hail NObama!- rabidjester, on 07/23/2008, -1/+14See this? This is why you do not add sugar to your Cap'n Crunch.
- tpearl, on 07/23/2008, -33/+8George Bush > Obama on his best day!
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Now THATS a minority opinion! I'm guessing you are one of the 18%. Or is it less now? I can't keep track of W's, dismal, well deserved falling numbers.
- ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2Just like your Democrat Congress with MUCH worse popularity?!?
- tpearl, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2I dont follow the popularity polls.
Now its time for someone else to come up with some sort of clever response that can only be found on Digg.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Crack > reality on its best day!
- ScottoGato, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4That almost made me stroke out on the right side of my face.
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Now THATS a minority opinion! I'm guessing you are one of the 18%. Or is it less now? I can't keep track of W's, dismal, well deserved falling numbers.
- dcollins, on 07/23/2008, -6/+13Wow HP doesn't even have to publish an article to make it to the front page anymore: it can just be a stub linking to another blog. SPAM FTW!
- Shaman760, on 07/23/2008, -7/+20I can't wait until Obama becomes president and assholes like these have to own up to their comments. And I hope Obama cuts them off at the knees.
- yngtimmy, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3yea! Kinda like Karl Marx! Stick it to them for things people say about you! Thats BAD!
- VicHislop, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7You think that Karl Marx was leader of the Soviet Union, don't you?
- Shaman760, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Can't be any worse than the Bush administration putting CNN reporters on terrorist watch lists for speaking out against the war.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_reporter_wants_o ...
Seems that your buddy Bush beat Obama to that kind of tactic. And that's BAD.
- ftx437, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6I can't wait till obama wins just so you obamasheep will see how full of ***** he really is.
- jerrycurley, on 07/23/2008, -5/+0Well, you ha e to realize that most of these peopel just want to bitch about anything. So if Obama wins, then starting January 20, 2009, these same people who are rooting for Obama will start bitching about him. That is, after all, what little bitches do.
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Wow. Do you really hope a president will fail and take the country down with him, just to prove your point? Nice rational thinking there, *****.
- ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2That's exactly what the Democrats do *****.
- dinot, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3@ouzome: Really? How old are you? Because last I checked, there's only been ONE Democratic President in the last 40 years. And he wasn't really a failure. But you don't seem the type to let facts get in the way of your partisan *****, yeah?
- HanFastolfe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2@dinot
"Because last I checked, there's only been ONE Democratic President in the last 40 years"
Check again. You're either missing James Earl Carter, or William Jefferson Clinton. Added together that makes TWO Democratic presidents in the last 40 years. (unless you failed at math too, and 40 = 27, which would take us back to July of 1981, when Reagan was president)
"But you don't seem the type to let facts get in the way of your partisan *****, yeah?"
Yeah! Like facts, and stuff... things that you have proven amazingly inept at even a cursory understanding of e.g. how many Democratic presidents we've had in the last 40 years.
(what's even more pathetic is that a few people dugg you up, I know historical ignorance is the coin of the realm on the intert00bz, but wow, just wow...)
BTW:
"Really? How old are you?"
You began with that? Then proceeded to boldly fail where few have failed before... In your honor, sir: picardfacepalm.jpg - dinot, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I meant 30 years (the '3' and the '4' are right next to each other). Most people with a brain would understand that. But keep picking on my typos since people like you don't have an argument to begin with.
And thanks for the history lesson. I hope it made you feel a bit smarter, you smug *****. - HanFastolfe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3@dinot
"I meant 30 years (the '3' and the '4' are right next to each other). Most people with a brain would understand that. "
30 years still equals fail. That takes us back to July of 1978, when Carter was president (or is that another typo?, is your "27" key next to your "3" key?). I already dealt with the math, the max (full) years allowable in your initial concept is 27. Did you fail at basic reading comprehension as well?
"But keep picking on my typos since people like you don't have an argument to begin with."
My argument is that if your going to come off so strong slamming someone, then you better be damn sure that your ducks are in row. The option that works a bit better is don't be such a pompous ass to begin with, and mistakes are easier to overlook. You set the tone, don't be so shocked that it came back to get you.
"And thanks for the history lesson."
Your welcome, I wish you had noted the math lesson as well.
"I hope it made you feel a bit smarter"
Nope. It didn't do anything for me, because it wasn't intended for for me. I already knew what I posted before I posted it. If anything, all it left me with is another example of the waste of my tax dollars on public education.
"you smug *****"
Sucks doesn't it? When someone slams you down. Maybe you'll consider that next time. There are ways to be more diplomatic, and still make you point. I considered those options with you. Then decided on this course since maybe at the end you might understand, through taking the hit yourself, that being such a pedantic tool isn't really the best way to play well with others.
Now, run along, and try to be nicer to people. (don't forget to digg me down before you go) - dinot, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1HanFastolfe: would it satisfy you if if i said 27 years, 6 months, 3 days, and 48 hours, 15 minutes, and 32 seconds? what i did, it's called ROUNDING. and why are you putting so much effort into calling out my TYPO. is this your "gotcha" moment? if it is, then by all means savour it.
"My argument is that if your going to come off so strong slamming someone, then you better be damn sure that your ducks are in row."
Speak for yourself. It's "you're". - HanFastolfe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2@dinot
"would it satisfy you if if i said 27 years, 6 months, 3 days, and 48 hours, 15 minutes, and 32 seconds? what i did, it's called ROUNDING"
Kinda like rounding down to one i.e. the number of Democratic presidents in the last 40, or 30, years... First it was a typo, then it's rounding. Want to stick to one story?
""My argument is that if your going to come off so strong slamming someone, then you better be damn sure that your ducks are in row."
Speak for yourself. It's "you're""
Whaaaaan, I don't really (not have I ever) cared about spelling, and or grammar. i.e. in your original post you did this:
"But you don't seem the type to let facts get in the way of your partisan *****, yeah?"
It's considered bad form to begin a sentence with a contraction. But, I, and many people do it (see what I did there?). Your point has half the merit you seek, however it's quite obvious you're still missing the point of not being such an ass. I made no mention of your bad grammatic form (we all have issue), but you made it a point of pointing out mine, when I figured you would scrutinize my post like a prissy wonk for minimalistic mistake. I'm glad I obliged you.
It was your non-factual assertion, and the tone presented in, not the form, that is an abysmal failure. At this stage thou, it's apparent that your learning curve is flat. Digg me down again, and make with the dumb, it seems to suite you. - dinot, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I can't believe I have to explain this to you: I meant 1 democratic president in 30 years, the 30 was rounded up from 27, but my finger accidentally hit the key next to the '3', which is '4', and thus resulting in the '40' instead of '30'.
ANOTHER thing I can't believe is how the above resulted in your epic-length posts. But I understand if you're milking this opportunity to show how smart you are. I guess it doesn't come around often for you.
- MattB123, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Ah, but contrary to what the present administration claims that's not what freedom is about.
But good attempt at a troll. - runCMD, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Shaman760 - you are your fathers son.
- Shaman760, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1My dad was a ***** *****. Maybe the apple didn't fall far from the tree, eh?
That is all - runCMD, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I wasn't talking about your biological father : )
- Shaman760, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1My dad was a ***** *****. Maybe the apple didn't fall far from the tree, eh?
- yngtimmy, on 07/23/2008, -9/+3yea! Kinda like Karl Marx! Stick it to them for things people say about you! Thats BAD!
- qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -10/+15WTF, im on dig, i refresh and this story INSTANTly is #1 with 200 or so diggs? Wow, these Huffington post people must be cheating.
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7When you get huffington tards to purposely Digg their article with 50-100 people within an hour.
Yes, it uses the Digg formula to get their articles posted.
Huffington USES Digg to get itself ratings and thus charge for advertising and stay in business.
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7When you get huffington tards to purposely Digg their article with 50-100 people within an hour.
- loganro, on 07/23/2008, -14/+5Obama wants his people to win the war, not America.
- Treoinmypocket, on 07/23/2008, -13/+6No NO NO..Obama doens't want to lose the war....he just doesn't want to ...you know...do anything to actually...sorta...er...WIN it...
- barstegry, on 07/23/2008, -10/+11Holy crap.. a huffingtonpost article linking to a Times article slamming McCain...on Digg no less... who would have thunk?
Winning the war ridiculousness aside.... this is getting tiresome.... - Influsion, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Saying that Obama wants to lose the war is like saying that McCain wants to kill our soldiers.
Except for the fact that the later is probably true. I don't care for Obama, or McCain, but can't they try to run on a sensible platform, instead of running on stupidity?- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Wait... so Obama wanting to lose the war (I don't think... for the political expediency?) is less likely, in your opinion, than McCain (you know, that guy who actually fought in a war) wanting to kill our soldiers?
Did our public schools really churn out someone as dumb as you?- vexingmodstwo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Apparently, it churned out at least two of them since he was dugg up once.
- Influsion, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Your first question assumes that there is a war to be lost. I reject your premise. McCain is more likely to want to kill our soldiers in a hundred year war than let Iran play soccer at the last FIFA world cup. Therefore, whether McCain fought in a war, or not, is moot.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"McCain is more likely to want to kill our soldiers in a hundred year war"
Just out of curiosity, do you keep repeating this left-wing talking point because you don't know any better or because it's all you have? Even I, who didn't support McCain in the GOP primaries, didn't interpret his statement as, "We'll keep this war on for 100 years." A presence (see: Germany) is not a war.
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Wait... so Obama wanting to lose the war (I don't think... for the political expediency?) is less likely, in your opinion, than McCain (you know, that guy who actually fought in a war) wanting to kill our soldiers?
- peticsu, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8looks like McCain thinks hes on a Vietnamese bombing mission talking all tough about Obama but he burns himself every time he goes against the will of the people (60-70% of the people want out)
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2And, just out of curiosity, what percentage of the people and their elected representatives wanted in in 2003?
Wars always become unpopular when they're mismanaged, but we're not a direct democracy (thank god).- theinternets, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I don't know about the general populace, but about half of all Democrats in Congress (61% of the House Dems plus 6 Republicans, 42% of the Senate Dems plus Chafee) at the time voted against the resolution to authorize military force...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
(The vast majority of them were re-elected in 2004 and 2006, save Chafee.)
Even in August 2003 roughly 45% of Americans believed the war was "not worth it"...
In May 2003 31% already thought (correctly) that the general populace was misled by all the WMD talk...
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm - CrackyJSquirrel, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1And just out of curiosity, why the ***** does that matter? What matters is people want out now.. Or is it a "you wanted it before and now you don't, sorry you wanted it before so it stands". Are we now formatting politics after 3rd grade schoolyard laws?
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Popular opinion polls are not how policy works in our country. In our democracy, elected representatives are supposed to procure the change that we want. If after 5 years the elected representatives are still not doing anything about it, then apparently people suck at voting or say one thing to a pollster and another to their Congressman.
"about half of all Democrats in Congress..."
In other words, the vast majority of Congress voted for it. Don't pull this semantic crap, "Every single Libertarian in Congress voted it against it..." doesn't matter if none exists.
- theinternets, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I don't know about the general populace, but about half of all Democrats in Congress (61% of the House Dems plus 6 Republicans, 42% of the Senate Dems plus Chafee) at the time voted against the resolution to authorize military force...
- dexter411, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2And, just out of curiosity, what percentage of the people and their elected representatives wanted in in 2003?
- rald84, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7whoa, double hand-palm. i guess thats what experience gets you.
- rald84, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2face-palm, i meant to say face-palm
- totorototoro, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7Don't make McCain angry for god's sake. You won't like him when he's angry. :p
- thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -14/+8***** bury. Another huffingpost article. Pathetic. And people wonder why I can't stand and make fun of crazy liberals.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Nice substance in your post!
- dagnabbit, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3It's basically just a CNN interview so what's your point again?
- buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2This guy fathered a dog. That's gay sex in Rick Santorum's book.
- hawkeyeted, on 07/23/2008, -12/+12Burried for Arianna Huffington.
- jabberwolf, on 07/23/2008, -7/+11HUFF HUFF AND AWAY !!!
- Jamihabs, on 07/23/2008, -8/+7This is the most scurrilous thing that Joe Klien has heard? Didn’t he hear Dick Durbin liken our troops to Nazi and Communist thugs? Didn’t he hear John Kerry call our troops terrorists? Didn’t he hear John Murtha call our troops cold blooded murderers?
- boombye, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5No I don't think he heard that. Because a lot of people haven't heard about the ***** you're talking about. You can't just come here and post ***** about what people supposedly said according to your blogs, not to mention you don't even provide anything to back up your claims. You're a dumb ass coming here to make up ***** about people who hit the Republicans really hard.
- ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Dude, you are the ***** dumb ass. Read a newspaper every once in a while and turn off NPR! Durbin said that, Kerry said that, and Murtha said that. Look it up.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3I didn't hear anything you described, but I did hear that you went off your medication. You might want to start up again as you are becoming delusional.
- buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Wow, you really just make ***** up.
- boombye, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5No I don't think he heard that. Because a lot of people haven't heard about the ***** you're talking about. You can't just come here and post ***** about what people supposedly said according to your blogs, not to mention you don't even provide anything to back up your claims. You're a dumb ass coming here to make up ***** about people who hit the Republicans really hard.
- twoifbysea, on 07/23/2008, -7/+11Every time a huffpost gets dugg, an angel loses her wings!
- grantino9, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Nah, just her right wing.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I LOLd
- grantino9, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Nah, just her right wing.
- makenshin, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3How do we lose the war? We aren't at war with Iraq. The US has a War on Terror, which is why Obama wants more troops in Afganistan. What McCain has been talking about is essentially saying we went to war with Iraq and are still at war with them (which actually is true, but i'm not sure he wants it to look that way, might not be so good for him.)
- rationalbeats, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9Why does John McCain hate America?
- runCMD, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Thats a nutty comment irationalbeats. McCain loves America. Obama loves you.
- geoffg, on 07/23/2008, -12/+7Truth hurts Diggtards, Obama does want us to lose the war in Iraq so that he can win the election...you know it and everyone else knows it.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Keep on dreaming. Truth involves facts. Truth is based in reality. What your McBush spews out the side of his mouth is neither factual or based in reality. Instead of buying all the bs rhetoric you buy into, why don't you actually try to present evidence as to why Obama wants to lose the war, and no words or name calling does not count as evidence. I want to see quotes from Obama's proposed policies that would cause us to lose the war. Also, withdrawing in sixteen months does not equate to a loss. A loss would be the withdrawal of US troops and chaos erupts in Iraq and it descends into anarchy. Do you honestly think that Obama plans to provide no support in the event that the Iraqis start having a tough time? But then again, I think this is expecting too much from types like yourself as you lack any comprehension of what truth, or reality for that matter, is.
- ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Just look at his votes, oh wait there's not too many of them. Well then listen to what he claims he would have or would not have voted for. The Democrats have tried to lose this war from the beginning.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Keep on dreaming. Truth involves facts. Truth is based in reality. What your McBush spews out the side of his mouth is neither factual or based in reality. Instead of buying all the bs rhetoric you buy into, why don't you actually try to present evidence as to why Obama wants to lose the war, and no words or name calling does not count as evidence. I want to see quotes from Obama's proposed policies that would cause us to lose the war. Also, withdrawing in sixteen months does not equate to a loss. A loss would be the withdrawal of US troops and chaos erupts in Iraq and it descends into anarchy. Do you honestly think that Obama plans to provide no support in the event that the Iraqis start having a tough time? But then again, I think this is expecting too much from types like yourself as you lack any comprehension of what truth, or reality for that matter, is.
- calcm, on 07/23/2008, -6/+6Obama will be a good leader. George Bush didn't have any war and real world experience either. Obama wants to finish up in Iraq so we can get back to the forgotten war, the real war, the war with a purpose and a plan -- Afghanistan.
I don't like everything about Obama. He wants to slow down Future Combat Systems and our acquisition of the F22 stealth fighter which I would prefer he not do. But at least he can see where the real war should be. At least he can listen to the leaders in Iraq who would like us out of there by 2010.
No elected official is going to be a perfect fit for me. But at least his likability is way higher than McSame. - 5xSTUN, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5That's up there with Romney's little firebomb, "I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." I just wonder how these guys can look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe they don't... maybe they'd melt.
- jerrycurley, on 07/23/2008, -9/+8If anyone knows about posting *****, it is the ***** at huffingtonpost.
- azAZ09, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3^
|
Argumentum ad-hominem
Why argue facts when you can make outrageous accusations about the source.
- azAZ09, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3^
- barbiesnow, on 07/23/2008, -5/+5Seems like McCains followers have the same personality traits(?),lack of judgement and character assassination that he does..has he cloned these trolls...
- runCMD, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1McCain trolls, bothersome. Obama Drones, moronic followers ... barbiesnow ... priceless.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2As McCain can tell you, you know you are over the target when you start receiving flack. Holy crap Klein is unhinged and so is Power Digger zaibatsu.
And did Klein just say that the Iraq 'quagmire' is UN-LOSABLE? - 223Sniper, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5McRoboto is a douche...just disregard him, he is unimportant.
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Lol the RNC is hosting styx at their convention too XD
- runCMD, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1yawn sniper. yawn.
- RRJackson, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6it actually is *****. Obama isn't planning to change anything about our military strategy in the middle east. He's just willing to lie about pulling out of Iraq to win the election. The humor of this is that they're calling him on something they all know he doesn't really plan to follow through on. Genius, really. If he defends himself too vociferously it becomes obvious that he was lying all along. If he doesn't defend himself he looks weak.
- horatiolust, on 07/23/2008, -7/+1All Hail The Great Halfrican-American!
All Hail The Great Halfrican-American!
All Hail The Great Halfrican-American!
(Lost something in translation from the original German)
Barack, Barack Uber Alles- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1All Hail The Ancient Dinosaur-Fossil!
All Hail The Ancient Dinosaur-Fossil!
All Hail The Ancient Dinosaur-Fossil!
- zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1All Hail The Ancient Dinosaur-Fossil!
- dagnabbit, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Wow Digg works fast. I just sent an email to abuse@digg.com because someone in this thread (and others) was posting blatantly racist comments, and that user has already been banned and the comments removed.
Kudos to Digg for keeping the conversation civil. - zeusthemoose, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Ahhh its great to see the McTroll Bury Squad hard at work earning their McBucks!
- sexydarin, on 07/23/2008, -6/+5Obama said the war was a failure. He flip flops more than john kerry. Obama is a liar. The only change he brings is a change in lies.
- PiReX, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3well if you want you could call the war a success, but really at what cost our civil liberties, billions of dollars, thousands of US soldiers' lives to fight what a bunch of oppressed people that took up arms against an invading nation. what a great victory we concurred a 3rd world country at the cost of our turning our country into a shell of its former self. what a great success..
- salinemist, on 07/23/2008, -8/+6One Democrat President in the past 28 years.......and he got impeached.
Obama will go down in flames.- buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Wow, sound logic there, moron.
PS, Jimmy Carter was president 28 years ago. Check your math, *****.
- buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Wow, sound logic there, moron.
- jpmulli, on 07/23/2008, -7/+1Anyone ever read the Bible? Revelations to be specific. Those that have, probably recall the phrase "Antichrist". Obama fits the bill in several areas. He seems to care just a little too much about what other countries think of him. I agree with some of the other posters...he is running for POTUS and should operate from a position of strength rather than on his knees.
- buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Hahahahahahaha!!!!!! I don't think YOU'VE read the bible. You're a ***** holy roller freak. No one cares what you think except for other holy roller freaks. Go back to subjugating your women and molesting little boys, *****.
- kristicarmen, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Oh my gosh. People like jpmulli scare the crap out of me. WTF????
- buckpower, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1repressed sexuality + no social life + substandard education = creepy bible freak
- runCMD, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3Who cares what a magazine editor thinks ? Really - like having a celebrity endorsement ...
mmm. that's nice. now go back to work. - buckpower, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3What a vile *****... or, it's just the alzheimers kicking in.
- IdigObama, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2***** INDEED!
Obama 08 -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by