digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Fight the Smear against Barack Obama

my.barackobama.com — Look at the lies see the truth !!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Hanoian, on 06/12/2008, -31/+123Great idea! Glad the campaign decided to do this:)
    • usuallyquietbob, on 06/13/2008, -27/+6i think its kind of a bummer... i dont think i can vote for an unpatriotic racist muslim from another country, even if he is still black. (he is still at least half black isn't he?)
      • starsarebent, on 06/13/2008, -16/+4Here here.
      • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4*/sarcasm.

        Only needed because for some, passion comes before reason. No biggie.
      • bugsy187, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7i think it's kind of a bummer... republican leaders are exploiting gullibility and racism in the american public. mccain will continue the criminal policies of bush while obama offers hope for something that actually helps the public.
        • didiman, on 06/13/2008, -7/+5bush, hope, change, bush, hope, change....you're just another moronic robot
        • jebudas, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4@didiman,
          you dont know anything about bugsy187, so if you make assumptions about his political rationale, then call him a moron, doesnt that make you a robot?

          Here's your one line of code:
          if (*digguser* likes Obama) { *digguser* = "moronic robot"; }
      • flashback99, on 06/13/2008, -6/+3you are probably too mentally incapable of voting let alone choosing a candidate. I suggest staying at home and jacking off to fox while sane america votes obama as president.
        • usuallyquietbob, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2that's cute, the whole jack off line, but i actually probably will vote for obama. i could list my academic credentials, but i don't think that is required to vote. thank you, and good day, sir.
    • rpgmaker, on 06/13/2008, -9/+19"Someone is WRONG on the internet."
      http://xkcd.com/386/
    • 8randon, on 06/13/2008, -1/+15I think it's a good idea, but I also find it kind of saddening that the campaign needs to focus on such trivial issues (why does the media criticze Obama on such things as not wearing a lapel pin, or because his middle name is Hussein?). I would definitely prefer to see online debates / dissections of policies between the two candidates over a "he said/she said" yelling match.
      • Rsulliv1, on 06/13/2008, -3/+10Agree. But, I think it's even more saddening that so many people think these are make or break details of his campaign and/or character. (see first reply to the original comment...).

        I believe it's ignorance, racism, or both that's driving these issues...
      • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5I prefer to think about it as a means for clearing away these petty accusations that get in the way and allowing the campaign to focus more on the real issues. We've already seen countless hours of Obama's type wasted on answering questions about Wright and other relatively irrelevant issues.

        Besides, it's not like they can't focus on multiple things at the same time....it'll pay off during the debates.
      • jzuska, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Is this because he's black? I hope so.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1It's all because he is a secret muslim!!!!
    • ISIfunded911, on 06/13/2008, -5/+6Great idea indeed! Especially if they explain why Obama is not helping the hero called Dennis Kucinich impeach the worst traitor in US history: George *****' Bush.
      And will they explain why Obama licks the AIPAC's ass?
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Obama_at_AIPAC_S ...
      And why he went to the Bilderberg conference? To receive his orders as a good puppet of the most powerful men on Earth?
      http://digg.com/world_news/Obama_and_Hillary_atten ...
      My conclusion: they deal with "smear" because they have no intention to deal with real change.
      Obama, McCain: more of the same in different packagings.
      • RC155, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4You do make very strong points. But the avg American is clueless as to who runs their country.

        Just give them football, beer, hotdogs and cheap gas and they'll be happy.

      • Tebixan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6I can't wait for football season to start
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I prefer cars that run on cheap beer!!!
    • slappy83, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I think it's a good idea and I'm sure we'll be seeing this used a lot in the future. But what I would really like to see from the Obama campaign are details on exactly how he plans to "change" America.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Just shut up and assume that change means all the good things you are thinking of!!!
    • withears, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4TERRORIST FIST JAB!!!
    • jzuska, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Where is your flag pin now!!!!!
    • djk21108, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4So should we fight the smear against McCain, or just because we on digg collectively love Obama we should just let him get off for free. If you don't want mud slinging and smear for one candidate, it's only fair to be completely truthful about both.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2I think it would be unproductive to both produce and fight the smear against Mccain.

        We should just focus on one. Gee i wonder which one it will be?
    • NewsObamaDotOrg, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0I think it is a great idea, too. I just wish there were an RSS feed for the site!
  • darksideownedu, on 06/12/2008, -29/+206I love it, instead of ignoring the smear campaign or countering with one of his own, Obama instead gives real FACTUAL evidence proving these rumors to be false. Tip of the hat to you Obama.
    • JointVenture, on 06/13/2008, -20/+3Why wont he provide his birth certificate?

      If he's so honest he should have no problem with it.

      Im not saying anything is on it, just that he's refusing to provide it.
      • RaptureBiz, on 06/13/2008, -3/+19http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
        • HYPEractive, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9lol pwned
        • Vodd9, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Can't see *****.
        • inboxnews, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Debunked. That document has clearly been altered. It was photochopped and posted by dailykos.
        • JointVenture, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Thats not his birth certificate.
      • jarjarwang, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Which garbage news outlet told you that this was an issue?
        • JointVenture, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2They posted a fake birth certificate at the smear site.

          How ***** lame is that. What are they hiding? The image has already changed twice.

          Its laughable that you would consider it legit after just a glass, let alone take the time to post about it.
    • fatjoe, on 06/13/2008, -15/+9Who Cares?

      Regardless of the smears, he's no better than McCain because his party is no better than McCains

      That's the bottom line
      • buba1243, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3He is trying to make it better. One man can't change it all on his own but he can inspire change. He has a history of working with others Rep. or Dem. and his bills are for increasing the transparency of government. I have a lot of conservative views but i am voting for him because I think he will make the best president we have ever had.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2He will certainly be the best black president we have ever had.

          As for the rest, lets go with the evil we don't know for once...

          His got my vote...for now...
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10And a wag of the finger to... BEARS!
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Any presidential candidate that thinks bears are the biggest problem facing America today should not be allowed to be president...


        For those that know Russian you know this will cause a war with Medvedev...
    • upsilonh24, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2I second that.
    • listrophy, on 06/13/2008, -6/+7How about this fact? Obama plans to delay the Constellation Program (NASA's Shuttle Replacement/Going back to the Moon program) by 5 years. Look it up: it's in the K-12 Education PDF on his site.

      Realistic translation: Obama will set back the US at least 10 years (20, more likely) in terms of spaceflight. How does that inspire hope?
      • joe122370, on 06/13/2008, -4/+6it makes you hope that people are smart enough not to elect him
      • Muyoso, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Because pumping even MORE money into education is the answer.

        /sarcasm
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Maybe it inspires hope that he will focus on the couple of problems that we still have left here on Earth?
    • blarch, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N10eIKLLc3k
      Start at 6:40 for a list of Obama facts.
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Well no one ever ever said change meant the end of the Iraq war, in fact noone ever said what change was.

        He still seems better then MCcain though...
    • Limetang, on 06/13/2008, -9/+4I'm glad that you dumb ***** attack John McCain, but when Obama gets attacked you ***** ***** your pants and whine like the ***** you are. I'm done with this site because its users are all little *****. ***** you.
      • 4lton, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I honestly feel the same way sometimes. Objective thinking is reduced to: "Republicans=Evil".
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Why can't people get that politicians are evil in general with very very few exceptions...

        Which is why small government always sounds nice, politicians have less power therefore all is good... it is really to bad the RepublicRats walked away from this ideal... I hope the Republicans kick them out of the party or start a new one...
    • ownwonnow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I'm glad to see you've already bought into the spin.
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5"Smear: Michelle Obama says "whitey on a tape.
      Truth: No such tape exists."

      Where is the factual evidence there? I'm dying to know. I believe its called a counterclaim. Also, in case you were unable to reach this conclusion, you can't prove that something doesn't exist. No wonder Obama is doing so well in this election season...
      • pckbeta, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Well, I think its because the event she was claimed to have said it at wasn't at Trinity Church, it was at the Sheraton.....

        Oh, and Michelle wasn't even there. Those conference attendance records can be a bitch.

        Nice job reading the article.
        • Muyoso, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2But now, what happens if a tape IS produced? And she DOES say that *****? If a tape now exists, the GOP has Obama lying about it.
    • dk911, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because just saying there's no tape is proof enough for me. Riiiiight... That statement, in and of itself, is *****. Why not provide more proof?

      Oh, and calling Roger Stone a "Proven GOP sleazemeister" isn't smear?? This site is ***** for credibility in my book.
      • b-dizzle, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1How can you prove that a tape doesn't exist beyond proving that they say the tape depicts Michelle being in a situation she has never been in - at the pulpit at Trinity, or at a conference at Trinity that never happened. It's kind of hard to prove the absence of an object by itself.
    • kosser, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2this is obviously a tactic to unite people more with Obama. Everyone hates smear news, like fox news, so whoever they trash, people will in turn like them more. it's an obvious tactic to get you to unite and justify this horrible candidate that will then introduce RFid chips and carbon credits. they know how to easily manipulate the public and they start early.
      • Muyoso, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2What are you talking about? If people didnt LOVE smear news, the politicians wouldnt use it.
    • Dragular, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4From the website:

      "LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word “whitey” from the pulpit of Trinity United"

      And that's exactly right. Limbaugh never said the tape exists, he stated what he'd heard (from a Democrat, for the record). So saying Limbaugh said the tape exists IS a lie.
  • Spastastic, on 06/12/2008, -26/+98Good to see a democrat being proactive in fighitng attacks this go around.
    • richardpryor, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3What's funny is that if John McCain did this about the lies that have been spread about him through the media and Digg, he would be made fun of by most people.

      Why is America embracing a black man over a white man with the notion that the white man lies? Isn't that racism?
      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1America is the most racist nation on earth, it even has government sanctioned racism.

        Some call it affrimative action.
        "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

        By the way, not originally from this country... And MY ancestors were slaves... doesn't mean that I should get special treatment...

        That said, Obama is a better candidate than MCcain...
  • alapoet, on 06/12/2008, -23/+111Fighting the lies with the truth -- this is definitely the way to go.
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/13/2008, -22/+2Hasn't worked for 9/11 truth.
      • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -1/+14There's a big difference between "truth" and "conspiracy theory".
    • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4I love the way it plays on one of the popular chain e-mails' style with the "LIE: ..."etc. I can see the posts on that creepy hillary forum site now. Actually their reaction to news of Obama forming an anti-smear campaign was decidedly bitter with comments like "WHaHeY!!! ThAt'S bEcAuSe He HaZ a LOT tO deFeNd!!!! NOBAMA! LULZ!".
    • RoflCoptah, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8id prefer to fight lies with my silver augmented obsidian axe
  • gsadamb, on 06/12/2008, -21/+61This is great. One of the biggest problems with Democratic candidates in the past has been the decision not to address rumors or blatant mistruths floating around, thinking it'd be best not to dignify them with a response. However, a lot of these smears in the past (Swift Boat Veterans anyone?) have been successful because of that strategy.

    Brilliant move.
    • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7It's because in real life we're taught not to pay attention to what other people think and to ignore mistruths said about us. For presidential nominees, they can't just "take the high road" because what's said about them could affect other people's decisions to like them. It's crazy how much time I spend trying to convince some of the people I know who aren't so politically inclined that Obama isn't a muslim...they're not racist or anything, they're just misinformed.
    • elTito, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7I did psychological operations (aka propaganda) for the Army during the Clinton administration.

      Of several methods of dealing with enemy propaganda, the preferred course is usually to ignore it. Don't kid yourselves about candidates wanting to "remain above the fray" or ignoring these sorts of attacks because of some social norm. "Ignoring" is just as calculated as addressing or ridiculing or what have you.

      The main reason you prefer to ignore, by the way, is so that you don't aid in the further dissemination of enemy propaganda. In other words, why be an instrument of exposing more people to it than have already been exposed to it? Usually it's better to just go on with your own propaganda like it never happened.

      The fact that Obama has chosen to address it may well indicate a fear that these "lies" are so far-reaching as to have become generally accepted as truth by the majority of the target audience.
      • ownwonnow, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Holy *****, someone with a brain. Your kind are rare.
        • ownwonnow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2To clarify, I'm being serious. Once in a blue moon do I run across a comment where someone demonstrates in-depth comprehension of political tactics.
    • mcquitty, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Sometimes you have to take it on, sometimes you have to ignore it.

      Don't kid yourself that Republicans were the only ones doing this in the 2004 campaign. Mr. Rather lost his job because of fabricated evidence to smear Mr. Bush. While it wasn't Mr. Bush's team that descredited the memo, the memo was attacked and proved false.

      In a twist of stupidity, Mr. Rather eventually said something to the effect, "Well, it doesn't matter if the memo was real or not, the essence of the story was correct."

      Well, to some, it did matter. Could you image a court system with fabricated evidence and the prosecuter said, "Well, the essence of the 'evidence' is correct"?

      In some cases, attack. In others, ignore. The hard part is knowing when to do the right option.


      • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Why the hell do we need to imagine the court room example? DO you have any idea how often lawyers do that? That is why the opposing lawyers often try to throw out 'evidence' that is too prejudice to their client... also these sort of trials often end in mistrials, but the number that end with convictions is horrifying...
    • ownwonnow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3What made the Swiftboat campaign so effective is that it changed the course of discussion. Kerry and the talking heads spent more time talking about the ads than about Kerry's policies. It's the political equivalent to the "rope-a-dope," make your opponent waste their energy.

      Obama is gearing up for a mudslinging contest, but to think that this site is any more than his camp spinning information is terribly naive. This is politics, there is no such thing as the truth.
    • bentl1, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Damn those Swift Boat veterans for telling the truth!! Dame the truth I say!! The truth is what we say it is .... this is the Democrat mantra. If you're a Democrat, being a cowardly liar and a whiner isn't grounds for not being selected by a liberal court to be President.
      • gsadamb, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Oh please. The attack was designed to try and diminish John Kerry's service record. But had Kerry really jumped into the fray and made it about service records, the magical disappearing National Guardsman W would have lost hands down.
  • pewpewarrows, on 06/12/2008, -27/+92From the top of the website: "What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first."

    Whenever I read his words or hear him speak, I get a shiver down my spine. And it's not from fear, it's because of the hope that these words inspire. There has never been a presidential candidate that has had that effect on me. I can only imagine that this was how I would have felt if I were alive when JFK ran for president.

    There's a reason I'm voting for Obama in November.
    • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -49/+9Typical Obamasheep. Mention nothing about policy, and continue to laude him with compliments like "he is such a good orator" or "he believes in change"

      You know what the "change" is? It's the change he'll be coercing from you via unconstitutional income tax to pay for an unconstitutional universal health care program.

      Oh i'm sorry, did you not understand? Let me translate in a language you'll understand:

      BAAAH, BAAH, BAAAAH

      Ron Paul '08
      • twiztidsinz, on 06/13/2008, -4/+25You know what change ISN'T?

        Radical ideas that, while might benefit the people in ways they desperately need, would never pass with the way our government is set up and the corrupt people in that government. Ron Paul is what this country needs, but he'd need to be able to go about his business unchallenged, which would never happen.

        I will agree with part of your comment...
        "BAAAH, BAAH, BAAAAH
        Ron Paul '08"

        And you talk about sheep.....
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4Then why do we even vote? It certainly is a waste of time! I think that Paul would have been good, even if he saw a great deal of opposition. For one, he'd do the one thing the Democrats have failed to do thus far: End the war like they promised to do. No progress is good progress.

          As president, he could stem the tide and be an advocate for self empowerment rather than fooling ourselves into believing that welfare is somehow a sustainable solution. Even it's advocates know it's only meant to support people in hard times, yet it's as if the brunt of politics today is about taking advantage of crises in order to garner support for wealth redistribution.
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I don't disagree with you, but the problem is politics isn't about doing what's best for the country anymore.. it's about doing what's best for your wallet, for your 6th house, for that big yacht, for your next car..

          It's much easier for the corruption to creep in than it to kick it out. The corruption has been creeping in more and year after year and they are just getting bolder as time goes on and corruption becomes the norm.
          I've only been able to vote once due to my birthday coming just after the cut-off but I'm already sick of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. I'm sick of seeing the government getting more corrupt day by day and expanding their reach, choking the life out of this country. I'll take some change/reform over delusions of grandeur any day.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6I think you're missing a vital point here. Even Ron Paul has had a significant amount of smear directed towards him.

        Ultimately, only morons believe the hype. Those who are against a candidate because of smear are either willfully spiteful (and would never vote for the candidate that they may very well be perpetuating lies about), or allow the fluff from all sides to cloud their reason (the moron factor).

        I suppose it is a legitimate fear that overwhelming noise will sway people from voting for someone, but you do have to question the depth of research people are doing about the candidates, or the issues for that matter. In that, I see very little discussion of the consequences of the proposals in Obama's campaign. I really don't see this country turning around with more government spending. Everyone's so used to ***** politicians that they concede to accept the least scummy one.
        • heliox, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2Whose Ron Paul again?
        • csw1342, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1The English Major your not.
        • monoa, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"Whose Ron Paul again?" -> "*Who's* Ron Paul again?"

          "The English Major your not." -> "The English Major *you're* not."

          Digg English comprehension FTW.
      • siszam, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Universal health care is very constitutional. The constitution talks about the "general welfare" of the people. It speaks of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Ensuring that citizens get health care ensures their welfare much better than ignoring them and letting them die. Further, above and beyond the constitution we have God to answer to. Over and over God says to care for the poor, the sick, the least of us. If you don't believe in God then perhaps you believe in basic dignity or human compassion. All of the above are reasons to put greed and selfishness aside to fight for social justice.
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2I was with you till "above and beyond the constitution we have God to answer to."
          Separation of Church and State. This country (the USA) and its inhabitants desperately need to learn what it means again.
          I'm not anti-religion or anything, if having a religion has helped you in any way that's great, but don't push your religion on others especially through laws, and especially in a country founded to free people from religious persecution where we have so many people from just about every part of the globe all with different ideas and beliefs.
      • tjmb9, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Some of us actually think the government SHOULD regulate basic human services.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Regulate does not mean pay for...Any idea how much health care costs? Well, I am glad 80% tax rates are ok with you...
      • meromasta, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Ron Paul '08? Didn't you get the memo? HE'S DONE! HA!
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I am glad you are happy about the only candidate that truly stood for change being out of the race...

          I hope that in four years you will decide to vote for him when neither Obama nor mccain have fixed the Clinton/Bush stupidities...
      • dinot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul [ЯEVO]lution!!!!
      • davidrools, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Are you kidding?
        -Obama's policies are well thought out with the benefit of Americans as the main purpose, with known funding sources (which include repealing bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, middle class tax breaks, and fair corporate taxes)

        -Ron Paul's so called constitutionalism is just unregulated free market capitalism wrapped with selectively chosen snippets of the constitution. Would you prefer a country without the FDA and NHSTA, so you could be eating tainted tomatoes right now and driving un-crash tested cars whose maker forged safety data as "marketing" and was fully within the law? And that's just skimming the surface of what you so called revolutionaries are asking for.
        • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Better then taking Vioxx for that pain in your chest...
    • mcquitty, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2pewpewarrows,

      I wish more people would take his rhetoric to heart. But his followers sure do like to demonize anything that is against, or even non-pro, Mr. Obama.

      McSame, McLame, McBush... The vitriolic hatred here towards anything not pro-Obama is astounding.

      I wish his followers would follow his example.
      • monoa, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Obama's supporters like to defend him against the lies, and quite reasonably have a low opinion of those people who spread the lies. That's not 'demonizing'.

        Calling McCain 'McSame' or 'McBush' is a reasonable shorthand for someone who intends to continue Bush's militaristic foreign policy and failed economic policies. It's not 'vitriolic hatred' to comment on this obvious and massive failing in the McCain plan.
    • thanakar, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4Quit masturbating while watching him and you'll get rid of those shivers.
    • ownwonnow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2A tampered election, escalation of military presence in Vietnam, The Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, the death of Marilyn Monroe ... all in a little under two years in office.

      Yeah, Jack Kennedy was awesome.
    • sonnybobiche, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2He started ***** on Hillary pretty aggresively when she wouldn't promptly disappear, so he's not all sugar and rainbows.
    • 4lton, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should make out with him.

      For me, I'm still far from decided. Obama yet to prove anything on his campaign. Same goes for McCain.

      Although, I think I'm leaning Libertarian. I heard that guy has a killer mustache.
    • shady8x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Are you trying to say that he will get shot like JFK?

      Seriously don't mention shivers and JFK together...when talking about a presidential candidate... the likes of Lincoln, oh damn I did it too...
    • cougarcub1967, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0WOW, I would like to have someone tell me why I get the shivers when I think of how much more of my tax money is going to be taken from me, how many less jobs will be out there because of the taxes put on big bad companies. (The Oil profits is part my 401k and yours) Change for the worse is not the change I am looking for. We need to dig for our own oil, (Can't take my kids fishing No Gas for the boat). If you are going to Vote. look at each persons record and make sure you know what is at stake. Babies are not a mothers choice. and it is not the Fed's job to allow that choice. They wont stop giving a woman the right to kill her baby, it will just be done at a state level. I want to win the war, He won't change this, the Dem's in the senate haven't done anything and can't even impeach Bush. lets give the health care to the Gov to run "Oh lets look at the Books" for all the other programs they run. (IN THE RED 10 Trillion) Good move. right now anybody can walk in to an emergency room and they have to be treated. I have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. because I cant afford to tell you latter I told you So.
  • quakerorts, on 06/12/2008, -28/+80I never get excited about a politician, but for the first time this November, I'll feel like I'm voting FOR someone instead of the usual lesser of two evils logic.
    • badNetAdmin, on 06/12/2008, -11/+16I absolutely agree! This is the first time the U.S. has seen an inspiring candidate in a LONG time!
      • CajunDigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Kool-Aid drinker. Inspiring? Do you listen to what the (lack of)substance of what he is saying?
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6I respectfully disagree. The office of president is increasingly chased after with greater abstraction and loss of perspective. It's still very much a lesser evil game. Voting for politicians is pretty far down on the list for me in terms of preserving and promoting liberty.
    • thanakar, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3He is a politician so he is still evil. He has already outlined several plans that are nothing but take from the rich and give to the poor. Typical democratic politics. He brings nothing new to the table.
  • syncr, on 06/12/2008, -17/+44another well executed campaign by Plouffe, Axelrod, and Obama. if nothing more, these guys are changing the way politicians interface with communities. bring on Politics 2.0!
  • cheeseysynapse, on 06/12/2008, -18/+4Thank You LGF!
  • Swarms, on 06/12/2008, -12/+67I'm not an Obama supporter, but the people who would find this site are the people who already know those things aren't true. Racist Grandma in Kentucky is never going to be reading this website.
    • brucecordell, on 06/12/2008, -9/+18Yeah, but responsible news sites that learn about it and want to take even a moment to see what's true, can temper their news reports. Maybe Racist Grandma in Kentucky will see that news. Well, maybe not her, she only watches Fox, but maybe Uncle Crusty Republican that watches CNN will see it.
    • GlassAgate, on 06/12/2008, -5/+15It'll probably change the minds of a minority of the
      people against Obama. The conspiracy theorists
      will cry "propaganda", "conspiracy". The majority of the racists
      will continue to be racist. It's a sad world that we
      live in.
      • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8Come on man, I agree that it's not the best at the moment but there's no reason to think that they can never change. At the very least, their children can bear watered-down versions of those beliefs.

        Patience.
        • ltethe, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Indeed.
          My grandfather of 80 years was a racist for most of his life. But he came to respect African Americans, and even like a few of them...

          But when the root of ignorance runs too deep... We can only give thanks, that the elder generation, eventually, does, die.

          Patience.
      • GlassAgate, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6After rereading my post, I should have put more thought
        into it. Sorry about grouping all who are against Obama
        into those two categories. Just because they are against Obama doesn't
        mean that they are racist or conspiracy theorists. Perhaps
        they don't like his policies, or prefer one of the other
        candidates' policies more. I apologize for assuming, as
        I did.

        • joe122370, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1but that is exactly the argument. if you are against Obama, you are a racist.

          which is of course ridiculous since he is as much white as he is black. A point that is forgotten because it is so much easier to yell racism if you choose to run as black
        • herbertstrasse, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Dugg for being extremely reasonable.
    • Rsulliv1, on 06/13/2008, -5/+10I disagree. A part of this campaign is using SEO to ensure that positive and factual Obama messages fill the first few pages of google.

      Because Obama has this site with all of the slanders, the less informed will be able to read it when people try to search to get the latest Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin news on these "issues".

      • stretch611, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Yes, but all the search engine optimization will not matter to people who only send and receive email on the internet, or the people that don't even use the internet.
      • Swarms, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2You're assuming that people who hear these things look them up on the internet to verify their accuracy. I doubt it.
    • BDOUG, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4Obviously it won't change the minds of the willfully ignorant. But it can stem the tide of the mainstream media legitimizing these smear tactics in the minds of the border cases (and there are a lot of folks on the fence during any election). Also, backwards-thinking racist people might have kids and grand kids who find this site and it might open their eyes to some critical thinking. It may or may not help, but it certainly can't hurt.
    • argaen21, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5Doesn't matter. Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, these states are a lost cause no matter how much truth inject there. Its the people in other states that matter. People like me(in arizona) can just forward the link to this site every time someone at work forwards the Obama smear emails. Its going to work incredibly well against the soccer mom republicans who forward those piece of ***** emails everyday.
    • morninglorii, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2That's why each entry on the site has an easy "Email this" section right on the side, so people can email Racist Grandma. Since these lies are primarily being distributed through email in the first place, it's a safe bet that many people who believe them have email and will hear about this.
    • davidrools, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1I wouldn't doubt the campaign's tech savvy. The URL http://www.fightthesmears.com redirects there. I wouldn't be surprised if they've bought google keywords with smear topics as well.
  • InorganicMatter, on 06/12/2008, -12/+36An excellent idea. Glad to see candidates really reaching out to the interent this election.

    I'm still voting for Ron Paul, but I think the amount of smear, FUD, and downright lies that Obama has been subjected to in this campaign is disgraceful. Can politics please get back to real issues and not childish bickering?
    • ciaran036, on 06/12/2008, -3/+6Not with Rupert Murdoch's global media empire around...
    • tastypaste, on 06/13/2008, -3/+13When a candidate knows he can't win based on the issues, he'll turn to smears instead. It's what Hillary did and it's what McCain is doing now. Neither of them seem to realize how bad it makes them look.
      • Rsulliv1, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4I agree, but it appears that there are plenty of people that eat that stuff up..
    • kittnerrules, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Get back?
  • Stevanoski, on 06/12/2008, -86/+17"OBAMA'S VEEP COMMITTEE ... AND THEN THERE WERE TWO: Now that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson has resigned amid revelations that he secured sweetheart loan deals from Countrywide Financial, all eyes are on Eric Holder, the former Justice Dept. official who arranged Bill Clinton's pardon for fugitive Mark Rich and a handful of Weathermen terrorists.

    Just yesterday Obama thought it was absurd he was even being bothered with questions about his veep vetters. He brushed off concerns about Johnson as merely the political "game" being played against him. Johnson, on the other hand, recognized he was scandal-tarred and quit. Now Obama looks like an idiot, as this embattled former CEO had sounder judgment than the potential next president.

    Which brings us back to Holder. Obama's camp knows their guy already has PR issues with the Weathermen. So it'll be interesting to see if he handles veep vetter #2 any differently." L. Ingraham
    • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -9/+20Dugg up for entertainingly incoherent babble, attempting to tarnish Obama's reputation with irrelevant and incompetent smear tactics. Funny stuff, I'm sure this is satire. Way to make fun of antiObama idiots!
      • Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -5/+11Ah, this is Stevanoski you're talking to. He's serious. In fact, he's seriously the definition of an irrational idiot.
    • vinod1978, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3FYI - Jim Johnson was not involved in a scandal. Yes - Countrywide home is under investigation for their role in the prime mortgage crisis, but he did not commit any acts of wrong doing. Who do you think get the best rated loans? People that have $500 in the bank, or people that have millions of dollars of cash and equity? Hmmm....I wonder how a really rich guy got a really good deal at a bank. Secondly, the rates that he received from Countrywide are similar to what OTHER millionaires where getting from Countrywide at the same time - so how is his mortgage a sweat heart deal? Please turn of Fox "News" for 15 seconds, and watch a network that actually tries to report the news.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2There are networks that try to report the news?

        I thought we could only find the real stories on the Internet!
  • ciaran036, on 06/12/2008, -57/+20... what? The truth? Obama is a liar!
    Last week he said Iran is a "grave threat" with an "illicit nuclear program" and that this threat must "eliminated".

    The IAEA and CIA confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
    Just like Bush threatened Iran, just like Hillary threatened Iran and just like McCain threatened Iran...

    And just to remind you, the USA has nuclear weapons AND weapons of mass destruction and no hesitation to use them.
    • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -4/+20No hesitation? Seems its been 70 some odd years since we've dropped a nuke, and Obama touts the concept of talking before bombing. That's all we can ask, considering the circumstances.
      • ciaran036, on 06/13/2008, -3/+170 years? When was the last time any other country dropped any? Never!

        And they have used weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

        What circumstances? As I've already explained there are no nuclear weapons in Iran!

        I can't wait to see the diplomatic effort..
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/13/2008, -5/+16Way to take things out of context...
      He said the THREAT would be eliminated. You can eliminate threats without resorting to violence.
      • ciaran036, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2What are you talking about I know he said that, that wasn't my point.

        My point was that he lied about Iran having nuclear weapons, which they do not.

        Therefore, there is nothing to elminate!
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Nuclear Power Program =/= Nuclear Weapons Program.
      Fail.
      • ciaran036, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1lol I fail?
        US, EU, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Canada, India, Ukraine, China, Brazil, S.Africa have nuclear power programs, to name a few. By your retarded thinking, all these countries have nuclear weapons programs.
        But in fact, at the minute, the only countries to hold nuclear weapons is US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and India. N.Korea also has nuclear weapons but their total number of nuclear warheads is only rumoured to be between 0 and 10 - the US has at least 4,000 active nuclear warheads, by the smallest estimate.

        So there you go.
        Fail yourself.

        • herbertstrasse, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0US (has weapons, obviously), EU (not a country, but has weapons), France (has weapons), Japan, Russia (has weapons), South Korea, Canada (had weapons), India (has weapons which were secretly developed under a 'peaceful' program), Ukraine (had weapons), China (has weapons), Brazil, S.Africa have nuclear power programs, to name a few.

          Only a few of those countries do not have or never had weapons programs.
        • Frumbler, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Way to sidestep loser. You failed big time.
        • ciaran036, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1'herbertstrasse' - what point were you making? You've just said what I said, only mentioned a few countries you claim do not have nuclear weapons any more. Is that what you were pointing out?

          'Frumbler' - Gone explain what you're on about. "Sidestepping" "failed big time" - you're just flying random words around that don't make ANY sense!
    • ciaran036, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1I can't believe this comment received 37 digg downs. Obviously, you people want to deny the facts and continue to support liars as Presidents.
    • foofighter828, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I wish there was a digg down of mass destruction.
  • Stevanoski, on 06/12/2008, -59/+13Where there's smoke...
    • tastypaste, on 06/13/2008, -4/+21...there might be an arsonist.
    • drakethegreat, on 06/13/2008, -5/+5I find a comment by you?
    • vinod1978, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5@Stevanoski - Do you believe everything you read or hear, or do you actually try to determine whether it is the truth? I'm not trying to demean you, I'm just worried that you might read The Onion, and try to tell everyone that it wasn't Gore that invented the internet - it was Bush.
    • absurdist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5...it's being blown up your ass.
  • Stevanoski, on 06/12/2008, -65/+11Great strategy by the O. The more he fights the smears the more publicity they get.
    • trotskyist, on 06/13/2008, -3/+19Yeah, the whole "ignore it and it will go away" strategy worked wonders for John Kerry in '04.

      Oh, wait.
      • ArchangelZLT, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Why are you using logic to someone who is confirmed logic-proof?
  • Stevanoski, on 06/12/2008, -79/+12Bush should have done this The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance. A.C.
    • GhostyBoy, on 06/13/2008, -6/+39Stop spamming. Just because you are the one guy in America who still likes Bush doesn't mean you should compensate by talking out of your ass more often.
      • Stevanoski, on 06/13/2008, -30/+4Please quit trolling me, quite boring, I never troll, not enough time. Perhaps the phrase "get a life" is appropriate here.
        • diggproof, on 06/13/2008, -3/+18Yeah Bush's asswipe is telling *you* to get a life. Ghostyboy we wouldn't want to bore Stevanoski with critical thinking.
        • Stevanoski, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Still not one substantive rebut to any point, just Jr. High comebacks.
      • CajunDigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2"Just because you are the one guy...."

        Nope, There are two of us, and history will be our champion.
    • eliot2000, on 06/13/2008, -6/+22Do you ever wish you could digg someone down more than once?
      Thanks for posting 4 comments, keep it up.
      • Stevanoski, on 06/13/2008, -19/+2And not one substantive rebut to my comments, anytime, like shooting fish in a barrel.
        • diggproof, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Which coincidentally is what it's going to be like for Obama in a debate against that old clueless moron you Republican numbnuts call your nominee. Ol boy won't have Leiberman over his shoulder telling him the right answer.
    • diggproof, on 06/13/2008, -6/+14Haha good one! You're on a freakin roll today buddy. Here's you: "Darrr, I are stupid cause I got umm tricked by Georgy and I'm not big enough too admit my judgement wasn't darrr what deeeer it shoulda beeen ummm so I'll ummm derr keep being stupid and deeeerr vote for muhcain.
    • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -6/+11Its troo, cuz jeezus sed so, or so mai preecher toldz me. Dubyaz a moral champyin!!!
    • jerrym123, on 06/13/2008, -5/+7Dude you need to put down the crack pipe your brain has turned to mush. Bush is a criminal who will go down as the worst President in history and 200 years from now this will be seen as Americas dark age. It will be seen by scholars of that distant time as a period in our history when moron's like you cheered for a chimp and his criminal buddies as they destroyed the constitution and our civil liberties, as they wrecked the economy and our stature in the world. You cheer while our children are enslaved by crushing debt so the rich corporate barons can got richer and while the environment is destroyed.
    • heliox, on 06/13/2008, -6/+4LOL...diggers don't think lies against Bush are wrong. They believe if they hear them and say them enough, they become true.
    • tjmb9, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4Wow, some of that 28% actually uses the internet?
    • gadgetuk, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Blocky blocky.
    • kasjogren, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3I see someone is repeating Ann Coultergeist word for word.
    • ArchangelZLT, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1It's so great that you are not the one who made the Constitution, or else we'd have a Bush Dynasty.
  • GhostyBoy, on 06/13/2008, -31/+10What about the smear that he is going to continue to send billions to Israel's war efforts?

    Or the one that says his healthcare plan is ludicrous in the face of an ever weakening economy and 10 trillion in debt?

    Or the one about how the U.S. just built a 750 million dollar permanent military base in Iraq and regardless of what Obama says they aren't planning on leaving anytime soon?
    • Stevanoski, on 06/13/2008, -18/+3No domestic terrorist attacks.
      • diggproof, on 06/13/2008, -6/+14The first one never should have happened. It happened on Bush's watch, Bush let that ***** go down because he could sell this war easier. You rightards can blame it on Clinton all you want but the fact of the matter is that it happened NIIIIIINE months into Bush's tenure. Signs were everywhere that it was coming and he didn't do *****. So your "No domestic terrorist attacks" is pretty self defeating because it just goes to show everybody that the only reason this administration keeps the troops over in Iraq is because they keep saying that we'll get attacked if we leave. It's a vicous cycle that needs to end starting January 21, 2009 and not with McCain's foreign policy. Lives and treasure are lost every single day they continue to be there.
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2SHUT. THE. *****. UP!!!
        • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -7/+3Hey idiot, which president had Bin Laden dead to rights and was too busy playing golf and ***** interns in the oval office to give the order to take him out?
    • Rsulliv1, on 06/13/2008, -6/+10Well... Saving 1.5 Billion dollars each day by stopping this way is a good start

      Don't you agree?

      :)
  • WasabiBomb, on 06/13/2008, -28/+7I just can't wait 'til we start seeing the anti-Obama crowd in here. I figure it's not too long before someone claims that the site is "stifling free speech".
    • trotskyist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+14You don't have any basic understanding of the concept of free speech, do you?
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Sure, I do. My point was that the people who pop in to say that Obama's site stifles free speech DON'T. We've already seen it in other threads.
    • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3How about, the site doesn't offer up any real rebuttal to the "lies" other than to say "It's a lie!". A couple of videos and comments to the contrary has no credibility to me without some hard documentation, paper trail etc.

      Showing a hardly legible image of a birth certificate is hardly evidence to the contrary.
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2So you'll believe the smear without a shred of proof, but when the guy being smeared presents evidence to the contrary you say it's not enough evidence?

        Torture is illegal. Torturing logic like that is even worse.
  • Breticus07, on 06/13/2008, -30/+13Whether these rumors are true or not really doesn't matter. The fact is is that he went to a racist church for 20 years. You mean to tell me he has listened to Wright for 20 years and then just poof he doesn't agree with him anymore? Sorry it just doesn't work that way. Obama = Racist whether these other statements are true or not.
    • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -6/+14I'm white, and I am not racist enough to deny that most of what Rev. Wright said was true, and that black people have a real reason to be pissed off in this nation. Do you really think that the clips you saw on FOX were all that reverend Wright kept repeating for 20 years? No, they were just the clips that sounded the worst to cowardly white pussies, who are fearfully ashamed of the way that whites have oppressed blacks for hundreds of years.

      Quote one thing Wright said that wasn't true, I dare you!
      • Breticus07, on 06/13/2008, -8/+4The point being is that Wright is the type of person that sees a white man, and thinks that he owes him something. I have never oppressed blacks and my family has never oppressed blacks. My family wasn't given what we have today, we worked for it. As much as Wright may think it, I don't owe him a cent as a white man.
        As far as quoting I saw a "clip" of him saying that black people are more creative than white people and white people are made for more technical work. FALSE
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3That was an opinion. You can't say an opinion is false.
        • Breticus07, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3well he didn't state that as an opinion he said it was fact. You can prove an opinion wrong anyways, just because someone says the earth is flat doesn't mean it is
        • charm803, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4You don't know what people who are not white deal with on a daily basis. I grew up in California, very diverse, but I remember the first time my intelligence was question when I was working at a prestigious job, where most of the people were white and I was the only Latina.

          I wasn't treated wrong by my co-workers, but instead, by the clients.

          Racism exists because we let it. Did you not see the exit polls about West Virginia?
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Saying someone is "more creative" than another is never a statement of fact, and I really doubt that he personally stated that "this is a fact." Get a clue. People can state their opinion without specifying that it is an opinion. Like if I said that the Beatles were the best band ever, sounds like I'm stating a fact, but its actually an opinion, even though in my mind, if you disagree with that statement, you are obviously wrong.
        • Breticus07, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1@charm803 I didn't say that there wasn't racism. What I'm saying is that just because you have been wronged by one white man doesn't mean all white men are racist, and to think that because your people have been wronged means you deserve something from any white is racist. What you said was true, "Racism exists because we let it." It's people like Wright that are doing nothing but stirring more of it up.
          @notanidiot you are not making any kind of argument at all. He said it was a scientific fact. Basically saying that it wasn't just his opinion. Just because something is an opinion anyways doesn't mean someone can't prove it is wrong. You said "Quote one thing Wright said that wasn't true, I dare you!" Well there you go. You are making some weird argument about that being an opinion and I really don't see where you are going with it. You said quote him where he was wrong and I gave you a quote where he was wrong.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1You are gonna have to give a link to that quote, because, surprise surprise, I can't find it anywhere. I can find him saying Blacks tend to be more right brained, which may infer more creative nature, but he seems to have some kind of evidence to back that up...

          Being right brained doesn't mean you're more creative than the next person, it means that your brain is more intensive towards creativity than organization.
      • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3"I'm white, and I am not racist enough to deny that most of what Rev. Wright said was true, and that black people have a real reason to be pissed off in this nation"

        You've been completely buffaloed into that line of thinking. The left and the media's goal for ages has been to make the white man feel guilty and ashamed of things other white people did over fifty and hundreds of years ago. It's pathetic that it seems to have worked. Glad you feel guilty and feel like you owe someone something. You've been had and are more of a sheep than you believe.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4I don't remember any clip of him saying I owe him anything. I do remember him bringing up past hypocrisies this nation has been guilty of, all the way up until today, to include killing in the name of freedom, and how now on 9/11, we got retribution for the actual things we've done.

          I sympathize with blacks, but I don't owe them anything, but like I said, he never said that.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I don't feel guilty, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to be angry about it, or mention it. It doesn't make it any less true.
    • nova912, on 06/13/2008, -8/+9God, you're ignorant.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I thought God was supposed to be omniscient...?
      • CajunDigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1.....And you're blind.
  • TheRealToma, on 06/13/2008, -8/+16A good way to spread this is to actually use the old FWD email tactic much like the way these rumours were started.
    On another note: Obama is about change. People should follow this change and not divulge in smear themselves against McCain. Granted there are already a lot of sound reasons based on his policys and flip-flopping to hate him, dont criticise others of smearing when you do it right back.
  • kenmoford, on 06/13/2008, -21/+1This should be formatted better, but I love the idea. I also think blogging it and placing it on Digg is genious. I hope it gets a lot of attention. Hey, I know you (Obama) are in deep discussion over the next Vice President so please see my article on who the best choice is and why--I think you will agree with it: http://barackandhillary.blogspot.com/2008/06/barac ...
    • Zarokima, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Choosing Hillary for his VP would be political suicide.
    • argaen21, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Hillary can never be his VP. Have you never heard of the saying, "Too many chiefs, not enough indians"?
    • sandiegodude, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Putting Hillary on his ticket would force me to vote for McCain... Urrrr, no, I'd write in Ron Paul. Or Micky Mouse.

      Sorry, that power hungry bitch should not be in office. She stinks too much of corporate corruption and old style politics.
      • CajunDigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Unlike BHO who ISN'T a puppet

        /sarcasm
  • Snap65, on 06/13/2008, -10/+29I can't wait for McCain to call Obama "Osama" during a debate.
    • Gemfinder, on 06/13/2008, -4/+24Oh, he will. And he'll get torn apart.
    • warlax27, on 06/13/2008, -9/+3Or it will be the most badass thing ever!!!
      • flashback99, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6badass will be Obama teaching McCain how to debate.
        • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -3/+1Obama will only "teach" McCain how to debate if he knows every question beforehand and his team of writers has time to draft his answers for him. Otherwise, McCain has much more experience in debates from his experiences in 2000 and is a better off-the-cuff speaker, even if he is half a step away from being a liberal.
    • swhite26, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1All hail the great and powerful almighty Osama, I mean Obama.
      Praise ye Osama, I mean Obama
      May we touch the hem of his 10 thousand dollar suite to stop the bleeding of this vast right wing conspiracy.
      Praise ye to Osama, I mean Obama
      May we all be blessed by Osama's, I meand Obama's sinless nature.

      Say it with me now.....
    • DiggDuggDunn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5You mean like Ted Kennedy did?
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2Obama will lose it. He doesn't even like it when people call him by his real name.
      • mtmtmtmt, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Why won't we call McCain "Sidney McCain" then? I mean, it is his real name, why does he go just by "John" all the time? Is he afraid of being associated with Sid Vicious, or trying to hide something?
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2How dare you bring up the McCain/Vicious link!

          Actually, I do wish McCain's politics were more like Johnny Rotten's.
  • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -38/+10LOL!! HUSSEIN O'Bomber thinks he can distract the masses from the fact that he is a socialist by creating some kind of controversy! Well done bilderberg, put on another puppet show to hide another.

    Let's look at what the Obamasheep will probably call "smears"

    -O'Bomber is a socialist who wants to fund an UNCONSTITUTIONAL universal healthcare program by taking money from us with force.
    -O'Bomber is a gun-grabber who supports gun-control A.K.A the restriction of our 2nd amendment rights
    -O'Bomber voted for the PATRIOT ACT, REAL ID ACT, and voted to continue fighting the war. When you ask any supporters of him about this all you hear is CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE (which sounds alot like BAAAH, BAAAH, BAAAH)
    -O'Bomber attended the bilderberg meeting along with bowing down to AIPAC.

    Fact is, ObamAIPAC is just another globalist shill meant to sweep in as the "change" candidate, which is why the CFR set him up against McWar, so they could make the biggest contrast possible.

    The ONLY candidate who will respect your Constitutional rights is Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul. A vote for ANYONE else is support for someone who betrays the constitution, which makes you by definition a traitor.
    • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -2/+16Bet you feel like a big dummy, considering your champion, Mr "Paulitics isn't my thing" just dropped the ***** out of the race, and you are left with nobody!!!

      Healthcare: Show me where in the constitution that it says we can't have a national healthcare system? Just because it doesn't mention it in the Constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional. It also doesn't mention in the Constitution that we can have computers in the White House, so does that mean that all govt business should be done in feather and ink?

      2nd amendment: doesn't mention guns. Mentions arms, not guns. Back then, guns were muskets that needed reloading after every shot. If you want to legalize all arms, then I want to know where to find the nearest nuclear weapon, so I can buy it, for personal protection of course.

      I'll stop here, you've taken enough of a beating.
      • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1LOL!!! Typical liberty-hating talking points. How much are they paying you? Is it worth your eternal soul?

        Don't try and shift the argument. Universal (FEDERAL) health care is unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't provide a mandate for the government to PROVIDE IT. Plain and simple. Your "computer" argument is ridiculous because it is not a service, but a tool.

        arms doesn't mean guns? How stupid are you, do you think 'arms' was meant to be taken literally? LOL, the right to have bear-arms! I'm sure that's what they meant. A nuclear weapon? As ridiculous as that sounds, if you acquire one, it's not the governments place to tell you what you can or cannot own. Now if you use it to attack somebody, THEN they can deal with you. This pre-emptive gun-grabbing ***** that socialists like O'bomber preach is a tenet of fascism.

        The Federal government's ONLY duty should be to maintain a SMALL DOMESTIC MILITARY. Everything else should be left to the states, just like the constitution dictates.

        I'll be writing in Paul this November, because supporting anyone else is abetting a traitor, which is treasonous.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9Daaamn! You mean I could be getting PAID for telling the truth? *****! Who do I call?

          OK, little boy, listen closely. The constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and it can't be expected to handle all of the needs of today's society. The fact that it doesn't mandate something doesn't necessarily outlaw that particular thing. To say that it does is just ***** stupid.

          I don't think the constitution sets up Fire departments, so I guess they are unconstitutional as well? Whaddya think jackass? Should we let peoples homes burn to the ground in the name of the Constitution?

          Write in Paul all you want, but he's out of the race, so it would just be an exercise in futility.

          Furthermore, I know that arms means weapons, not actually arms like limbs. I'm not an idiot, look at my handle! You right wing idiots like to think that lefties are as dumb as you, but you need to get a clue. Noone thinks that bearing arms means limbs, you f'ing tard!

          I hear idiots like you say that "Oh, if they let people bring guns on planes, 9/11 would have never happened!"

          Stupid as *****! Sure, instead of 9-11, we would have any idiot posting up a spot in the restroom and picking off people one by one in the plane, then hiding behind the wall. Then a bunch of idiotic gunslingers will be shooting random bullets all around killing more innocent bystanders in an effort to kill the original gunman, which nobody can figure out who he is, ...WHY? Because everone has a GUN!!!

          "I loves my gun, loooves my gun!"

        • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1Keep digging yourself further down with your fascist talking points. Your disinformation scheme is not going to work.

          As for your disinformation about the constitution, well, that is really quite simple. The Constitution provides instructions for what the FEDERAL government can do. There is NOTHING in there about providing "free" (paid for by unconstitutional income tax) healthcare.

          Meanwhile, everything else NOT listed (like healthcare) is relegated to the STATES and local governments by the constitution. I know you are kind of slow, but if you didn't notice, those Fire departments you were talking about are LOCAL entities.

          You leftie soft-fascists always try to paint us 2nd amendment supporters as some kind of gun nut. Fact is, if guns were allowed on planes, hi-jackings would NEVER happen. I won't even touch on the fact that you still think that Al-queda did 9/11, or that those planes were 'hijacked'.

          I don't care what you think is a vote for futility. I cannot continue to be a patriot if I don't support Paul.
        • 8randon, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7"Fact is, if guns were allowed on planes, hi-jackings would NEVER happen."

          LOL

          Anyway, "notanidiot" is right. Read Article 4- "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". Health care in one state = all other states' citizens should be able to be provided of it = federal government can provide.

          In fact, the general welfare clause states that the government taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Health care is for the general Welfare of the people.
        • charm803, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2Taxes are unconstitutional as well, but I bet your @ss is still paying them. Save your energy, and go express your ignorance somewhere else.
        • 8randon, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3sorry, but taxes are NOT even close to being unconstitutional.
        • ParticleMan420, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1there's nothing about bearing arms in the constitution either, thats in the bill of rights. written AFTER the constitution. so should we throw the bill of rigths away since it's not in the constitution?
        • Andrwmorph, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"I won't even touch on the fact that you still think that Al-queda did 9/11, or that those planes were 'hijacked'. "

          My moron sense is tingling!
      • shig, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Arms meant all privately produced swords or smaller bladed weapons, single shot muskets with bayonets and "squirrel guns", a variety of cannon and mortor, and a variety grenades and explosives. Now, if the government decided that a private citizen shouldn't have a 16in cannon they are well within their right to take it from him, but per the 5th amendment they are obligated by law to pay just compensation and cannot place him in a prison or restrict his ownership of another cannon.

        You don't want me to own a nuclear weapon? Then let us make a deal. That's how simple a free society functions. It's really enlightening once you understand the philosophy. You are simply misunderstanding the entire concept of rights and the word "Infringed." But luckily for people like you, I have devised two simple questions that put the entire matter in a perspective easily understood by all modern peoples the world over;

        Does Lockheed Martin produce nuclear weapons for profit?
        What gives them the right?

        I'll stop now to let you deal with the curse of freedom and government in your own personal manner, like we all must do.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Lockheed Martin doesn't sell nuclear weapons to private citizens, DUUUUUHHHHHH!!!!!

          OK, lets start from scratch... the first letter of the alphabet is "A", say it with me.... "A".... very good!
        • shig, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I cannot own them, but I should pay for them. Is that your argument?
        • flashback99, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1'll bet any sum of money, that the rational clock in AbsolutePatriot is ticking:

          "Hey it appears I lost this argument. No, No, No, it's MUST BE because Digg is a liberal wishy washy biased liberal, left wing commie website, yeah, that MUST be it!"

          *continues douchery*
    • Fordi, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Please, man. You make those of us that ascribe to the same principles as Dr. Paul look terrible. Insane vitriol is not helpful, just want you to know.
    • shig, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1The government can take your property. It's a constitutionally protected practice of the American government. President Ron Paul would have every right to march onto your property and take every gun in your house, your house, the land it sits on, every car in the garage, and all your personal effects, by law. But, at least you'd still have your freedom and just compensation. President Obama would only differ in that last respect.

      We owe our society a great debt, fellow patriot, and we cannot begin to repay it by being motivated to ignorance by rage and using ad hominem arguments. Who's O'Bomber? Is he an Irishman? What would Ron Paul say?
      • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Patriot!!??? Listen here, Mr. Confederate Flag, you need to look up the meaning of the word patriot, because a confederate flag denotes the exact opposite, you ***** idiot.
        • shig, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2That seems highly dubious, but so does your nick.

          Patriot pat-ri-ot
          1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
          2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

          Confederate States of America
          A republic formed in February, 1861, and composed of the 11 Southern states. Dissolved in 1865.
        • notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2lol, I love it when people make up their own dictionary entries! Check out Merriam Webster:

          Pronunciation:
          ˈpā-trē-ət, -ˌät, chiefly British ˈpa-trē-ət
          Function:
          noun
          Etymology:
          Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriōtēs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patēr father
          Date:
          1605

          : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests


          Now, listen here, you redneck idgit, I know you're definition is false because you even have the syllables misplaced. The first "t" that appears in the word is in the second syllable, dumbass.

          And where the ***** did you get that second definition? The Ron Paul Website, or something? Patriotism means going "against" the federal government? I have to give you a huge "Duhhhhhh!" on that one.

          Further, the Confederate States are not the USA, they were against the USA, and therefore the opposite of patriotic, like I said. To continue to support them is a blatant strike against potential patriotism for the current USA, and only shows a tendency towards racism and redneckdom. Keep that flag up, so we know what you are about, you dumbass hick! America is about more than lettin you keep yer damn shotgun, billy bob!

          do me a favor, next time you bang your sister, make her call you "Nick."
        • flashback99, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Nationalism is an infantile disease, it is the measles of mankind - Albert Einstein.

          But seriously, it means you are a vapid person with no inner identity other than the collective label that you use by accident of location of birth. Why be proud of something you did not achieve on your own?!

          Patriots are little brainwashed obedient kids whose parents are their government.

          If you love your country too much , you forget who you should be learning to love - the people.


          I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you hate gays too.
        • shig, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot

          I did get the pronunciation wrong. It's my error, and I own up to those I make.
        • shig, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1A patriot has come to be known as "a vapid person with no inner identity other than the collective label that you use by accident of location of birth" and no longer an individual who is a proud defender of his fathers accomplishments or those of his countrymen. It's no longer acceptable to be proud of someone else's deeds no matter the relation. And for some reason, a completely unjustified reason, I have become a hater of gays! I assume it's because I'm not proud of their accomplishments /s. I make up definitions for words, and that is unforgivable despite being untrue. Words themselves originate in the imagination of others who are then praised by virtue of being quoted. The Confederate States were against the USA, in spite of my state voting (yes, they actually put it to a vote to determine the will of the governed, how barbaric, I know) to no longer recognize the latter because the spirit that formed their union was betrayed and killed. My fathers, who fought for the establishment of both, are not worthy of my praise or loyalty to the causes they believed in because they, like myself, were brainwashed, inherited their beliefs from their fathers, or received them via geographic location of birth.

          But, above all, I should learn to love people, for reasons unstated and certainly not for any that are stated. It requires a new definition;

          People pee-pul
          1. Something that I, and those that produced me, are not to be included into.
    • flashback99, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2America does not want your patriotism, it wants your intelligence - you know, brain power. The bit that thinks before being a douche. That kind of thing. I guess patriotism is all it's going to get eh?
    • ArchangelZLT, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1So let's get to the point: who the hell hired you to slander Dr. Paul?
  • nova912, on 06/13/2008, -10/+42To all the people addressing him as "Hussein Obama" can you please tell me your point... yeah he has that name, so? Talk like a real American -- no, a real person -- and say his name like you would anyone else's name: [first name] [last name]. Make a point as to why you insist on referencing him in such a way as to draw attention to that middle name without a point.

    I case you don't know, he is not Saddam Hussein -- I just want to clear the up for you.
    • Ozzsanity, on 06/13/2008, -1/+26I think they actually believe themselves to be clever with that line.
      • jayobear, on 06/13/2008, -1/+13Even the so-called "democrats" on that creepy Hillary forum do this. In my honest opinion, the disgruntled Hillary supporters are racists-in-denial. They're not supporting Hillary...they're using her to oppose Obama. That explains how easily they can decide to vote for McCain in November...anything but the colored guy.

        My favorite slogan from that site by the way: "I'M NOT BITTER!"
    • charm803, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Yeah, no kidding.
      From now on, I'm going to associate all Timothies with USA BORN AND BREED BOMBER, TImothy McVeigh.
      Got that, Tims around the USA? You're all associated with Timothy McVeigh! Your problem now, suckas!
    • stretch611, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Whenever I have heard that they usually use his first name as well as "Barack Hussein Obama." And while many informed people know that he is not related to Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. It gives uniformed people a pause and scare while they think if he is or isn't Muslim. It also adds fuel to ignorant racists to campaign against Obama and encourage them to go and vote against him so that a black Muslim does not get elected.

      That is why this website is important. The more people are educated on the truth of Barack Obama, the better his chances are of being our next president. While it is never going to get the racist or the person that only watches Fox News to vote for him, it can stop a uninformed voter from voting irrationally by educating them.
      • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -6/+3HE HAS A MUSLIM NAME. HE WAS RAISED BY A MUSLIM FATHER. Why does he continue to shy away from those simple facts? Because he knows it's an issue in our current political climate. He glosses over something as simple as his name and parental heritage just as easily as he throws his church and pastor of 20 years under a bus all in the name of his "political change". He's a fraud.

        I love the fact that if you don't buy into Obama's *****, you are automatically a redneck, foxnews watching, racist. Nope, no elitism from you guys at all huh? Pathetic.
        • nova912, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7"HE HAS A MUSLIM NAME"
          + Who cares, we are not at war with all muslims last I checked, why does this matter to you?
          + There have been plenty of 'Christians' who have killed people, should we be concerned about all Christians now?
          "RAISED BY A MUSLIM FATHER"
          + Fact check please...
          + Even if he was, again who cares, why does this matter to you?
          "He glosses over something as simple as his name and parental heritage just as easily as he throws his church and pastor of 20 years under a bus."
          + He explained to you that he did not support those claims made by the pastor. The only way people, like you in particular, would be satisfied with that statement was if he made a change showing it, and he did. He decided to just end the issue and close ties with the church and the pastor -- the problem was address and is in the past, move on already.
          "I love the fact that if you don't buy into Obama's *****, you are automatically a redneck, foxnews watching, racist."
          + It's not so much 'not buying into' that makes us think that, its your overt lack of education and understanding of logical thinking. You use simple phrases and no critical thinking in any of your actions, all while regurgitating random, pointless, empty, and refuted 'points.'
          "Nope, no elitism from you guys at all huh? Pathetic."
          + Again, you don't even hear yourself -- elitism. Well i guess what you're trying to say, based on the break down of your comment, is that people who actually stop to think about an issue, or consider a point of view rationally, are being elitist; by default that makes you ignorant -- now THAT is 'pathetic.'
        • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2"+ He explained to you that he did not support those claims made by the pastor. The only way people, like you in particular, would be satisfied with that statement was if he made a change showing it, and he did. He decided to just end the issue and close ties with the church and the pastor -- the problem was address and is in the past, move on already.
          "

          Dude, what part about him belonging to the church for twenty odd years don't you understand? What part about him stating on multiple occasions that Wright was an inspiration to him, to go so far as saying so in his widely acclaimed book, don't you understand. Twenty years! twenty years worth of ties ended just like that and now it's "in the past" huh? Man, you'll believe anything.
        • Breticus07, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2That's what I was trying to say in that earlier thread. I now understand you can't fight with these people. Racists people will vote for a racist candidate. As simple as that
        • soot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3You dolt, "Hussein" is no more a Muslim name than Smith is a Christian one. Names stem from geography, not religion.
        • charm803, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2His father didn't raise him, you poor excuse for a digg troll.

          Don't you read and research, or do you only believe what the Tooth Fairy tells you?
    • DiggDuggDunn, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1Hillary Rodham Clinton
      George Walker Bush
      John Fitzgerald Kennedy
      Dwight David Eisenhouer
      John Fitzgerald Kerry
      Barack Hussein Obama

      Your point? He should be PROUD of his name, not try to HIDE it!!!
      When GWB took office, "someone" removed the W's from all the computer keyboards in the White House. I'm hopeful when he leaves, that all the W's have been re-removed from them, with a note "That's how we found them".
      • ArchangelZLT, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Find any source referring to Bush as "Walker Bush", then come back and make a real argument.
      • nova912, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2"Your point? He should be PROUD of his name, not try to HIDE it!!!"

        + Did you read my comment? I asked why people addressing him that way are doing so, what is their point because I really do what to know. My point is that people who address/reference him this way are going outside the norm to do so but won't reveal their true intention in doing so.
        + He's not trying to "HIDE" it actually, and further more that's not what i was asking. I'm asking what's your point in explicitly including his middle name when 100% of the people in America, if they referenced someone casually or in a professional setting, would say [first name] [last name]. People are obviously trying to draw attention to his middle name but offer no point in doing so -- so please, reveal your point (ill add a little appeal to emotion here) cowards.
    • cakrauss, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4The liberals should also stop calling McCain "McBush"
      • johnnyboy239, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2out of curiosity, why?
        • cakrauss, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Well, if "nova912" expects that people stop using Obama's middle name because it's reflects him in a negative light, and wants people to call the candidates by the real names, then McCain should not be treated any differently.
        • nova912, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Actually, I asked what's your point. The people calling McCain "McBush" are doing so because they have a point (and they tell you their point), so what it your reasoning?

          "...expects that people stop using Obama's middle name because it's reflects him in a negative light"

          How does it cast a negative light, that's the question I asked you, what's your point, why are you obviously going outside of the norm by including his middle name when you address/reference him -- in short, have the balls to make your point.
      • boombye, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1McSame or McBush is pretty much a name given to him because he won't be any different, possibly might be worse. So I can keep saying it all I want, since he keeps repeating neo-con talking points. On the other hand, the only people who keep trying to call attention to Barack Obama's middle name seem to have other posts on here which would indicate they are bigots. So you can be a bigot about his middle name if you want, or you don't have to, that's up to you, but I will continue to correctly identify McCain as a representative for failed policies.
    • sandiegodude, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1Have to say I agree. If we don't want them playing name tricks, we should stop our own too.
      • johnnyboy239, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4no sir, that is completely different, calling Barack Hussein Obama by his middle name to try and incinuate that he has ties to sadaam hussein is completely different then calling Mccain Mcbush or say that he's running for bush's 3rd term.

        The policies that McCain believes in coincide with those that Bush does, the same cannot be said about Obama and Sadaam.
    • winnestow, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1why did he change his name from barry to barack?
      • nova912, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Look at his birth certificate... it says Barack.
  • rentmitchum, on 06/13/2008, -16/+8I'm considering painting on my back windshield "The collective age of McCains Cabinet? Over 9000!"

    Please note this was an alternative idea when my girlfriend told me painting a caricature of him sucking a dick would get me arrested. Any other funny ideas? I got 2 whole bottles of this wash-off car paint stuff, I have the colors red and blue. I'm open to suggestions.
    • Rsulliv1, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8How about, "Obama for President" or something like "Time for a positive change".

      No need to drop down to the Right-wing level by throwing around insults.
      • rentmitchum, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Yea that's what she said.. ok fine, Obama 08 it is.
    • argaen21, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Definitely OVER 9000!
    • onebigham, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Funny Ideas??? How about a caricature of your girlfriend blowing McCain. Or a caricature of you blowing B. Hussein. Or maybe a group caricature of your girlfriend and Michelle blowing B Hussein while rev. wright is sticking it to him. All of those ideas seem very funny to me.
  • SethEllis, on 06/13/2008, -9/+9I'm not about to say that this is a stupid idea, but I really don't think it's going to do much. First off because as already mentioned the idiots out there that really think he's a Muslim will never see the website. Secondly because most of the issues they address are kinda silly. There is a lot of BS floating around that will never really harm Obama. The questions on the site aren't things that would keep Obama from getting elected. He needs to focus on more serious issues. Where are responses to concerns about his associations with Tony Rezko or Jeremiah Wright etc?
    • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2Exactly. They can't rebuff the issues of his church, Wright or Rezko. They cannot rebuff the fact that Michelle Obama is very racist and anti-white (too many comments, college papers, speeches etc.) so they center on the little piddly items to draw the uninformed away from looking at the big issues. Problem is, most of us who don't buy into his ***** already know about the big issues and just laugh at sites like this.
      • Bnolanjr, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1As a former resident of district in Illinois and an informed voter. I can tell you he is NOT racist. I have seen what he has done for the people in his state and in the senate. I was not always a supporter of Obama. I had to research about him before he received my vote both at the state and federal level. Actually research his association to Rezko and you will know the truth about the supposed relationship. I think he has already explained how he feels about Rev Wright. Did it occur to you that his mother, grandmother and grandfather who raised him happen to be white? I am aware of the BIG issues and where he stands on them. If we as voters took the time to actually get to know our candidates views on the issues then these smears would not even "grow wings" and distract us from the issues that really matter.
      • hafbaked, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"Michelle Obama is very racist and anti-white"


        sources?
      • hominidx, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1You have no idea what you're talking about. It is up to people like you to ~prove~ there is something where Obama is wrong on these issues, not just keep repeating your pointless headlines over and over again. You're not even addressing the point of the person you're responding to.
    • hominidx, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Because Wright and Rezko really, really don't matter.

      The usefulness of the site is for people who ~do~ use the internet to be able to make more effective arguments on behalf of their candidate.
  • Dzonatas, on 06/13/2008, -10/+2While you are out there, consider this wikipedia vs bauer case from wikileaks, and read the review on the discussion page. One way to understand the smear on a different front and hjow it affects Obama or even you!
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Barbara_Bauer_vs_ ...
  • beautifulleper, on 06/13/2008, -16/+5My hope, that McCain will smear himself through his bad debating skillz.
  • kruykaze, on 06/13/2008, -19/+8saying he is a muslim is a smear?
    • jerrym123, on 06/13/2008, -4/+7Not if you do not mind making yourself look like a complete jagoff. Everyone with an IQ above 80 knows that he has never been a Muslim.
      • CrazyZ, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Really? He doesn't have a Muslim father? He wasn't raised by a Muslim father? He has no Muslim heritage at all? He may not be a practicing muslim but you cannot remove the taboo word of Muslim from Barack Obama's life and that is going to cost him in this election with our current political climate. Why do you think the GOP is "smearing" him abou it to begin with? Why do you think websites such as the one in this topic is addressing it at all? Anyone with an IQ above 80 knows that this is an issue, whether it's a ***** issue or not doesn't matter. It's politics and Barack with his preaching of "change" is still playing the good ol boy game. He's no different than any of the rest of them.
    • SoulDrift404, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Given how muslims are viewed in this country? And that it's not true?

      YES.
  • beautifulleper, on 06/13/2008, -21/+1My hope, that McCain will smear himself through his bad debating skillz.
    • beautifulleper, on 06/13/2008, -3/+0digg this down, a damn freak'n mistake on my part
    • onebigham, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0If McCain has such bad debating skills, why is it that B. Hussein Obama is the one refusing to debate?
  • pieceofred, on 06/13/2008, -15/+4***** the smearers. you ain't getting another ***** nazi into office this time with your ***** smears! obama will clean your clock with the TRUTH.
    • willdiggforfood, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Will he clean my chimney, too?
  • Fun4Two, on 06/13/2008, -12/+2McCain is a DOO DOO Head. Just needed to be said. There wasn't enough negative digg comments for McCain on this article. You can thank me latter.
    • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4We need some 'yo mama' jokes about old John too. Not quite enough low IQ hate floating around here at the moment.
  • Ozzsanity, on 06/13/2008, -12/+28It's gunna drive these haters insane when Obama is the next president.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/13/2008, -8/+8Naw, the best thing will be all the 18-30 year olds (and Canadians) who weep and disengage from politics when he goes down in flames.
      • Ozzsanity, on 06/13/2008, -8/+3I honestly don't think McBush will be able to last until the election. He looks like he is about ready to bite it any day now.
        • elTito, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3What is with the vapid, Pavlovian repeating of the "McCain=Bush" meme? As though they shared the same brain or something. I'm sure there have been more absurd themes in recent campaigns, but at the moment I am having trouble thinking of one.
        • ArchangelZLT, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2His name, my friend, is McCain.
    • stretch611, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3Just be sure to laugh at them while they go