What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Zincyams, on 11/10/2008, -2/+95Always good to have all of a politician's standpoints on one page, no matter what side you're on.
Bookmarked.- hiimcliff, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Agreed
- kaosethema, on 11/10/2008, -5/+5Here Here!!
- digitronix, on 11/10/2008, -15/+4Let's talk about the amount of money Obama's going to spend to achieve all his campaign promises.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningn ...
Wow, I would have never thought this country was in an economic crisis.- smotpoker, on 11/10/2008, -3/+14Because the *only* way to stimulate the economy is to invest in finite resources and corrupt multi-billion dollar corporations, right?
- APHughes, on 11/10/2008, -3/+6I don't agree with him on most issues. I do not like the government involved in my life or my bank account. However, I do like his stance on technology
- madeingermany, on 11/10/2008, -2/+9Gays on the other hand welcome the republican intrusion into their life.
- emjaymj, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4I am completely in agreement that I don't want the government so involved in my life. However, this is pretty much a universal problem with both presidents and presidential candidates, and I really think Obama is the best prospect for the country in a very long time. It's nice to dream about the perfect candidate, but the fact of the matter is that it's beyond unlikely that you will ever be in 100% agreement one. The goal is simply to keep the country moving forward, and I believe Obama is a great choice in this regard.
- rft3rd, on 11/11/2008, -13/+2Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal.
'Nuff said.
Could have saved the WOT and just printed that last line of the text.
America Spoke... And we all pay the price.- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2I took the test and I'm also a hard core liberal! Yay! I'm closest to John Kerry, apparently.
Hillary Clinton is also ranked as hard core liberal. - rft3rd, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Does this surprise you? The left has control now and in two years you all will be defending BO like the right defended GWB. He has already had to apologize for his seance comment so as most politicians have to have he has his foot planted firmly in his mouth and his head stuck far up his ass.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2I took the test and I'm also a hard core liberal! Yay! I'm closest to John Kerry, apparently.
- odigity, on 11/11/2008, -4/+2I'd love to be able to believe in Obama, but I just... can't. It's not realistic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2YsJVF-920
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Saw 3 seconds.
You quote that ultra-idiot Stefan Molyneux to prove anything but his braincancer?
Blocked user.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Saw 3 seconds.
- zeblith, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5However, the Senate is damn near designed to make you cast "bad" votes. No bill is about one thing alone. You often vote against something you like in order to prevent something you don't like, or vote for something you don't like in order to get something that you do. So his voting record isn't the best measure of his intentions/policies - everything can be misconstrued.
- Izult, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1That's yet another good reason to encourage your Senators to introduce DownSizeDC's "One Subject at a Time Act" http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83. Now that there's some new ones in start hounding them to do something to really reform what goes on in Washington.
- barfooz, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1For one, I think it bears remembering that Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative," promising that America would be a humble player on the world stage. 99% of national level politicians are full of *****.
Secondly, the presidency is completely different from anything Obama has done before. His past positions are a rough sketch of how he will govern. He will be pulled in so many directions by so many people and will have to compromise in order to get things done. - jimoneildmb, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Okay, you're right that it is good for everyone to be able to see a politician's positions on one page, but you have to consider the source here. If you don't think that list had an anti-Obama spin then you are seriously tone death to political slant.
- VirginiaWoolfe, on 11/10/2008, -21/+10well yeah, this site's nothing new.
- MercyPolitics, on 11/10/2008, -2/+21Did I mentioned that the site was new in my intro? No, but it is obviously new on Digg and I think it is quite helpful.
- VirginiaWoolfe, on 11/10/2008, -1/+13can't argue there.
- podopie, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Actually, I think it was digg that led me to this site months ago, back before the primaries.
- lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2oh we have a change. :D
been talking to a wall with that link
in weeks, against the personal buzz. - djgargamel, on 11/11/2008, -2/+2Your MOM goes to college.
- MercyPolitics, on 11/10/2008, -2/+21Did I mentioned that the site was new in my intro? No, but it is obviously new on Digg and I think it is quite helpful.
- unlawflcombatnt, on 11/10/2008, -33/+30Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Open Borders, and pro-Globalist.
Several of the bigger reasons I didn't vote for him.
Too bad he won.- lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -16/+2could you give one exaple per uhm catastrophy ?
- mikbunn, on 11/10/2008, -4/+7What's the typing equivalent to talking with food in your mouth? Typing while masturbating?
- lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -7/+3you are sure an expert. let us know
when you got both hands free then ... - lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -8/+2perhaps >:) I should utilize this
undue offtopic attention, adapting to
*jingle* unsolicited an advertisement
for my new book 'how2 make friends' - lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -7/+28) strange way to purchase,
but I hear you LMAOZEDONG - Kordras, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3You really don't have to hit enter every five seconds.
- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -3/+1:D try not to exceed counting on three,
regarding your related skills demonstrated
- lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -12/+2ah ja. just slogans
no substance then.
but I have good news.
bush won soon gone
my respect for not
voting for him :P- slurba, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1wut
- Audiophile44, on 11/11/2008, -4/+10try to say something anti-obama on digg? HAH.
for the record, I dugg you up. - FriedSperm, on 11/11/2008, -6/+1If only you would have voted for him, how it would of changed everything. For the record, I dugged you down.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2"it would of changed"
That stings.
It's "would've" or "would have". ***** off, retarded idiot. - FriedSperm, on 11/11/2008, -2/+0TheOneTrueGod, thank you for correcting me. Amusing how your response has nothing do with my actual message. Seeing as how you're Mr. Typo, go bitch to the dozens of people who have committed serious typos and incorrect grammar on account that you're so passionate about this.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2"it would of changed"
- danj484, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1FTA (well, list):
"Comprehensive immigration reform without amnesty. (May 2005) "
"Do a better job patrolling the Canadian and Mexican borders. (Jun 2007) "
"Reinvest in communities that are burdened by globalization. (Jun 2007)"
Plus, McCain voted the same way on all three. Maybe you should show the slightest glimmer of thought before you post next time.- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -3/+1kewl - why do uhm we obamabots
even have to do their work of sourcing :P
I'd come up with fisa amnesty
- open borders for allies *grin*
and reminding of the nau myth 0:)
big deal.
but somebodies lacking (t)issues
and a quarrelsomeness shortage
even choked on hateradio twitter.
how much concrete must I spill yet
here to bridge intercultural differences :D
- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -3/+1kewl - why do uhm we obamabots
- Emelius, on 11/11/2008, -2/+2I dugg you up by the way. Just thought I'd let everyone know. I did vote for Obama because i'm a disenfranchised Ron Paul supporter who does believe Obama is a lot better than the neocon McCain. However, they're both puppets, and Ron Paul is the only man who takes ***** from no one.
- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1pinocchio nose paul takes every ***** happily
- even snuggly arms from aryan brotherhoods
embracing him. not metaphorically. want snaps ?
- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1pinocchio nose paul takes every ***** happily
- lostlyrics, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1and still the sky is not falling.
tough despite rnc promises :P
- lostlyrics, on 11/10/2008, -16/+2could you give one exaple per uhm catastrophy ?
- JIDF, on 11/10/2008, -13/+37
- hat2021, on 11/10/2008, -14/+5I think the problem is Israel did something with it's hair and ...well it's just not the same anymore ...
Look, this mess is ...messy. Everyone on all sides has some apologizing to do. We have a few thousand years of back and forth to sort out, and I don't think that you're helping by not knowing what it means for one country to recognize another.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong: just when ...that's not what recognize means in this context. - JIDF, on 11/10/2008, -9/+36
- mophreo, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -7/+10Question:
Would you define an "occupying force" as a nation that gained a small amount of land after being attacked many years ago by multiple of its neighboring countries at the same time? - jhbarr, on 11/11/2008, -3/+11How about when China gets out of Tibet, the US out of Iraq, Indonesia out of Western New Guinea, Russia out of Georgia, etc we will talk about Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occu ... - harrisbradley, on 11/11/2008, -1/+9And on the flip-side Israel recognized them all over the place for 6 days back in 1967. I say 'flip-side' because it's a coin with two faces.
- ideasware, on 11/11/2008, -1/+7Most human beings can understand defending themselves against those who want to kill you too.
Ms. JIDF, I believe you are making two mistakes:
1) you fail to fairly account for the tough decisions Israel has to make. Israel, as a nation (with some exceptions among individuals of course) would prefer peaceful coexistence, and would sacrifice to bring this about. But when faced IN REALITY with a choice between allowing terrorists to attack them from within, or draconian and sometimes unfortunate methods to suppress the terrorists, they make the tough but correct choice to stop the terrorists. It's up to the Palestinian side to give Israel the room to accomodate them. That can only happen if they take the moral high grouund, not the low ground they currently hold fast to.
2) you allow yourself to easily adopt PC views. That's fine when decisions don't matter. But I suspect you're mature enough to realize that's just puffery in this case. I suspect you could do better. If you care about helping the Palestinians, you have to look harder and more bravely.
And btw, of course, "recognize" in this context means "give the status of equal nation in the community of nations, entitled to sovereignty and peace". It would be wise and profitable for Palestine to recognize Israel. - centerblack, on 11/11/2008, -4/+2@ Onetimer
Man come on. You're being really ***** biased.
In the 40's and through WW2, Palestine was under British control. Many Jewish people fled there during the war, people had been immigrating there before hand as well. The Palestinians didn't want them there, the British had to put down all kinds of uprisings, strikes and boycotts. In the end the British abandoned Palestine to the U.N. and the U.S.A. pushed for the nation to be split.
Now you say "a small amount of land", but I don't call splitting it 55% Israel, 44% Palestine and the other 11% (including Jerusalem) "International space" a small piece of land...
The fact is, the USA created this mess by putting your people somewhere they clearly weren't welcome and hadn't been welcome. It was a poor decision and we've been paying for it with economic and military aid for the better part of a century. It's also a major reason why were were attacked on September 11. The Allies should have opened their doors to Jewish refugees and let them immigrate with their families any Allied country of their choice.
Splitting up Palestine and creating the nation of Israel, regardless of what you feel you were owed, was the wrong thing to do. It has caused nothing but violence and strife for everyone involved. - jhbarr, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5@centerblack
Fine, they have grievances. The Palestinians were also more than willing to sell land to the Jews throughout that period. The original 1948 borders were predominantly Jewish. The Israeli's won multiple wars, that they did not start, and that is how they got the current borders. Usually, the winners of a war set the terms.
But that is besides the point. It is now 60 years later. At least two generations have passed. Complaining about what the UN did in 1948 is ridiculous. - vault, on 11/11/2008, -1/+4Jews lived in what is now Israel since before Islam even existed. Before the British owned the entire thing (which included Jordan, skewing your percentages), it was owned by the Ottoman Empire. There was never a Palestinian-run state in Israel. Muslims were there because they were the same religion as the second most recent empire to conquer the territory after the British.
As former'ish terrorist Walid Shoebat said, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
Jews were the majority population in the areas they were given by the UN (as well as Jerusalem, I might add), which is why the land was allocated that way, just not the majority in the British Mandate as a whole. The Arabs then rejected the entire deal in spite of that, invaded, and Israel won. Land you win in a defensive war is yours to keep.
As far as the Allies opening their doors, yes actually they should have done that during the war and beforehand. - centerblack, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1Yea I'm not really complaining about the actions of the U.N. I'm just trying to 1) provide some more information about why I disagree with onetimer's description up there, and 2) address the sense of entitlement that I keep reading in many of these posts..
Anyway, the situation is *****. The palestinians are never going to let go of the fact that their land was stolen from them and split in two, and there's no way that Israel is going to lose the conflict when we're supplying them with so much military and economic aid. And just for the record, I don't blame them (Israel), why wouldn't they take the keys to a new country and say "sweet! thanks U.N.!"
That said there's so much ***** non-sense and bias on each side that trying to find the truth is an effort in futility. I can't tell you how many times I've read some "history" only to realize 20 minutes later that it's just some fascist propaganda written by one side or the other.
A truly intriguing conflict where both sides always claim to be the victim and never the aggressor.
- mophreo, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- zerogeist, on 11/11/2008, -3/+8im not trying to be a dick, im honestly curious
why is everyone in the higher ups seem like they are israel's bitch? do they have something we need? do we owe them something? i feel really ignorant on why we are so eager to please.. any relevant links that can be sent my way i'd appreciate.
am i the only one thats dumbfounded? - onlysoma, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Q: You said recently, "No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Do you stand by that remark?
A: Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said. And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region. Israel is the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Obviously the Palestinian people recognize Israel, frequently the governing bodies refuse to negotiate on any grounds though, because they do not recognize Israel as a nation.
- hat2021, on 11/10/2008, -14/+5I think the problem is Israel did something with it's hair and ...well it's just not the same anymore ...
- pokechop, on 11/10/2008, -1/+9Thanks Mercy useful information...
- zacharytelschow, on 11/10/2008, -15/+1On the issues from A to Z, yet no mention of Abortion.
- oldhick, on 11/10/2008, -0/+12Abortion is the first issue listed...
- Anthrax704, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9wow... it's the first issue and you miss it. Did you even open the link??
- Leviathan433, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6you are an idiot
- zacharytelschow, on 11/10/2008, -15/+1On the issues from A to Z, yet no mention of Abortion.
- mhmandthen, on 11/10/2008, -4/+39I like the part where he's for decriminalizing marijuana.
- aletoledo, on 11/10/2008, -15/+9Yeah that will never happen. He's already promised to increase drug enforcement for meth, so getting the Feds to back down on drugs seems like wishful thinking.
- mhmandthen, on 11/10/2008, -4/+26Did I mention meth in my post?
Meth is one of the most harmful drugs out there.
Weed, on the other hand, has many different medical uses, and is nowhere near as harmful as other drugs that are used on a much larger scale.
Also, source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA - ragley, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5it is happening
- jhbarr, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8He already stated he will tell the DEA to leave medical marijuana facilities alone in states where they are legal, so it is not that much further to get to federal decriminalization. What your state does is your problem.
- ReeferChiefer42, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2It was decriminalized for an entire year under the Jimmy Carter administration, and he was FAR more of a pussy than Barack Obama, that's why he overturned it when his cousin got involved in a cocaine scandal and he couldn't afford the bad PR from MJ's decriminalization.
Learn your history, bud.
- mhmandthen, on 11/10/2008, -4/+26Did I mention meth in my post?
- goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -11/+4Thats not going happen. In fact it is not even gonna be close to happening. Mark my words. Obama is a fraud.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3I marked them, but the selection went away when I dugg you down.
- Thugpatrol, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3It's insane that people continue to propagate this false claim. Obama is not for the decriminalization of marijuana. He said he was for it in 2004, and this is why you have sources claiming he is for it today. But he has recently revised his position as of October 2007 Democratic debate, in which he was opposed to decrim. He has continued to flip flop on the issue, and the stance that he's last had was clearly against it.
From http://www.reason.com/news/show/124769.html:
Before the day was over, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying he thinks "we are sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time" but "does not believe that we should treat offenses involving marijuana with a simple fine or just by confiscating the drug." Recently, he had told a New Hampshire newspaper, "I'm not in favor of decriminalization."
And on his new site change.gov, which lists all of his positions, the issue of marijuana isn't even mentioned at all.- goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Thanks for that info, I though he might have changed his mind, I too had heard he was not for decriminalization. When you really think about it, Obama does not have one unique political stance where he comes down solidly on the side of the people and against the establishment.
- MetalliTooL, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Where did you read that?
- aletoledo, on 11/10/2008, -15/+9Yeah that will never happen. He's already promised to increase drug enforcement for meth, so getting the Feds to back down on drugs seems like wishful thinking.
- archer104, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6"Traces ancestry to Jefferson Davis, President of Confederacy. (Feb 2007)"
>:O
The south WILL rise again!!! - PersonalJesus, on 11/10/2008, -12/+113FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Oops...
He accidentally the constitution.- cnot3, on 11/11/2008, -2/+13I wish I could digg you twice.
- dannyboy3020, on 11/11/2008, -2/+15The whole thing?
- lovestospooge, on 11/11/2008, -13/+1fail
- lovestospooge, on 11/11/2008, -2/+3The whole Constitution?
- goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -1/+9Damning facts like this are nothing to the TRUE BELIEVERS. They'd say, dude whatever, what would you rather have McCain?(their standard fallback).
- PersonalJesus, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8That has been their fallback for the entire campaign.
If you mention a third-party candidate, you're immediately called an idiot because you "wasted" your vote.
They crack me up. - makenshin, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1The site shows him as a hardcore liberal on the Nolan chart, and i'd have to agree with that rating for him. But no, I wouldn't rather have McCain, id' rather have a moderate, libertarian or soft-core conservative, especially one with half a brain and is up to date on all the issues.
I don't think Obama is going to destroy America. I'd say that he's going to set us back a decade or two in many ways, but I think by the end of his term he'll break even policy wise (mainly because he is planning to immediately repeal many of Bush's policies and executive orders), but economically he will be seen well as the economy will improve (though I believe it would improve on it's own without any action from him or congress.) Most of this wasn't in response to goldylocks, I just felt like rambling.
Also, to finish off, this site is up to date mostly, but they don't seem to mention him voting for the Bailout under the 'Financial Bailout' section.... seems odd to me, it was quite an important issue at the time. - centerblack, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Our system makes it a wasted vote. It sucks but you'd have more luck getting that candidate nominated by one of the major parties. By all means though vote for who you think should be President. Third party candidates generally have some very valid points. I think they should be more involved in the debates honestly. It annoys the ***** out of me that the media controls them so much.
Honestly now is the time for a "third party candidate" to take the reins of the GOP and turn the party around. I doubt it will happen, since the morons on TV are still talking about Sarah Palin, but hey you never know.
If you want Obama to repeal the PATRIOT act, then go to his website and tell him. A lot can change when someone becomes President. Go check out Lyndon Johnsons voting record... he voted against civil rights every time. Yet as President he as instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Obama is a pretty smart guy, I think we're in for a lot of positive changes. - trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1Well, would you? Honestly?
Ditto centerblack's last paragraph. You asshats calling Obama a fraud have zero evidence. I'm not saying anything until he's president, and you shouldn't either until you actually see what he does.
- PersonalJesus, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8That has been their fallback for the entire campaign.
- minnepinne, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2He was young and wanted to hang with the cool kids. We've all been there.
- Gemfinder, on 11/10/2008, -3/+8"• Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)"
Watch, someone's going to call him out because his (deceased) parents committed a felony 48 years ago. - digitronix, on 11/10/2008, -33/+7We can just start and stop at 'S' :
SOCIALISM- Blamedbore, on 11/10/2008, -6/+17As a socialist, it would be awesome if Obama were a compatriot socialist, but he isn't.
It's odd, I never thought I'd be so happy over a center-right candidate being elected. - brstilson, on 11/11/2008, -4/+8Learn what socialism actually is before you go accusing people of it, mmmkay?
- digitronix, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2@brstilson - Okay!
Wikipedia:
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
(aka OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST) - brstilson, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2Okay digitronix, if you're going to define socialism as ANY use of tax dollars for the public good, then George W. Bush is a socialist. Richard Nixon was a socialist. Your public library? SOCIALISM!! Your local school? SOCIALISM!!! Your post office? SOCIALISM!!! Your state police? SOCIALISM!!!
Obama does not want to take all the money from the rich and distribute it evenly among everyone. He's just raising taxes to what they were in the 90's, before President Bush irresponsibly cut taxes during a war for the first time in our nation's history. - digitronix, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1I'm not a Bush supporter either.
Down with socialism.
- Blamedbore, on 11/10/2008, -6/+17As a socialist, it would be awesome if Obama were a compatriot socialist, but he isn't.
- mikbunn, on 11/10/2008, -1/+13"Deal with street-level drug dealing as minimum-wage affair."
I know all those words, but that sentence doesn't make sense. Is he saying drug dealing is a result of a low minimum wage?- OstrakonX, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8I... think so.
Makes sense. Why work at Burger King for a pittance when you can make much more with really very little risk in most places selling pot. - Zippo, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4Yes... more often then not, criminals often come from poor backgrounds. People lacking in skills may turn to less-than-legal methods as a way of making a decent income.
Educating people and opening up more job opportunities is, theoretically, the best solution. If people can work and get a decent job, they won't need to turn to crime.
Of course, there's also rich, greedy bastards who break the law so they can make even more money. - wishninja, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5It's an out of context quote from Audacity of Hope (2006):
"At the bottom or even the middle of the industry, drug dealing is a minimum wage affair."
He was talking about the fact that drug dealing has so much risk involved and when that risk is factored in drug dealing as a whole pays about as much as working at McDonalds. Sure you see some dealers make it to become rich but many many do not they go bust. You would have a better chance working at McD's and trying to work up to manager then CEO.
Example of On the issues not checking their ***** very well. Many of the quotes they have there are taken out of context or completely made up.- jhbarr, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Go Freakonomics!! Figures he mentions this, since both were/are UChicago profs
- OstrakonX, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8I... think so.
- aletoledo, on 11/10/2008, -31/+10"When Bush came in, we had a surplus; now we have a deficit" (Oct 2008) Obama
FAIL. There was no surplus. You'd think the next president would know this basic fact.- OstrakonX, on 11/10/2008, -1/+22There was a 200 billion dollar surplus when Bush took office. That's the money he used to give everyone that "rebate" everyone loved him for.
- Zippo, on 11/10/2008, -3/+11Actually, yes, there was a surplus thanks to Clinton. Bush sunk the economy into a hole.
- Leviathan433, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3You'd think that you would know the basic facts.
- akhomestead, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Not that I'm defending bush I think he sucks ass, but there's some fuzzy math on that. Supposedly from 98-00 he had a total of 360 billion surplus, but our debt grew by around 260 billion. Now I'd take those 3 years over any of GW's but facts are facts.
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion ($113.05 billion)
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion ($130.08 billion)
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion ($17.91 billion)
- akhomestead, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Not that I'm defending bush I think he sucks ass, but there's some fuzzy math on that. Supposedly from 98-00 he had a total of 360 billion surplus, but our debt grew by around 260 billion. Now I'd take those 3 years over any of GW's but facts are facts.
- danj484, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1There's so much fail on digg tonight.
- Zippo, on 11/10/2008, -11/+19Obama seems to be an overall progressive and intelligent guy. Things bode well.
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7Unless of course the 2nd amendment is something you think is important.
- loudnobnoxious, on 11/11/2008, -2/+5I can scavenge off the scraps he throws on the floor from the rich, but am not allowed to protect myself with a firearm. Authoritarianism at its finest.
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7Unless of course the 2nd amendment is something you think is important.
- thepeacemaker, on 11/10/2008, -12/+25Most people on digg realize that McCain/Palin ticket was the least desirable option hence the support for Obama. However the idea of digg-activism is not to get a particular person in office but rather to achieve certain goals - fiscal discipline, end of foreign adventures, etc. Quite a few of Obama's actions have been a definite source of concern.
* Talking about handing Jerusalem to Israel as if it was his father's heirloom.
* Not letting former President Carter address the democratic party convention because of Carter's criticism of Israel.
* Picking Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff - a die-hard supporter of Israel, a country roundly criticized for its violations of human rights and illegal occupation.
* Picking Sonal Shah as an adviser - an active member of an organization called VHP that is responsible for brutal massacre of thousands of Muslims and Christians (as recently as last month) in India.- BeyondDGrave, on 11/10/2008, -11/+5Well then it's too bad all I heard on digg concerning the elections was "change" and "yes we can".
The ron paul supporters before everyone switched to obama had substance to their reasonings. You guys here let me down when you all seemed intelligent when supporting ron paul, and then switched to obama when Paul was down in the overall polls. Not that I expected much from the general public, but you all showed me exactly what you are... people who only vote once they hear who their neighbor is voting for, instead of voting on their principles and values to begin with.- thepeacemaker, on 11/10/2008, -9/+5Essentially we have a horrible candidate (McCain), a poor candidate (Obama) and a good candidate (Ron Paul). It is a given that voting for Ron Paul would have gotten McCain elected and we would suffer like the last 8 years.
The solution for candidates like Ron Paul is not to run for president, rather collect funds and set up a proper no-nonsense party. The goal should be to get 5 senate seats and up to 30 house seats. This would be enough to block bad bills and bring crooks in the congress to people's attention. Currently the lobbyists have both parties in their pockets. This is the way to go ...not trying for hail mary idealistic yet impossible attempts at the white house. - onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -2/+7Only some people thought RP was a decent candidate.
Personally I would never vote for the guy considering his stances on the financing of scientific and medical research, and his stance on the FDA, DOE, and his "Sanctity of Life" act. - SPThom, on 11/11/2008, -3/+5Actually, I liked Paul, I voted for Paul... But Obama was my first choice. I watched him and he wasn't impressing me early on in the primary, so I switched my party choice before the primary to vote for Paul. At some point, though, Obama's campaign picked up to where I hoped he could take it, and at that point, I moved my support to Obama. It wasn't because Paul's ratings were in the bucket, but because Obama was on his game.
- loudnobnoxious, on 11/11/2008, -2/+1@SPThom, How do you vote for Ron Paul but Obama is your first choice? Their stances are opposite sides of the universe...
- thepeacemaker, on 11/10/2008, -9/+5Essentially we have a horrible candidate (McCain), a poor candidate (Obama) and a good candidate (Ron Paul). It is a given that voting for Ron Paul would have gotten McCain elected and we would suffer like the last 8 years.
- OliveStreet, on 11/11/2008, -7/+9Is massacring thousands of Christians really all that bad? I can think of a few mega-churches he could start with.
- ldkronos, on 11/11/2008, -3/+5Joe the Plumber, is that you again, agreeing that Obama is going to destroy Israel?
- goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -2/+2People need to focus on the big issues, the ones that impact us and the world the most. His foreign policy if it had to named something would have to called "the status quo". He voted for the bailout that was really just a huge bank robbery for wallstreet and the banks. He is a hardcore socialist which does not bode well for the economy. He is Israels puppet. He may try to grab our guns. He could surprise almost everybody and turn out be just as big a warmonger as George Bush. Bottom line, he's a fraud and an enemy of humanity.
- trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1Yes because Israel is the only issue in the world that matters.
- BeyondDGrave, on 11/10/2008, -11/+5Well then it's too bad all I heard on digg concerning the elections was "change" and "yes we can".
- Sluglas, on 11/10/2008, -11/+5Where was this before the election?
- diggFunction, on 11/10/2008, -9/+4Hidden very deeply.
- identitymatrix, on 11/10/2008, -0/+19It was right there on that site for months. During the primaries I used it a lot to quickly gauge where the candidates stood on various issues.
- wishninja, on 11/10/2008, -0/+14It is a very popular website that has been around for a long time. They have been featured in many national news papers and magazines. You must be new to the Internets.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Everyone purposely hid all of Obama's policy information until after the election. It's a conspiracy I tells ya!
- AndrewLeon, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4End of foreign "adventures"
Rlol - poogy21, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4very informative.
- poogy21, on 11/10/2008, -7/+7could have been useful prior to Nov. 4th, no?
- Wargala, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3The site's been around for quite a lot longer then that. :)
- gaiadaisical, on 11/10/2008, -4/+2Wow, sarah palin smoked pot when it was legal in Alaska? interesting.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/11/2008, -3/+2Sarah Palin's $150,000 Crime Against Fashion
- Dustmuffins, on 11/10/2008, -3/+5I wish I had known about this site before the election. Much easier than digging through the ***** on Obama's and Mccain's sites.
- WarDogLRS, on 11/10/2008, -9/+4
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1David Icke has seen a statistical pattern which is really there, only he misinterprets it as some global shadow government thing. He is wrong about that interpretation. In truth, it is Satan "him"self that we are dealing with, a construct that remaines from my making the world. I am dealing with the construct, decomposing it, every day a bit. Sunshine is coming.
- kaod, on 11/10/2008, -1/+48i was naive to think obama articles would decrease after the election wasn't i?
- Spoomeister, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Yes-you-were, yes-you-were, yes-you-were
- ReeferChiefer42, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Of course. Everyone was eager to get him elected, now they're waiting in anticipation for his inauguration, then they'll be following his every move closely to ensure he follows up on his promises. It won't end there, either: if he does well then everyone will be spreading the Obama love again in 2012 to get him re-elected.
And you thought this was over...not by a long shot. But here's to a *hopefully* better 8 years. Cheers. - hahahafr, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1He is the president of the United States of America.
Yes you were naive.
- mikeoncampus, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2fix everything ever.
- somedudemanguy, on 11/10/2008, -5/+7Digg: The Official Obama Information Site That Occasionally Has Other Articles That Don't Get Dugg Nearly as Much as Obama Articles
- akchrs, on 11/11/2008, -10/+4How can you take a position on something by voting present. My magic 8 ball has a better record than he does.
- Wargala, on 11/11/2008, -11/+33Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
# FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
# Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Doesn't sound like he "respects" the Second Amendment at all.- NiGHTSChao, on 11/11/2008, -14/+4Why do people need guns...
I'm sorry but people die more from car crashes, drugs and stupid behavior more then people die from breaking into someones house only to get shot by the home-owner
I don't understand this fascination with a machine that propels a metal object really fast, why the ***** do you need to have guns in your house?- tactics2, on 11/11/2008, -0/+14Most self-defense cases involving firearms never make it into the FBI crime statistics because a shot is never fired. Scumbags see a gun and run away. Numerous interviews have been done with prison inmates and the result is unanimous; the only thing criminals are afraid of is getting shot by potential victims.
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -0/+14Because the very document that is the law of the ***** land gives us the right to own them. I dont give a ***** if you dont like it, its called a RIGHT for a reason.
Why do we need a right to free speech? Most of the people using that right are annoying ***** assholes doing things like recruiting for the KKK. Lets just ban that too, since its OK to ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights as Obama sees fit. - sparsely, on 11/11/2008, -0/+13Primarily because armed revolution is a people's only real defense or recourse to a government which not only fails to listen to them, represent them, and continues to squelch their liberties.
- Xfer00, on 11/11/2008, -0/+9That's not how natural human rights protected by the constitution work.
Why do you need right to free speech? I don't understand this fascination with speaking freely and without consequence, why the ***** do you need to have free speech? Clearly since I don't understand it, you shouldn't have it.
This nation was founded on the idea that every American citizen should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm another person. I don't see how my possession of firearms for recreational target shooting in remote areas and at designated firing ranges harms any other person, American or otherwise, in any way what-so-ever. It's thus my natural right to practice such a hobby; remember kids, the constitution keeps the Government from stepping on our rights, it does not grant us our rights.
When your freedom of speech is gone, you'll be wishing I had my right to bear arms to give it back to you. - Wargala, on 11/11/2008, -0/+9@nights
Why do you need the freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? That's right, because it's in the Constitution. I don't infringe on your rights, so you don't get to infringe on mine.
Don't want guns in the home? Fine, don't have them in YOUR home.
Besides, the Supreme Court has already rules that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUALS RIGHT! - sp1b07, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6Wow...
Hopefully you will never need a gun. Hopefully we will never have to truely fight for our rights again. Hopefully no one will break into your house and rape your mom and wife. Hopefully someone who doesnt care about the law wont get an illegal gun and shoot you.
Your naive to think that our bill of rights isn't there for a reason. I guess you think our founding fathers were primitive men that lived in the old times... Guess what your not the super evolved person you think you are. Technology might not of been where it is at now, but they still dealt with the same concepts as we do... Value your rights, dont give them away. - goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Learn some history. The biggest genocides in history followed gun bans. The USSR, Red China, Armenians etc. Never say it can't happen hear, that is foolish, the times when the state does not tyrannize the people is rare.
- tactics2, on 11/11/2008, -0/+14Most self-defense cases involving firearms never make it into the FBI crime statistics because a shot is never fired. Scumbags see a gun and run away. Numerous interviews have been done with prison inmates and the result is unanimous; the only thing criminals are afraid of is getting shot by potential victims.
- yazheirx, on 11/11/2008, -1/+15I just hope he leaves it as a states issue. If you want to see how banning guns reduces violence just try living in south Chicago, where hand guns (and several other gun types) are banned. Yet it fights Gary Indiana and Detroit for the murder capital of the U.S.
Guns don't make criminals and gangs. Gangs and criminals find ways to get guns. - cnot3, on 11/11/2008, -1/+7IDK why you are getting dugg down, what you are saying is true. Local gun bans subjugate the authority of the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land and local laws cannot violate any portion of the Bill of Rights. If there were local laws abridging freedom of speech or right to free assembly, I'm sure the liberals would be up in arms... well since they have no guns I guess they wouldn't, but you get my point! The second amendment is the final and most extreme check on the federal government, and don't tell me that a rifle doesn't stand a chance against an M1 tank, a determined sniper can cause plenty of havoc, and a country full of determined riflemen can bring an end to tyranny, as we saw once before.
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -5/+7Of course he doesnt, socialists never do. They only care about some freedoms, while happily crushing others.
Anyone on this site who supports gun bans (without amending the constitution to do so) can never ever again claim a right to free speech (or any other ***** right in the constitution) without being a total ***** piece of hypocritical donkey *****.- lotusengineer, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0Conservatives are different? You care about YOUR freedoms such as:
Men ruling over women - All conservative religions
Women bodies, the property of the fetus - South Dakota Proposition
Mandatory religious affiliation - Conservative interpertation of First Amendment
Outlawing divorce - South Dakota Proposition
Outlawing birth control - South Dakota Proposition
Oppressing gay people - California/Florida/Arizona
Hatred of non-christians - First Amendment allows freedom to choice which Christian church you follow
Gun Rights - Second Amendment right to have guns - Canada has more guns than the US by percentage of gun owners - AN AMERICAN RIGHT
Facism is NOT an American Right, We liberals just have a different list.
- lotusengineer, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0Conservatives are different? You care about YOUR freedoms such as:
- bisforxbeauty, on 11/11/2008, -5/+4America today can't handle guns. You'd realize that if you, too, started out as a poor white girl living in the ghetto.
We are not our father's fathers.- Codename46, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Maybe you're too much of a pussy to be a responsible gun owner. I, on the other hand, can handle guns perfectly well.
- xpinchx, on 11/11/2008, -2/+5EXACTLY, it's not just about protecting ourselves from home invasions or random street crimes. What happens when the government ***** on the constitution and bans guns outright. What if they also decide, hey the citizens don't need the right to free speech or freedom of religion either. Let's also do away with freedom of the press and control all media outlets. Then what? You're the government's bitch and you have no way of taking your rights back. The American revolution was fought by citizens with "assault weapons" of the time. If our government gets too oppressive that's our one fail safe to protect ourselves should the need ever arise.
Our founding fathers recognized this and wrote the 2nd amendment with that in mind.- bisforxbeauty, on 11/11/2008, -5/+3Taking resources out of the hands of dangerous people is nothing close to taking away freedom of speech.
- xpinchx, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3On paper they're both amendments to the constitution. If they take away one, what keeps them from taking away and/or limiting other rights given to us by the constitution?
- trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1They also wrote it a mere 13 years after an organized armed militia overthrew a ruling power to gain independence from a tyrannical ruler. You might then understand why it was so damn important to them.
Now, with the resources the military has, which they could not even have dreamed of in 1789, no citizenry has any chance against the government's military regardless of what firearms they possess. This is not an argument against the 2nd amendment, only a retort to the idea that what the founding fathers had in mind is still in any way relevant to our security as a free state.
Besides, the government HAS ***** on the constitution for the last 8 years, worse than ever before, as well as limiting free speech and forcing religion on people backhandedly, and has evidently controlled at least one major media outlet using it as a propaganda machine. When, pray tell, do we call on the militia? And in a nation where approximately half the population is brainwashed in either direction so they actually end up voting in and re-electing a tyrant, how then do you organize a militia with 50% of the gun owners on the side of the government?
Guns are not the problem. They're not even part of the equation anymore. It has become an issue of social engineering, not outright war. What's more, the masses will never rise up against the slow onslaught of tyranny, because the intelligent ones are peaceful and the rest are brainwashed by propaganda.
Be not afraid of bullets, but of words shot with such power. - Codename46, on 11/11/2008, -2/+1@bis: Because 60 million law-abiding gun owners are dangerous people, right?
God you are so ***** stupid.
- centerblack, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3@mike17032
The constitution protects our rights to bear arms. Weapons technology has come a long way from the muskets and rifles that were used during the Revolutionary war. Those weapons often took 30 seconds to a minute to reload after firing.
To assume that somehow the Constitution affords you the right to carry around assault rifles is, in my opinion, devoid of logic. Fully automatic weapons definitely don't belong in civilian hands, I think you can get by just fine with a revolver, shot gun and a bolt action rifle...
Oh, and if the government decides it's prepared to kill you to achieve some goal, and somehow convinces our sons in the military to attack you, a truckload of M16's isn't going to help you. Do you know why? http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/image ...- ZenDriver, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3The 2nd Amendment was designed to give civilians a level of parody with the capabilities of the national military. This is provided both so that civilians can serve as an adjunct to the military in a national defense and to provide the civilian population with SOME recourse should the government step outside of it's bounds.
They were rather forward thinking. In 1919, Max Weber defined the state as the organization with "... a monopoly on legitimate violence in a given geographic area." In turn, it is impossible to have a true democracy if the state is the only entity with access to the tools of legitimate violence. (And I shall ad, Iraq has shown how a small number of people with minimal arms CAN, in fact, stand up to the US military effectively).
That is the philosophical argument for assault weapons, but from a more practical level, the fact is that these firearms are rarely used in crimes. Furthermore, "Machine guns" (which are different than assault rifles) have only been used in a single crime in the us, and that was a rogue police officer using his issued weapon. The FBI's uniform crime report of 2007 indicates that rifles in general (a category that only covers assault rifles, but also includes bolt action hunting rifles) are used in only about 1% of firearm murders.
On the other hand, AR-15s and civilian semi-auto AK-47s have a long track record of protecting people when civilian authority erodes. The Rodney King riots in LA and Katrina both showcased civilians defending themselves and their property simply by bearing such weapons. When the BofA bank robbery in LA happened, the LAPD raced to a local gun store to grab AR-15s and it was a civilian with a .50 rifle who was only 5 minutes away from setting up (with the help of the police) for a shot.
In the end, it is the right to own military style arms that differentiates citizens from subjects. It may be a philosophical differentiation that you view as anachronistic, but one that is a right that is just as important to some of us as the 1st Amendment. Given the low cost to society to provide this right, I don't see what the problem is. - centerblack, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Well, they can stand up to the military because we've designated some of the people as civilians. We intend *not* to harm them, and this obviously changes how we go about our military campaign. If we were simply trying kill everyone, they wouldn't stand a chance. The argument that automatic weapons are of great value when civilian authority erodes is a much better one, in my opinion, than the "defense v.s. the government argument".
There was an assault weapons ban in 1994. Using statistics from 2007 about the percentage of murders performed with rifles (I'm assuming of any kind? Looks like you made a typo in the last sentence of paragraph 3) to support a claim that assault rifles don't pose significant threat isn't a valid argument. (The % was still low before 1994, but the % wasn't why the bill was written).
It sounds like you make no distinction between the armaments that a military has access to, and those that all citizens should have access to. Yes, I do think it's anachronistic.
Obviously the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st Amendment. They're all extremely important. Yet as a society we have put some limitations on the 1st Amendment. Slander and libel aren't protected. Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater isn't protected. Similar considerations must also be taken when applying the 2nd Amendment. Should chemical, biological or nuclear weapons be protected by the second amendment? How about a backyard missile silo? What about tanks? They're nothing more than armored vehicles with a large cannon mounted on them. RPG's? Grenades? Land mines? If you agree that any of these armaments shouldn't be sold at your local Walmart then you also support some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment- we simply disagree on where to draw the line.
And please, don't argue that most civilians can't afford x, y, or z. It wouldn't be a valid argument against what I just said, because you're still drawing a line- it's just based on how feasible it is for a civilian to acquire such a weapon.
BTW: I don't know who buried you, it wasn't me. I dugg you back up because you're obviously capable of intelligent discussion, even if we end up disagreeing with each other on some or all points.
- ZenDriver, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3The 2nd Amendment was designed to give civilians a level of parody with the capabilities of the national military. This is provided both so that civilians can serve as an adjunct to the military in a national defense and to provide the civilian population with SOME recourse should the government step outside of it's bounds.
- TheOneTrueGod, on 11/11/2008, -2/+2There are countries which have very low violence crime. There, the people don't "need" guns to defend themselves.
No doubt the high violence crime rate in the US is at least a bit related to the 2nd-Amendment-situation.- mllawso, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Not all countries are created equal.
- ac12, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2That's fine and all, but MY country guarantees me the right to bear an arm.
- trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Well MY country guarantees me the right to arm a bear. Indeed it is the greater country, despite the higher number of armed-bear-related casualties, for it is the right of every bear to defend himself against men with guns.
- Codename46, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Actually countries like Finland, Norway, and Switzerland who have a pretty heavily armed populace also have the least # of violent crime in Europe, as opposed to the UK, which now has a rising trend of violent crime ever since the comprehensive gun ban in 1999
- lotusengineer, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0As a liberal, we have a second amendment that says Americans can have guns. If there are Republicans who see this right being removed, Then the entire country should ensure all Americans right and responsibility to own guns. We ALL must be free including our beloved hunters and gun hobbists. "From Many One"
- trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1Why yes, I'm sure he would respect the formation of a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state.
In fact, where was that militia over the last 4 years? After all, its purpose is just to overthrow an unbalanced government that has become tyrannical. Made a lot of sense during the drafting of the bill of rights in 1789 considering they had overthrown a ruler in a revolution with a citizen militia just 13 years prior!
Ahhhh historical context, so important, but so easy for idiots to ignore. Doesn't matter one bit, right? They clearly meant we have the right to have guns to shoot other idiots with guns! Oh golly gee whiz, that must be it.- Codename46, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1If you're trying to use the "militia = National guard" argument, you automatically fail, because the "militia" has been historically defined into 2 categories, the Organized Militia (NG), and the Unorganized Militia (any civilian with a gun).
- trisweb, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1I think it's excellent how you automatically refuted something that pretty much has nothing to do with my argument. Thanks for failing!
My point was not any militia categorization, I understand the distinction. My point was the purpose of whichever militia you happen to want to talk about, and the historical context of the amendment, 13 years (very, very shortly) after the American Revolution. It is completely illogical to argue on small details with such a monumental gorge of history in-between. It's like arguing about the distance between two grains of sand on Mars when trying to decide how long it would take to get there from Earth.
- NiGHTSChao, on 11/11/2008, -14/+4Why do people need guns...
- DonWigler, on 11/11/2008, -5/+22Why is gun rights not listed under civil rights?
- tactics2, on 11/11/2008, -8/+13Because socialist like Obama don't consider the Second Amendment a "right". They do however consider abortion a right, even though it appears nowhere in the Constitution.
- sp1b07, on 11/11/2008, -2/+7ha! and apparently health care is a right too
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -6/+7Because then it would make Comrade Obama look bad when he started taking huge ***** on those 'very clearly defined in the second ***** amendment' RIGHTS.
- icyfreezepops, on 11/12/2008, -0/+0Alright, just a question, I really am curious...why does everyone care SO much about the right to bear arms? Please answer my question instead of just digging me down, because I honestly want to know.
- tactics2, on 11/11/2008, -8/+13Because socialist like Obama don't consider the Second Amendment a "right". They do however consider abortion a right, even though it appears nowhere in the Constitution.
- WarDogLRS, on 11/11/2008, -2/+3
- areyouserious, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3The DoD was correct to do so.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2It's important to guard against politicization of the military. A neutral military is a cornerstone of democracy.
- trowen, on 11/11/2008, -8/+2This is socialism at its finest. The non-socialism kind.
- pitdog, on 11/11/2008, -11/+1Issue no1 - kill the unborn. Instead of teaching responsibility and using contraceptives.
- H3BR3W, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2I don't think it says that. Learn to not be a retard.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -1/+5McCain was the one who always voted against preventative measures. Which are the only realistic way to cut abortions in America.
- drex8, on 11/11/2008, -2/+2This is a site I came across during the weekend which has some interesting facts about Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselect ...
Like he won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of his memoir, Dreams From My Father.
...and that he can bench an impressive 200lbs. - robharper, on 11/11/2008, -12/+4Mccain should have won. I appreciated greatly his views upon the economy and moral values more. I recently read that extremist liberals stole the election.
- Twenty, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2All I can say is... lol?
- mllawso, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1McCain would have been fine -- had he grown a pair and said no to the fundie moron that they chose as his running mate.
- WarDogLRS, on 11/11/2008, -9/+2
- onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7David Icke is a nutjob 911 troofer who believes that the "elites" are really shape-shifting space reptilians.
I'd like to say i'm joking, but i'm not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke#Reptilian_ ...
He has as much credibility as a dog turd.- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4I think technically they are inter-dimensional reptilians rather than space reptilians.
- onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7David Icke is a nutjob 911 troofer who believes that the "elites" are really shape-shifting space reptilians.
- esqurred, on 11/11/2008, -4/+2wish i had this before i voted.
- cnot3, on 11/11/2008, -4/+7Bailout will unfreeze credit & allow businesses to function. (Oct 2008)
Obama voted for the $700 Billion Bailout...
Its working already, thank you for another marvelous insight into economic affairs by a clueless ***** politician! Those banks should have gone out of business with their reckless loaning patterns, now they will survive to continue to ***** all over the economy.- goldylocks7621, on 11/11/2008, -1/+3Obama supporters need to wake up and smell the coffee. Look at his actions not his talk. It is obvious to an even half awake person that the bailout is nothing but a huge bank heist by wall street and the banksters.
- rontowns25, on 11/11/2008, -9/+3So interesting watching the election of Obama. I personally didn’t vote for Obama but am truly inspired by the positivity and global reaction resulting from his election. His energy is addicting and his demeanor inspiring.
His story is truly American. I’d love to dive into Obama’s mind and discover his motives and internal dialog. To go through a year of campaigning is very difficult, but to go through a year of campaigning and deliver a speech like that is truly inspirational. I’m excited about to see how he really attacks global warming and the energy crisis.
What’s also fascinating is looking at the dynamic of who voted, how they voted, and what drove them to vote. Obama’s campaign created a wave of energy that grew bigger and bigger as his campaign moved forward, engulfing (in a good way) each supporter and supercharging them. How did they do this? It all started with a vision. Obama’s vision, planted deep within his mind, began to take root almost 2 years ago today. The power of his vision can teach every American citizen about how to accomplish goals using the powers of visualization and intention.
I looked into this vision questing further and found that many super-successful people have been using vision boards to help focus their mind and accomplish their dreams. A vision board is a collage of images pasted on a board that represent your desired outcomes, your goals, and dreams. By studying your vision board, your brain gains clarity on what is important to your success, the things you MUST accomplish. I found a site www.TheVisionBoardKit.com that allows you to download a free 8-step power plan to creating vision boards. I’d highlight recommend downloading it.- LockDeltz, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0Spoken like a true digger. Unfortunately that's how most American's think like these days, so they can feel positive about themselves. This type of propaganda is nothing more than brainwashing, it does not speak the truth.
- DWalla, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6Does this also include the 25 issues that magically disappeared from his website?... such as Iraq?...
- geesamba, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8Technology:
# Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/11/2008, -2/+1somebody is going to get mad. (bill gates)
- DavidGX, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Microsoft is in favor of net neutrality along with every other internet based/related company/business that has even a fourth of a brain.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/11/2008, -2/+1somebody is going to get mad. (bill gates)
- mike17032, on 11/11/2008, -6/+6I like the parts that make it easier for gang members to commit crimes, and harder for police to enforce gang laws.
I also like the parts where he pisses all over the 2nd amendment. - moolcool, on 11/11/2008, -3/+3Fwd To: Last Week
When people SHOULD have known this.- narupo, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2Same incase of washington post which published a anti-messaih article after he won.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it was so hard to type http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ or listen to his speeches and interviews.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1We did and we didn't give a *****, because, no matter what, he's better than Bush/Cheney and Bush-Lite/Bush-in-Drag.
- Bunner007, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Issue 36B - Steal the 4th most valuable diamond with Ocean's 14 team...
- harrisbradley, on 11/11/2008, -10/+7Yeah, Ron Paul has a whole book on this stuff, not just a tiny nice-to-bookmark webpage that you can make a favorite and say you're 'in the know.'
- onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -8/+11Look, I know you're much, much smarter than us plebes for supporting the mighty RP, but perhaps you noticed that this NOT obama's official website?
RP's book... which one? The one where he wrote this:
"And ah, I, ah, I think it is a theory. The theory of evolution and I, I don’t accept it."
Or was it this one?
""I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, 'oh why are you saying that?' and I say, 'well, that's not a political statement -- that's a scientific statement that I'm making!"
Or was it this one?
""The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.""
Or was it this one that he admitted to writing in 1996 claiming it was "taken out of context"?
""If you've ever been robbed by a black man...you know how fleet-footed they can be"
Please, please remind me so I can convert to Paulism and espouse empty platitudes on digg while basking in my smug sense of self-righteousness.- sp1b07, on 11/11/2008, -3/+2Dude how are you going to smash this guy for not referencing a book and then do the same exact thing? Can I get a reference for any of them but especially:
"If you've ever been robbed by a black man...you know how fleet-footed they can be"?????
or wait...did he actually say any of this stuff?? I read several of his books...and umm I dont remember any of this. Please clarify, if its truth its truth, if not grow up dude. - onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -3/+3Here:
1st quote source: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_pau ...
2nd quote source: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion. ...
3rd quote source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html ("the war on religion")
4th quote source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912 ...
There's plenty more too.
- sp1b07, on 11/11/2008, -3/+2Dude how are you going to smash this guy for not referencing a book and then do the same exact thing? Can I get a reference for any of them but especially:
- onetimer, on 11/11/2008, -8/+11Look, I know you're much, much smarter than us plebes for supporting the mighty RP, but perhaps you noticed that this NOT obama's official website?
- antonio97b, on 11/11/2008, -2/+8 my favorite quote from the site
"Barack Obama on Drugs"- iidanmanii, on 11/11/2008, -2/+0I like this one
Catching a cab, no one questions he's "authentically black". (Jul 2007)
in response to
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Did_Obama_Just_R ...
- iidanmanii, on 11/11/2008, -2/+0I like this one
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/11/2008, -3/+0http://thatvideosite.com/video/1804
- UnrulyFellows, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2# Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007)
# A "secret smoker", especially around reporters. (Aug 2007)
# Smokes cigarettes now; smoked some pot in high school. (Feb 2007)
Hahaahahaahah! Now the anti smokers can hate him too. - odigity, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7I'd love to be able to believe in Obama, but I just... can't. It's not realistic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2YsJVF-920
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 