What is Digg?Remove
Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.
Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- psibladeZX, on 04/16/2008, -13/+89***** gas at 4 bucks this summer... Great... that means a 50 dollar tank of gas, ***** 2.5 hours of my work. ***** hillary and bill, murderous thieving bandits
Obviously bitter- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/16/2008, -24/+11So how do you feel about drilling for more oil and expanding our ability to refine?
- bsdboy, on 04/16/2008, -5/+22Why would you even consider such a thing when our reservers are higher then they have been in a long time. Sounds like a good reason to give Chevron yet another tax break. OPEC slows production and we have to expand drilling and refining? Whatever.
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -1/+14This "lack of refining capacity" argument is intellectually dishonest. In fact, oil companies were CLOSING refineries (24 were shuttered between 1995 and 2001) because they wanted to limit supply and boost prices : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -3/+14It will be at least ten years before any new drilling or refinery construction has a measurable impact on the market. Please try to be less retarded with your next post.
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13You expect someone that uses a corporate ad slogan as a user name to not be retarded?
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5No.
- jbenson2, on 04/16/2008, -9/+2Sounds to me like petrodollar is the retarded one. A project takes 10 years, so she wants give up and run home to her daddy. The race to the moon took 10 years, the search for penicillin took 10+ years, the construction of the Hoover dam took 10+ years. Americans don't give up because a project will take 10 years.
- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9Jesus ***** Christ... He pointed out that oil companies were just closing refineries to boost prices less than 10 years ago, that our actual reserves are higher than they've been in a long time, and that the "drill Alaska" argument is simply a diversion to rape us with $4 gas for 10 more years. Giving up has nothing to do with it! Learn to ***** read, moron!
- jbenson2, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1Typical response - just bury your head in the sand and hope someone magically solves the problem.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Cellulosic ethanol is looking very promising. 80% reduction in greenhouse gases and it can be produced from any old plant matter, even our trash. Check out this story from just a few days ago: http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/04/ ...
It has a much better chance of solving the problem than ANWR drilling, which has zero chance of making a difference. And it won't put a drain on food stocks are require the conversion of rain forest into farmland.
Why do you insist on promoting measures that are guaranteed to fail, jbenson2? Seriously. I'd like an answer.
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7"A project takes 10 years, so she wants give up and run home to her daddy."
No, *****. I'm merely doing the cost/benefit anaylsis and concluding that measures that will only have a tangible impact a decade from now do not offer near term solution to a problem that is being experienced today.
I can type slower if you're still struggling with this logic.- jbenson2, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1So what is the cost/benefit of burying your head in the sand, honey?
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Actually, it's a lot better than the ROI of spending vast sums of money on something that's guaranteed to fail.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/16/2008, -11/+2So are all liberals as shortsighted as you? If Congress had authorized drilling in ANWAR waaaay back in 2002, all of that oil would be coming online shortly.
You can't deliberately reduce the supply and then bitch about the reduced supply and try to blame it on someone else.- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9Total reserves at ANWR are only estimated at less than 7bn barrels. Amortized over the minimum 12 years it would take to pump it all out that is not enough to have a measurable impact on the market.
Why are you so ***** at economics? - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -7/+1Why are you so ***** at life? If there really is no worthwhile amount of oil there, and it would take eons to get it, why do oil companies want to invest millions into drilling there?
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7"hy do oil companies want to invest millions into drilling there?"
You really are a *****, aren't you? We're talking about whether ANWR drilling would lower prices, not whether it would benefit oil companies. Oil companies aren't interested in lowering prices, *****. They're interested in selling oil. The fact that ANWR doesn't have enough oil to lower prices doesn't mean that oil companies can't still turn a profit from selling the oil that's there! 7bn barrels is still 7bn barrels.
Are you brain damaged? Why on earth should I need to explain this to you? - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -6/+1And the more oil they have to put on the market, then the lower prices will be. And now it seems that you have said what your real objection is: someone else making money. You must be one those pathetic liberals that is worthless IRL and can't stand the thought of someone else being successful.
Of course, you seem to have built up this strawman that we are claiming that drilling in ANWAR will lead to $0.50/gal gas, which is of course completely untrue. - petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7"And the more oil they have to put on the market, then the lower prices will be."
Only if they're putting a hell of a lot more than 7bn barrels on the market over 12 years. Are you honestly suggesting that 7bn over 12 years will lead to measurably lower oil prices? If so, cough up some numbers. Now.
"And now it seems that you have said what your real objection is: someone else making money"
You are a retard of epic proportions. My "objection" is that it won't lower prices. My observation that it will profit oil produces was meant to answer your absolutely ***** question of why oil companies would be interested in drilling in ANWR.
"you seem to have built up this strawman that we are claiming that drilling in ANWAR will lead to $0.50/gal gas, which is of course completely untrue."
No, you idiot. I am merely claiming that it will have no measurable impact on oil prices. You are free to prove me wrong, but you can't because the facts of the matter are squarely on my side.
Keep digging your hole, DRINKxREDxBULL. I'm having fun demonstrating what an absolute ***** moron you are. - fonebone2, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Every analyst who has looked at this issue has concluded that ANWR drilling would not lower oil prices. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is debatable.
- rdoger6424, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Red Bull, clearly you don't pay for your own gas.
- jaznova, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3You go petrodollar. I haven't seen fools like redbull and jbenson burned so thoroughly in a while. I'd like to buy you a beer.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9Total reserves at ANWR are only estimated at less than 7bn barrels. Amortized over the minimum 12 years it would take to pump it all out that is not enough to have a measurable impact on the market.
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13You expect someone that uses a corporate ad slogan as a user name to not be retarded?
- Lewie, on 04/17/2008, -1/+7On ANWAR:
To cover 5% of our oil use: We'd get 12 to 32 years. However, there would be little, if any, price benefit.
To cover 100% of our oil use: We'd get 215 to 525 days.
Canada and Mexico make up 34% of our oil, and are not part of by OPEC, so another 5% of un-OPEC influenced oil is not likely to make oil cheaper. Even 20% won't do a lot, and will only last for 3 to 8 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drillin ...- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6What's funny is that Republicans have never mustered a response to these facts, even though they've been known for years. They're like wind-up toys - pull the string and they just go "durrrrr... ANWR!" Point out that ANWR drilling would do nothing to lower oil prices and they just give you a blank stare.
- stretch611, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Actually, they are more like the rocket ships at in front of the stores at the strip mall. Insert money (from lobbyists) and they will make you happy for 5 minutes until they ask you for more money.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6What's funny is that Republicans have never mustered a response to these facts, even though they've been known for years. They're like wind-up toys - pull the string and they just go "durrrrr... ANWR!" Point out that ANWR drilling would do nothing to lower oil prices and they just give you a blank stare.
- MoofTheStoof, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6When you're slurping around the bottom of the milkshake, the answer is NOT a bigger straw...
- bsdboy, on 04/16/2008, -5/+22Why would you even consider such a thing when our reservers are higher then they have been in a long time. Sounds like a good reason to give Chevron yet another tax break. OPEC slows production and we have to expand drilling and refining? Whatever.
- wild, on 04/16/2008, -4/+13I am fortunate that I live in Chicago and can ride a bike or the train to work.
I feel greatly for those stuck in rural areas that are getting hit hard by a loss of jobs and high gas.- caponumen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9The vast majority of the country has little if any public transportation.
Those areas that do will soon buckle under the strain if costs continue to rise, so you will be affected directly as well.
The AWG agenda didn't even consider this predictable train wreck. - petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5If you were riding the blue line on Tuesday you probably need psychotherapy right now.
- caponumen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9The vast majority of the country has little if any public transportation.
- fedupamerica, on 04/16/2008, -17/+8Do you cling to guns, religion and special interests because of your bitterness?
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/16/2008, -11/+2I think he clings to his teddy bear and his mommy's leg...
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -6/+11Not a republican, so no.
- rdoger6424, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1My mom works at the church, and my dad has 1.5 guns (an airsoft rifle doesn't really count, does it?).
- Cattywampus, on 04/16/2008, -5/+14What do Bill Clinton (who left office nearly 8 years ago) and Hillary Clinton have to do with expensive gas today?
- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -1/+12I think he's referring to the fact that they're now going around saying that people are not bitter, and that we're all paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas with great pride and huge smiles on our faces.
- monkeyrun, on 04/16/2008, -8/+7What the ***** are you talking about?
Yes obviously Hilary and Bill caused the insane gas price ......
Next thing you know Bill has raped your sisters.- mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -5/+5Well he raped mine.
- publiclurker, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5I think the reference was to Hilary's claim that "bitter complaints" were nothing more than elitist drivel.
- caponumen, on 04/16/2008, -5/+4It was Gore that hoped for six dollar gas and he will soon get it.
Brilliant plan is it not? - SwordofKahless, on 04/16/2008, -7/+4I agree about economy and gas but what the hell is wrong with people that they think Obama or any of the two party leading candidates is going to fix that. Will Obama allow drilling in ANWAR or off in the Gulf of Mexico? Will Obama allow additional refineries to be built?
The Republicans are not any better since Bush caved to the environmental lobby not allowing additional drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile China is drilling off of Cuba. People need to wake up and stop supporting the two party system. But instead they will continue to go back and forth between the two parties thinking just being counter is going to be a solution to America's problems.- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6Take the most liberal estimates of total oil reserves under the Gulf of Mexico AND ANWR and you're still talking about less than 13bn barrels. In terms of global supply that's a drop in the bucket and would have no measurable impact on prices. This is all the more so because it will take years to pump it all out, meaning you have to amortize those numbers over at least a decade or so.
Do you have any realistic solutions?- SwordofKahless, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2What is the alternative, continuing to send our kids off to die in the Middle East, alternative fuels that are years away and the risk plus radioactive waste associated with Nuclear power plants? All these small reserves off our shores and on our mainland add up.
Americans also have the most stringent environmental protection so on a global scale where and who would you rather be doing the drilling.- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3"What is the alternative"
What a stupid question. Is your argument that we should drill in ANWR anyway, even though it would do nothing to lower gas prices? That's like telling someone who has terminal cancer to soak his feet in epsom salts, because even though it's not going to make him any better, neither is anything else.
"All these small reserves off our shores and on our mainland add up."
Not enough to affect gas prices they don't. And you can't find numbers that say otherwise. I think you just want to drill them because it pisses off environmentalists. - SwordofKahless, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Gas prices are higher due to increased demand. If there is surplus oil on the market it will drive the price down. It is not just ANWAR but the combination of all these other sources. You criticize but provide no alternative other than to bitch about it which clearly is the height of stupidity.
- stretch611, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3The alternative is to end all tax breaks for the oil companies. (why are we paying them while we are in a recession and they are making record profits with each new financial quarter even after giving their executives retirement packages in the hundreds of millions of dollars?)
Take the money and invest / kick start alternative programs. Subsidize solar panels for homes and businesses (one a the very few things the current administration has done that I like.) Build another nuke plant or two and get cars that plug in to the electrical grid.
Give money to universities and colleges to research these fields.
Their is still plenty of innovation in the US, but it does need a little help every now and then. - petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5" If there is surplus oil on the market it will drive the price down. IIt is not just ANWAR but the combination of all these other sources."
Do you have sub-60 IQ? The only reserves that are up for debate are in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico (all others are already open for drilling). Total estimated reserves for both areas COMBINED is less than 14bn barrells. You keep claiming that this will reduce gas prices but the data just keep proving you wrong. The most liberal estimates show these combined reserves lowering the price at oil at MOST by $1/barrell. That's less than 1% of the current spot market price. That means that your proposed solution will do us NO ***** GOOD.
And that's true irrespective of whether I or anyone else presents any "alternative." You keep demanding "alternatives" to a plan that it is guaranteed to fail.
Why do you insist on pursuing useless remedies, SwordofKahless? If you have a relative who was suffering from a disease, would tell them to go out and spend thousands of dollars on medicine that you KNOW will NOT WORK? What is the logic of your argument here. I defy you to defend yourself. - SwordofKahless, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2Typical lib has to stoop to personal attacks, respond with spin and a solution that we should just bury our heads in the sand rather than take action. As I said it is a combination of factors including refinining capacity and as far as reserve amounts in the Gulf and ANWAR you are just spouting DNC spin. (as far as ANWAR the real amount no one really knows for sure, but you are not looking at the big picture, liberals rarely do).
Libs are so upset about the war in Iraq but meanwhile they seem to care more about 1/10th of 1% of barren wasteland over the lives of our soldiers. - petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4I notice your rants are wholly devoid of data. SwordofKahless. Why can't you come up with some numbers? I backed my claims with hard facts.
All your blustering can't hide the fact that you make nothing more than empty assertions. When pushed into a corner you resort to schoolyard taunts about "liberals" because you know you don't have a leg to stand on, rhetorically. What's it like to have all logic work against you, SwordofKahless? What's it like to be on the losing side of an argument again, and again, and again? - netant, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Also, idiot, the rise in prices is only MARGINALLY caused by increased demand. The primary cause for the "rise" in gas prices is the collapse in purchasing power of the "US dollar" in the past two years.
Increasing the availability of crude will not lower gas prices either. Oil companies limit the availability of gas by limiting the availability of REFINERY capacity. Increase the number of refineries capable of refining sour crude, and there will be more gas available, which will lower the price of fuel. - SwordofKahless, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Kahless: "I agree about economy and gas but what the hell is wrong with people that they think Obama or any of the two party leading candidates is going to fix that. Will Obama allow drilling in ANWAR or off in the Gulf of Mexico? Will Obama allow additional refineries to be built? "
Kahless: " it is a combination of factors including refinining capacity" Kahless:" What is the alternative" that Obama is going to provide?
Petrodollar: provides no alternative solution but resorts to verbal attacks.
netant: Verbal attack followed by repeating exactly what I said above: "Increase the number of refineries capable of refining sour crude, and there will be more gas available, which will lower the price of fuel."
MARGINALLY or not it is better than your solution of burying your head in the sand. I also agree with the collapse of the US dollar also as a contributing factor which is why I said combination of factors.
My original point still stands which you clowns have completely missed that your man Obama does not have a solution to fix it but neither do any of the leading candidates. You guys are doing a great job for Obama in the general election. Keep it up since I cannot afford the taxes he will levy on me. - petrodollar, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2This was your "original point," dumbass: "Will Obama allow drilling in ANWAR or off in the Gulf of Mexico?"
And you got solidly pwned on that count. End of story.
If you want alternatives, there are a bazillion floating around. Start with cellulosic ethanol, which I mention in one of my earlier posts in this thread. It's a relatively clean alternative that can be produced in abundant quantities out of raw material that is readily available. Research into the technology is advancing at fast enough pace that it could conceivably come on line long before the impact of any new drilling or refinery construction is felt in the market.
Of course, that last point is a non sequitor because any new drilling (at least in ANWR or the Gulf) WON'T have any effect on the market, and oil companies have been SHUTTING DOWN refineries as of late and can easily expand existing refineries but have chosen NOT TO DO SO (pop quiz: why do you think that it is?)
You keep ignoring these facts because they reveal the extent of your blinding idiocy on this topic. You keep tap dancing your ass off but the truth of the matter is obvious to anyone who's taken the time to perform the most perfunctory investigation of this issue.
Thank you for not even trying to refute my argument. Good night. - petrodollar, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2"MARGINALLY or not it is better than your solution of burying your head in the sand"
Actually, no it isn't. Burying your head in the sand accomplishes nothing but also costs nothing. Drilling in ANWR accomplishes nothing but irreversably alters a fragile ecosystem. Given that both accomplish nothing, the former is clearly preferable to the latter.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3"What is the alternative"
- SwordofKahless, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2What is the alternative, continuing to send our kids off to die in the Middle East, alternative fuels that are years away and the risk plus radioactive waste associated with Nuclear power plants? All these small reserves off our shores and on our mainland add up.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6Take the most liberal estimates of total oil reserves under the Gulf of Mexico AND ANWR and you're still talking about less than 13bn barrels. In terms of global supply that's a drop in the bucket and would have no measurable impact on prices. This is all the more so because it will take years to pump it all out, meaning you have to amortize those numbers over at least a decade or so.
- wellyuk, on 04/16/2008, -4/+11Boo hoo hoo! $4 a gallon! Oh noes! In Canada, it's currently $4.50 a gallon. In the UK and most of Europe, it's over $8 a gallon.
Wipe away those crocodile tears, my heart bleeds for you.- rdoger6424, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1awesome! too bad our gas taxes are levied by the oil companies.
- Aokubidaikon, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Actually, it has risen more than $9 a gallon in many EU countries.
- RadiatedAnt, on 04/17/2008, -1/+250 dollars a tank? you have it cheap! it takes 80 dollars over here on a honda ridgeline. makes me want to sell it and get something other than a prius.
- marx2k, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You mean other than a Honda Ridgeline?
- Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Wow... You make $20 an hour??? Wish I could do that... (Bitterer)
- danthemanhan, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2you're complaining about 50 bucks a tank? Suck it up man. I live in vancouver. I have a ***** 1999 Jetta. My tank has cost 50 bucks and up to fill since august.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0I pay $132 to fill up I get 400 miles to the tank... It runs on Flexfuel.. how crappy is that?
- drgachet, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0over here in the land of the robbing bastard tax man , it cost me £60 + to fill the tank on my audi ..........50 bucks a tank i ***** wish
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/16/2008, -24/+11So how do you feel about drilling for more oil and expanding our ability to refine?
- buhbyebot, on 04/16/2008, -17/+46Dugg! Agreed. ***** Bitter as hell, and I support this message by Barack Obama.
- fedupamerica, on 04/16/2008, -20/+7Do you cling to guns, religion and special interests because of your bitterness?
- Stevanoski, on 04/16/2008, -10/+1lol, too good.
- 3HackBug77, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9except that he made that comment twice, i hate when people do that.
- fedupamerica, on 04/16/2008, -8/+1Actually, I asked the question twice.
- fedupamerica, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Once, Twice, Three times. All are the truth and apparently the truth is not acceptable to the Obamabots. I'm going to post this tree times too.
- 3HackBug77, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9except that he made that comment twice, i hate when people do that.
- Thugacation, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4No, those are the actual foundations upon which Pennsylvania was built.
- geddon, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Apparently, only a handful of people heard the original quote.
- Stevanoski, on 04/16/2008, -10/+1lol, too good.
- hittnrun, on 04/16/2008, -11/+4Note to bitter b!@tches.
I would be embarrassed to admit that I am economically fvcked when their are legal immigrants in this country who are doing just fine and better than you 5th & 6th generation whining US citizens. The US Goverment does not owe you a life. Do you people not have any pride? Embarrassing.- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6You can dunk your pride in some $4/gallon gas, light it on fire, and shove it up your ass. You can't be too proud to defend your own country against the people who want to rape it.
And this is one of those legal immigrants talking.- hittnrun, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Well get your ass back to your birth country. I am sure you would do much better there.
- fedupamerica, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Don't retaliate against people like this. Just report them
- hittnrun, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Well get your ass back to your birth country. I am sure you would do much better there.
- netant, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The illegal immigrants are not doing better than born American citizens. They're lives are crappier, so they are content with less than Americans are.
- hittnrun, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1That's why I said "LEGAL" immigrants. Dimocrats, get off your asses and stop blaming everyone else.
- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6You can dunk your pride in some $4/gallon gas, light it on fire, and shove it up your ass. You can't be too proud to defend your own country against the people who want to rape it.
- LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -9/+310,000 Pennsylvanians? pff. thats nothing. Did he get all the signatures from a community college? I Know they are bitter. There are like 27 million people in Pennsylvania. You'll have to do better then that Obama.
- yodaj007, on 04/16/2008, -0/+827 million? I think you missed your geography class.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3omln3
Dude, there are 12 million in PA, less than half of what you thought. - yodaj007, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Arrrgh. I let digg time out on me. I was going to add:
And of those 12 million, how many do you think old enough to vote? 77% are 18 and older. http://preview.tinyurl.com/67a5hj
The point here? You are WAY OFF. The census data is your friend. Use it. - LukasSmith, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1hmm 12 million? my bad. In any case 10,000 is hardly convincing. But I guess we will see soon when the primary in Pennsylvania is over. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania will these 10,000 people matter? And no learning population numbers of each state isn't typically taught in geography class.
- yodaj007, on 04/16/2008, -0/+827 million? I think you missed your geography class.
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Too bad they were not from Pennsylvanians. Oops small fact left out.
- fedupamerica, on 04/16/2008, -20/+7Do you cling to guns, religion and special interests because of your bitterness?
- Krisgi, on 04/16/2008, -10/+69I know a lot of people who are bitter in the large cities and they are not doing half as bad financially as people from small town America who get the doors slammed constantly in their faces. BUSH and the GOP have ***** up this country, and they need to get OUT. Even an ***** knows that you can't spend spend spend at your will and expect the Nation to remain afloat. We need to go after McCain NOW and make sure that he and his kind don't get anywhere near the WH. They have lost their privileges to govern. The worst this country has. Bush should be IMPEACHED for incompetent.
- wild, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4Don't forget NAFTA's role in all of this plight.
Thats the one thing I am thankful for the close Dem race for. Its shined a light on a terrible deal. - ciano, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2I agree. Bush should totally be IMPEACHED for incompetent.
- paxil, on 04/16/2008, -9/+1Obama is proposing to increase spending. McCain isn't. You lose.
- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7*****. Keeping Bush's war, corporate tax breaks and tax cuts going is NOT cutting spending.
- Krisgi, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You know, there are plenty of prosperous nations in the world today whose direct taxes and income tax are much higher than in the US, but the quality of living is also higher because the people have many more social benefits, particularly in health care and education, and even social freedoms. I would not mind paying higher taxes if I got something for my money. It is grotesque that Bush has wasted money that could have been used to better our society and improve social protection for all Americans. Alleviate poverty, invest in science and research... The Deficit has never been higher... not to mention the External Debt. We have never owed so much money to other nations... And what did we get for it? Thousands of young people killed and maimed in the Line of Duty and almost a million civilians killed in Iraq. Our jobs outsourced to pave the way for even greater benefits for the wealthy. Obama proposes spending on things that are useful, not useless. What are we supposed to do? Bend over and let them have their way with us for 4-8 more years? Are we supposed to zip up our pants and even be thankful for this outright abuse? If you like things that way, that´s your choice. After all, you can´t rape the willing, can you? I scream NO!
- mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Well first off, you are wrong. They have not lost their privileges to govern, if they did we would be talking about the recent impeachment proceedings and not what Hillary did in Bosnia. They are entitled to govern how they see fit because they were ELECTED, or do you not remember the process back in 2004 that allowed Bush to be president for another four years. If you really wanted Bush to not be president, maybe you should have done something then, you are welcome to complain all you want to about the current president, but he was still elected, and he still is fit to govern whether you agree with his decisions or not.
I am not a Bush supporter by the way. In fact, I think I can disagree with much of what he has done in office, but I support his right to do it because he was elected by the majority (in 2004).- Krisgi, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1mnky9800n, you are entitled to be as naive as you wish. You can even believe in WMD's, the Tooth Fairy, and the Boogie Man if you want. As long as it doesn't cost us more lives in Iraq and more billions of $$$ in a stupid war that Bush and Cheney have waged in their own personal interests. They do not listen to the American people and McCain won't either. And as for Bush being elected by the People... he was elected to SERVE the interests of the entire nation, not just those of his elite and/or ignorant voters. Instead, he has turned the Presidency into a Totalitarian Regime that manipulates through paranoia and fear. He and Cheney have made all kinds of money in Iraq and elsewhere. He has deprived us of our liberties, our privacy, destroyed our economy, tortured POW's, ignored the Geneva Convention and our own Constitution. He is a CRIMINAL, and should be persecuted as such.
- allengeer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4every time i fill up my tank of gas.. you're damn right i feel a bitter taste right in the back of my throat... and a soreness in my butt where all these oil cronies making their record-breaking profits are ***** me in the ass...
- marx2k, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0Don't forget the automakers for not making more fel efficient vehicles, city planners for making you depend on that ball and chain, and you for not buying a bicycle.
- serif69, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2"Even an ***** knows that you can't spend spend spend at your will and expect the Nation to remain afloat."
You should tell Mr. Obama that. His proposed programs would increase the Federal budget by hundreds of billions of dollars, and would revert income taxes back to Clinton-era levels, when they were among the highest in American history in every bracket. I'm sorry to say, but if you really believe that spending isn't the answer, then Obama is not the choice for you.- sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I can't believe people are complaining so much about raising taxes. Do you not understand how huge the country's deficit is at this point. Do you understand why are dollar is plummeting in value. Do you understand what taxes are for?
- ZeroIce, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1So you're just going to bend over and take it in the ass? I like my money and I wanna keep it!
- netant, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Then vote for the politicians that will get the US to unilaterally withdraw from Iraq. A LOT LESS SPENDING THEN!
- andrew97068, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1sephiroth, your 100% correct in the sense that taxes means that our government should be working on ways to fight our recession and decrease the national debt. However, judging by our governments history, that just isn't likely to happen...
- Lanlost, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The problem is when the taxes aren't used for that purpose. Historically, higher taxes = "we have more money to spend!"'
This would be great and all and I would be all for it if we weren't spending out our ass already. Off the top of my head I am thinking we would all basically have to be taxed our entire income to be able to pay off national debt anytime soon. =(
- ZeroIce, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1So you're just going to bend over and take it in the ass? I like my money and I wanna keep it!
- sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I can't believe people are complaining so much about raising taxes. Do you not understand how huge the country's deficit is at this point. Do you understand why are dollar is plummeting in value. Do you understand what taxes are for?
- Lanlost, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"Even an ***** ..."
Are you implying that Bush isn't an *****? ;-)
- wild, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4Don't forget NAFTA's role in all of this plight.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/16/2008, -53/+17Too bad there are 12,271,000 other people living in Pennsylvania. Epic Fail.
- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -6/+28Ignoring the fact you are including children and people too young to vote, you fail to realize: Very rarely do Americans get together to do much. We are very apathetic.
- khail250, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1so there are
- WasabiBomb, on 04/16/2008, -3/+19I guess you'd know, after all. You epically fail in every thread you post in.
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2"Ignoring the fact you are including children and people too young to vote"
Which includes high school students that they included in this petition?
Some may be apathetic, but others are down right retarded!
Oh wait, its a web petition, lets sign on and lie our asses off TOO !
- theaceoffire, on 04/16/2008, -6/+28Ignoring the fact you are including children and people too young to vote, you fail to realize: Very rarely do Americans get together to do much. We are very apathetic.
- bsdboy, on 04/16/2008, -8/+2Good thing that ad she just released doesn't say anything about that... oh wait... nevermind.
- khail250, on 04/16/2008, -31/+1310,000 is not a lot of people, this is not news worthy at all.
- mozert, on 04/16/2008, -1/+12you ejaculate when you are dugg down, don't you?
- bean7898, on 04/16/2008, -26/+21Will somebody explain the "change" Obama has planned. I hear him say his slogans all the time but never hear him get specific. I'm afraid he is just more of the same, like the other 2. The only change I can see will be the name plate on the presidents desk.
- lechuga, on 04/16/2008, -10/+3uhmm... as long as bush is out and mccain stays out, i'm ok!
- stacymonahan, on 04/16/2008, -7/+25If you go to his website, his policies are actually laid out quite clearly. As many people have noted, there is little difference between his proposals and Clinton's in most areas - they're both democrats, after all. The biggest areas of difference are the war -- Obama has the strongest approach for getting us out of it -- and foreign relations. Unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't view every interaction with a foreign nation as combative. It's his intention to meet with leaders of all countries who are open to the idea, including ones who have previously been our enemies, and to remain open to improving relations. Clinton states that this is "naive" and that the US cannot embrace countries who have been enemies in the past. In general, the big difference between the two is Obama's stance -- in domestic and foreign policy -- of inclusiveness and open-mindedness to new ideas. Hillary, meanwhile, is a self-styled "fighter" who has stated that change is a romantic and impossible notion and therefore a waste of time to pursue, and that political agendas can only be pursued by fighting everyone who disagrees every inch of the way. To me, this is just another way to keep up the current divisiveness in America. If someone's not with you, they're against you. Obama takes a more nuanced approach that allows for disagreement without enmity.
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Yes Obama wants to negotiate with an iranian leader that told children to cross over landminds with plastic keys to heaven.
The man that has been supplying weapons to hamas, Hezbollah, and in IRAQ to kill American soldiers. Oh yes Obama is quite the winner!- f54280, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1First, what Iran does is none of US business.
Second, I fail to be impressed about the 5000+ death of american soldiers in iraq when the civilian death count is in the 100's of thousands. American soliders would not be killed in Iraq if they were -- say -- not in Iraq ?
- f54280, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1First, what Iran does is none of US business.
- sodade, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I think the real difference is that Obama is pushing transparency of government. It is all too clear why Hillbilly and McCane are opposed to it.
- Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Nixon - China. Reagan - USSR. Sometimes, talking can help... Why not at least try it?
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Yes Obama wants to negotiate with an iranian leader that told children to cross over landminds with plastic keys to heaven.
- asspants, on 04/16/2008, -6/+12If you listen to what he's saying for more than 30 seconds at a time, he actually does explain *****. You just heard some republican FUD spewer (probably that *****-gobbler mike savage) on the radio mention that all they ever hear is catchphrases and obamaisms and no filler to back it up. So you come in here and repeat it. Congratulations douchebag. If you can't be assed to listen to him in more than 30 second soundbites, please don't bother to even vote.
I don't even support obama, I hope all of you will see that none of the frontrunners are acceptable candidates and write ron paul in. I know it won't happen anyway, so two tears in a bucket.- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3"that *****-gobbler mike savage"
I think you meant Mike *Weiner*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(comme ... - onetimer, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3***** ron paul. it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for someone that wants to abolish ALL anti-trust/corporate regulation laws, wants to define life at conception (a defacto nationwide ban on abortion, even morning after pills), someone who wants to cut of all funding of scientific research, and someone to stupid to even accept evolution.
Ron paul is a 19th century fringe-christian-right-wing demagogue who fooled a bunch of idiots on the internet not willing to read past campaign slogans.- asspants, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1good, then go vote for john mccain. thanks for playing.
- asspants, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1good, then go vote for john mccain. thanks for playing.
- alk509, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3"that *****-gobbler mike savage"
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6The big change is that he plans on working with people and for the people, not the corporations.
- Wholekernalcorn, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Who works for corporations and who runs corporations?
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2It would be naive to think the majority of peons who make up the bulk of huge corporations have any actual say in the direction it's headed to, or whom the board of directors (who presumably actually run it) chooses to spend it's money influencing.
- Wholekernalcorn, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Who works for corporations and who runs corporations?
- jbenson2, on 04/16/2008, -12/+3Even his supporters are stumped when they are asked what the O-man has done in the past (or what he will do in the future). They always fall back on the tired cliche to check his website, there might be something there.
- SpinningHead, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Well he doesn't have the well thought out plans that worked out so well for Bush, but one thing she has proposed is having kids do some sort of community service in exchange for money for college. That would go a long way to putting us back on top. We are wasting great national resources simply because they don't have the same money that some idiot like Bush can get into school with.
- netant, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No, its unlikely to put the US back on top.
There is no point in funding college education if the general public is too stupid to utilize it. Congratulations, you just made the American taxpayer even more poor, colleges richer, and professors with greater job security.
- netant, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No, its unlikely to put the US back on top.
- SpinningHead, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Well he doesn't have the well thought out plans that worked out so well for Bush, but one thing she has proposed is having kids do some sort of community service in exchange for money for college. That would go a long way to putting us back on top. We are wasting great national resources simply because they don't have the same money that some idiot like Bush can get into school with.
- LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -8/+3Obama actually doesn't explain this "change" very well. In fact I wonder if not explaining very well is a strategy in itself. When he says little about what particular "change" he means he has few to upset. This kind of strategy will probably backfire though eventually. Because eventually he will explain change means a dramatic shift to liberal or socialist policy. I personally believe that A. This is not the time (financially) to be expanding social programs. B. that when he says it will take 2 years to get the troops out of Iraq he actually means even longer. I think there have been digg.com articles on this subject C. He will try to be best buddies with everyone around the world but will realize the concessions he would have to make to be buddy buddy with everyone would be unacceptable with the American people such as favorable terms in trade agreements and global policy decisions.
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5"The only change I can see will be the name plate on the presidents desk."
So what's your complaint? - LukasSmith, on 04/17/2008, -6/+2Well if thats all you care about Petrodollar then lets vote for Hillary.
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4huh?
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 04/17/2008, -6/+1What are you some kinda ***** moron?
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1No.
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 04/17/2008, -6/+1What are you some kinda ***** moron?
- petrodollar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4huh?
- tyme, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Read: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
I suggest the PDF. It's pretty straight forward. Then you can see what he's talking about when he says "change", and decide for yourself what you think of it. - Gemfinder, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I'll chime in...
One, changing the name on the Oval Office's desk is change, but the least of them.
Two...the fairly obvious...When's the last time an African-American got this close to the Oval Office before?
Here's the change that I'm seeing from the street level:
This campaign empowers its constituency. When the National campaign people came to town, they approached the grassroots groups and said, "We're not here to boss you around, but to back you in YOUR efforts and occasionally steer you towards more effective avenues."
That's not going to stop once our primary is over and [touching wood] the nomination is in Barack's hand. They'll move on to Montana and the other states on May 21st, and they're expecting us to keep up the pace all the way through August. US. The People.
Some of us are even looking past November and how we'll keep the momentum up through the next four years. As in, civic momentum, civic pride. When's the last time you saw private citizens gird up and go like that? That's HOPE.
Barack told us that this campaign isn't about him. He's a rallying point, a flag-bearer. The campaign is about US. - whatknight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1rtfm.
- fedupamerica, on 04/16/2008, -28/+8Do they cling to guns, religion and special interests because of their bitterness?
- 10lbhammer, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8quit saying that!! we heard you the first ***** time!!
- fedupamerica, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Once, Twice, Three times. All are the truth and apparently the truth is not acceptable to the Obamabots. I'm going to post this tree times too.
- sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1*****, I accidentally dugg him up. I'm clumsy, but at least I can digg down the other two spots he posted it.
- fedupamerica, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Once, Twice, Three times. All are the truth and apparently the truth is not acceptable to the Obamabots. I'm going to post this tree times too.
- 3HackBug77, on 04/16/2008, -2/+9Really? three times? you couldn't think of something better to do than post the same text 3 times in the same article?
- publiclurker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6He's just clinging to it due to his bitterness.
- fedupamerica, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Once, Twice, Three times. All are the truth and apparently the truth is not acceptable to the Obamabots. I'm going to post this tree times too.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1A spoon full of gun powder helps the medicine go down. Look at Sudan. Guns often give people without much political/economic power a feeling like they are in control of their destinies. Many poorer people also tend to cling to religion as a source of hope - life sucks now but in the afterlife I'll get mine. I am by no means against guns or religion. I come from a family of hunters and I don't think Obama meant all gun owners cling to their guns because they are bitter. I do think there is some truth in what he said though. In '06 Obama said nearly the same thing to Charlie Rose - except much more eloquently.
- bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1yes they can, yes they can
- 10lbhammer, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8quit saying that!! we heard you the first ***** time!!
- youtellme8, on 04/16/2008, -18/+14I'm glad this happened. People may not like what Obama said, but take a step back and think. He's actually right. As Karl Marx said, "religion is the opium of the masses."
- mrblister, on 04/16/2008, -7/+4I completely agree, but a word of caution: Ixna on the ommunism-kay...
The right wing already has enough scare tactics. The least we need to do is have them compare Obama to Marx...
That said. I feel a revolution coming on!- mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Well in the defense of religion, it has played a major part in much of what Karl Marx short-sightedness failed to see. Unions, civil rights movement, etc.
- mrblister, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1wait - you're not actually inferring that religion influenced unionization?
- mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -2/+0Well in the defense of religion, it has played a major part in much of what Karl Marx short-sightedness failed to see. Unions, civil rights movement, etc.
- paxil, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2Obama says he's a devoutly religious Christian. Aren't you concerned about that?
- Pstall, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5I don't know why you are using communist quotes to prove obama right.... Not to mention that Obama is religious himself attending the same church for 20+ years.
- caponumen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Oh, you Utopian thinkers will never learn, will you.
- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1
- ZeroIce, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3you're*
- mrblister, on 04/16/2008, -7/+4I completely agree, but a word of caution: Ixna on the ommunism-kay...
- jayhawk, on 04/16/2008, -2/+21his actual response said that "some" people are bitter. 10,000 is clearly some even if the media and opponents are trying to portray it as "all."
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -0/+210,000 from a web petition that is well... not so honest. I mean especially if you have been noticing the rabbid obama supporters lately that would sell their children and lie their asses off if they felt justified.
- EugineMW, on 04/16/2008, -5/+7Guys, Obama is right that economic woes make people bitter. What I personally don't agree with, is that he said we cling to religion and guns because of economic problems. Honestly, I know digg mostly non-religious, but people who are religious, like me, were religious even in economic prosperity. That is where I disagree with him.
I wouldn't doubt there are people who turn to religion because of economic problems, but please do not imply there is a direct relationship x.x- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3"I wouldn't doubt there are people who turn to religion because of economic problems, but please do not imply there is a direct relationship"
Don't imply that there is a direct relationship that you yourself suspect exists? - azpat, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7It was poor wording, which he already admitted to. He's been saying the general thing for years. now consider if instead of Cling, he had said "trust in and defend". So they get bitter, and they trust in their religion and their guns and they defend their religion and their guns. Now he specifically did say that they get bitter _with the government_ not just bitter in general. (That's the first flaw in the bitter-gate attack.) Ask the "I'm not bitter" crowd if they're not bitteer _with their government_ and you'll likely get a different answer. But that convenient omission aside, the other half of it is that because they are bitter with their government they instead vote on issues about things that matter to them other than the economy (because they've given up on politicians being able to do anything about the economy). Those issues are gun control, gay marriage, abortion, ten commandments, prayer in school, anti-immigration, anti-trade, etc. They "trust in and defend" these issues - or better yet, "vote based upon". Sounds better than "cling to" but essentially the idea is the same.
- publiclurker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Doesn't everyone tends to cling to comfortable things when times get rough?
- joclark, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I believe his intentions where that people cling and vote on wedge issues like religion and guns, even though voting for those issues only is not in the best economic interest of the voter. It's the Republican ploy of getting ballot issues of Guns, Gays and God on presidential ballots and getting people out to vote for those issues, not the economic issues.
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I cling to guns because of ***** like eminent domain.
- zombies187, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Good luck with that. Historically that has not worked. You might try the courts. At least then you wouldn't sound like a nut.
- jbetancourt, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0I can't believe that this "comment" by Obama is still an issue. Obviously he was not equating economic issues with people turning to religion or guns. As many posters have already indicated, this was not the point he was trying to make. And, yes he mispoke and was not clear. Later speeches he tried to clear this up (and in my opinion, still did not really make it clear). I think that is a problem with Obama, he is too nuanced and subtle, whereas many people really want sound bites and directness, simple either-or arguments. I think we saw this tonight in the debate, Obama was very presidential, but Clinton was on a constant attack. I wonder what people will remember most?
- porcupus, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0I believe the media has redefined the word "cling" for you. It doesn't mean that religion didn't exist in the small town PA lives in times of prosperity. It does in fact mean that in times of hardship people put more emphasis "cling to" religion as a way to help them through.
Obama in no way stated that the folks of PA are coming up with new means to help alleviate a terrible economic crisis. But he is saying, that in times of trouble, people tend to focus on what they can control, and yes may even blame others (that may have no bearing on the times) in order to make themselves feel better about their situation.
It's just as if the world was going to end tomorrow. I am not very religious, but do believe there is some thing or things out there. Well, I'll tell you, tonight I would be going straight to church to help save my sole. Then off to the bar.
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3"I wouldn't doubt there are people who turn to religion because of economic problems, but please do not imply there is a direct relationship"
- drfluffer, on 04/16/2008, -23/+11Both Hillary and Obama support high taxes and killing babies. John McCain 2008.
- jadenton, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6I want you to payer higher taxes, and I like killing babies. Democrats in 08.
- DFrag, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1How is killing our troops or innocent children and adults any better than killing babies? Murder is murder you idiot. Oh and someone has to pay for all the corporate welfare and murder that Republicans have used to ruin our economy and economic future.
- phrenzy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Don't forget to mention that they EAT the babies after they kill them and that they bathe in puppy blood all while encircled by a gay daisy chain.
- UcIc, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Guess what, using your logic, John McCain does as well. You don't think the list of ~90,000 Iraqi civilians killed due to the war is limited to adult Iraqis, do you?
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3We need to put high taxes on the rich. The top 5% of wealth earners in the US have had a phenomenal 7+ years under Bush. Meanwhile everyone else has suffered and has had wages stagnate while college, medical, and fuel costs have skyrocketed during the same period.
If the top 5% don't pay it, everyone's great-grandchildren will still be paying off the debt.- serif69, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1The tax cuts in 2001 were a complete overhaul of the entire income and capital tax system, with the majority of the changes affecting lower income heads of households, families with children, and married people. The upper tax brackets saw smaller reductions than lower brackets, and larger deductions were allowed for dependents and joint filers. To claim that the top 5% have had a phenomenal time since 2001 is leaving out all the families and lower income taxpayers who had an even better savings in terms of taxes.
You are just trying to sensationalize your belief that because someone has more money, they should be taxed more. Well, my friend, that already happens, and has happened since there has been income tax. I hope that some day you make enough money to fall into the highest tax bracket, so you could understand how it feels to give a full third of your earned income to the Federal government.- stretch611, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Believe it or not, I know what it is like to give a third to the government, and to have social security taxes no longer taken out later in the year, and to not qualify to contribute to a roth ira.
Yet to bring up the idea of elitism, how come a lot of the uber-rich don't think that they should give their fair share. They believe that they should not be taxed after a certain amount. The believe that money made off of investments should not be taxed as high as money earned by people that actually work for a living.
No one earning less than a "living wage" should have to pay any taxes. Investment income should be taxed just as high as other forms of income; if you want to give a benefit to people who have long term investments (a good Idea in my mind,) let them subtract the rate of inflation from their capital gains over the period that the held the security.
- stretch611, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Believe it or not, I know what it is like to give a third to the government, and to have social security taxes no longer taken out later in the year, and to not qualify to contribute to a roth ira.
- serif69, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1The tax cuts in 2001 were a complete overhaul of the entire income and capital tax system, with the majority of the changes affecting lower income heads of households, families with children, and married people. The upper tax brackets saw smaller reductions than lower brackets, and larger deductions were allowed for dependents and joint filers. To claim that the top 5% have had a phenomenal time since 2001 is leaving out all the families and lower income taxpayers who had an even better savings in terms of taxes.
- mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Would you rather have the mothers of the aborted babies in jail for murder?
- jadenton, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6I want you to payer higher taxes, and I like killing babies. Democrats in 08.
- FelixdaaHack, on 04/16/2008, -16/+6Marked as SPAM
- Gorgamel, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Front page spam, no less. Digg is losing my respect by the day...
- mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -8/+36/22/06 Vote 182: S 2766: This amendment called on the president to withdraw troops from Iraq, but set no firm deadline. Yes No Yes
6/22/06 Vote 181: S 2766: This amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill would have set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. No No No
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ...
the first yes or no is Obamas - Armor1901, on 04/16/2008, -6/+6suck it, billary
- mrcoderga, on 04/16/2008, -6/+18Wiretap an American without a warrant, and you get one bitter American.
Now multiply by 200 million, then check the result.
Also see:
Torture, Rendition, Habeas Corpus destruction, Lying about WMDs and Invading and Occupying without End, $9.2 Trillion Federal Debt, Pardoning Scooter Libby to Protect The President from Incrimination, Failure to Investigate the Deadly Anthrax Attacks on US Senators Daschle and Leahy and several US Postal Workers and TV News Anchors in October 2001, Meier's and Rice's Subpoena Violations, Failure to Investigate September 11, Failure to Capture Bin Laden or Whoever "Did It" Now (Afghanistan, Iraq, now Iran??), Massive US dollar depreciation -- check the price of oil, gold, wheat, eggs.... COINCIDENCE?? I think not, Out of Control Bank Industry Lending Practices.
Shall I be bitter?
DAMN STRAIGHT- Pstall, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1Your insane and have no idea how our government works if you blame all of these problems on just the president. Democrats have the majority in the house and senate.
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Allowing Free trade agreements that have no benefit to the general populace, letting companies offshore every manufacturing and high-tech job in the country, letting companies move their headquarters to Bermuda to avoid taxes, reducing medicare benefits, letting the VA hospitals decline in quality and cleanliness....
I am sure the list is much longer.... - WhiteRaven, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1mrcoderga, you're so all over the place it's hard to separate your lies from your delusions.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2The massive spending on that failure of a war itself should be reason enough.
- paxil, on 04/16/2008, -15/+810,000 people waiting for Washington D.C. to make their lives complete. No wonder they're bitter. Go make your own ***** life instead of waiting around with your hands out asking the government to make everything better. Obama cannot and will not make you happy. Neither can Hillary, neither can McCain. It's not their job.
- WHUFCIrons2, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3Spot on.
- stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Their job is to support the people of this country, not just the corporate lobbyists and the people with large bankrolls. And they have failed miserably...
- danskal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0I hear this argument a lot from Americans, but it is flawed. You are saying "I don't like what the government is doing now, therefore government is bad, I don't want a government".
Without government there are no roads, no army, no internet, no justice and certainly no democracy. The government is a huge factor for making life better for the people. Make an effort to make sure you have a good government, and life will improve.
Stamp out corruption wherever you see it. Never pay for anything that should be free. Vote for good men, intelligent men, honest men. Keep a close eye on them, and where they get their money from.
Above all, don't vote for someone who you would like to have a drink with, because you are probably never going to have a drink with them. Vote for someone who can understand what is going on in the world, and who will lead USA in the right direction. (a good guess is the opposite way to GWB).
Government is the basis for civilization, people, without it, you better be prepared for a primitive lifestyle, or pray that you are super-rich.
- UcIc, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1*****
- Jubalicious, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4tl;dr
- WHUFCIrons2, on 04/16/2008, -14/+6More Obama spam and *****. Dugg down.
- mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -8/+34/10/08 Vote 96: H R 3221: H.R. 3221 As Amended; Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 Not Voting Yes Yes
4/10/08 Vote 95: H R 3221: Ensign Amdt. No. 4419; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited continuation of clean energy production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in the tax law. Not Voting Yes Yes
4/10/08 Vote 94: H R 3221: Alexander Amdt. No. 4429; To provide a longer extension of the renewable energy production tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources of electricity, and for other purposes. Not Voting No No
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ...- str0ngbad, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1
- mal1964, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I guess after you make your decision to vote for Obama, Facts are no longer necessary.
- sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1See where it says "Not Voting?" That is Obama. He didn't even vote on those. This is completely irrelevent!
- mal1964, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1He get paid to vote for us, its the worst choice of the three
- str0ngbad, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1
- UcIc, on 04/16/2008, -9/+6Apparently Digg doesn't like when you start your comment with a symbol. Sorry doods. My blank comment a few posts above was supposed to read:
"#10,001 right here" - caponumen, on 04/16/2008, -15/+12You small minded people are clinging to your Obama spam because you are bitter about his neocon friendly voting record.
You are clinging to the false hope for change he continues to promise and you are bitter because you now know he is really just another liberal tax and spend fraud without any new ideas. - SEGA4life, on 04/16/2008, -4/+11feeeew... we only had 4 Obama Stories on the front page.... I was worried.
don't forget www.diggobama.com use to be www.diggnater.com - erocsteady, on 04/16/2008, -9/+2Make that 10,002 now.
- jbenson2, on 04/16/2008, -11/+4What a great way to jack up the numbers. Just keep entering your information over and over again. There is nothing in the Obama software that prohibits duplicate, triplicate or more entries. Certainly gives me a lot of confidence in his integrity.
- petrodollar, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Yeah, it's not like anyone's actually VOTING for the guy or anything.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6Hillarious. "Obama software"? What's he got to do with the stuff here?? Share some of that drug you're smoking.
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Its a web site.
The LETTER is an online petition to sign. The claim is that lots of small town people are logging on to OBAMA's site to sign the petition.
Its kinda obvious unless you're a retard... oops guess you are!- jbenson2, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1After watching the debate, it looks like the O-man was the retard.
- jabberwolf, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Its a web site.
- DragonGirl724, on 04/16/2008, -11/+10i love how obama supporters are hillary bashers (and vice versa) when these 2 schmucks have a nearly IDENTICAL voting record! They stand for the SAME THINGS!
Don't be a tool click the links below and see for yourself! don't be an idiotic, lazy, uninformed voter.
OBAMA: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i ...
CLINTON: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i ...
The ***** rivalry is just a show for the cameras, thanks to you retards you're playing right into their game. Keep their names in the headlines...its what they want you to do. Every article supporting Obama and bashing Clinton, promotes Clinton at the same time!
These two are business people who according to their voting history are one of the same! wake up already, you're online ***** around on DIGG all day, playing flash games and looking up porn...TAKE 5 MINUTES AND READ UP ON YOUR DAMN CANDIDATES!!!
OBAMA AND CLINTON ARE THE SAME, THEY PLAY FOR THE SAME TEAM! They have the same voting history.
cmon now wtf people!?- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Because they're both from the same party...?
As an onlooker I don't know much about the finer nuances of your internal politics, but if you had to choose between the two why would you pick the lying sleazebag?! - Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I see a lot of these types of postings... "Hillary and Obama are the same! They both suck!" I notice a commonality among them... No solutions, no alternatives, no recommendations of any kind are presented. So what is your argument here, DragonGirl724? "Everything sucks, give up" or "Vote McCain?" I'm actually curious here...
- Stevo23, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1She's the type of person who votes Nader because "Bush and Gore are the same!!!" If you can't be bothered to do enough research to find out the difference between candidates, you deserve whatever ***** leaders you wind up with.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Because they're both from the same party...?
- Elchonon, on 04/16/2008, -9/+4Blah blah blah... I am religious, own guns.. not the least bit bitter.
Sorry its called a democracy.. you cant force a company to stay anywhere.. try reading "rich dad poor dad" people should save their money and invest.
Big corporations dont owe anything to you.. they are in it for money get over it!
You want to quote karl marx ? I see, so russia was the economic model of the world ? puleeez.
I dont necessarily love large corporations..but business practices cannot be government regulated top to bottom.
Go find a job, go find another line of work, go open your own business.. geez this is sad people are so dependent on the government to step in and save them.
And 10,000? theres 300 million americans! Why are there so many unemployed ? because no one wants to take a hard job? please thats BS.. get off your butt and get a job.- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Because obviously rural America is teeming with jobs (and not dead-end WalMart cashier style ones) ready to be filled, amirite?
- Paul101590, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1What is wrong with getting a job at the Wall? Or are you so important and too good for that, that you'd rather be unemployed...do I hear laziness?
- papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1No, but if you listen closely you'll hear a moron. (hint: it's you!)
- Paul101590, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1What is wrong with getting a job at the Wall? Or are you so important and too good for that, that you'd rather be unemployed...do I hear laziness?
- Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Sweden has big corporations... They also have a far more equitable distribution of wealth, and universal health care if I'm not mistaken... So, how do they do it? And why can't we?
- Paul101590, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1What country has the best doctors in the world? That would be the US of A. Health care is a business...government does not belong in business (in most cases). Universal Health care will ruin the business and will put the "to be" doctors in line to go be a doctor somewhere where people will pay enough to get quality. I know prices are ridiculous but that is because people sue the ***** out of doctors.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Because obviously rural America is teeming with jobs (and not dead-end WalMart cashier style ones) ready to be filled, amirite?
- Pedestrian101, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6WTF how the hell have people still not gotten this? OF COURSE people are bitter, they always are, the problem is that he said people "Cling" to their religion and "Cling" to their guns. This stories are made by stupid people, for stupid people.
- mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -3/+13/13/08 Vote 74: S CON RES 70: Kyl Amdt. No. 4348; To provide certainty to taxpayers by extending expiring tax provisions such as the R&D Tax Credit that helps US companies innovate, combat pay exclusion for our soldiers in the field, the education deduction to make colleges more affordable and the alternative energy incentives to make the environment cleaner through the end of 2009. No Yes No
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ... - webefools, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10I'M BITTER AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
- ZeroIce, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You're suppose to be screaming out a window, not on the internet.
- WhiteRaven, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6As I said in another thread, this was not a gaff on Obamas part. He was pandering to his base in a very predictable way. The entire basis of progressivism is to convince people that they are miserable and bitter and that "government can help".
The only real danger with the tactic is that some people might notice that those genuine problems that do exist are a direct result of progressive policies. Whether you want to talk about the power and greed of unions or the strong-arm tactics used by the Clinton administration to force lenders to grant loans to poor risks, Obama is in fact in lock-step with the forces that are causing the problems. Fortunately for Obama... and unfortunately for the human race... almost no one is going to catch on to the con.
Progressives: creating the misery they prey on for over a century. - 33PercentGod, on 04/16/2008, -2/+14I live up here in Carbondale, PA. Check out a wiki on us to see what a ghost town it is. Everything around here is shut down. You drive down the road and every building has a "For sale!" retail sign on it. The factory my girlfriend's mom worked in laid her off after like 15 years of working for them. If you don't get a factory job up here you're *****,but if you do you have the high chance of getting laid off. This place was huge with the coal mining industry,but after that went there isnt *****.
My father works in a factory and just about everyone's parents work there as well (Gentex). If that place ever went under it would basically swallow everything with it. There would be nothing left here in this area at all.
So hell yes we're bitter. Maybe quit this outsourcing ***** and give us some jobs and we won't be.- heucuva, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1We have outsourcing and immigratory hiring because our government provides more incentive for businesses to do so than to hire naturalized citizens. It's (our/our parents'/our grandparents') fault that we are in this mess and none else. We let this kind of ***** happen, because we either turned a blind eye to it or were misdirected away from it by our generally-elected representative scam artists.
That brings me to the subject of our representatives: "The problem with political jokes is that they always seem to get elected." Who would want to be an elected representative, anyhow? It's no longer the glorious and respected job of the forefathers. If you saw a workplace that was staffed by bigots, crazies, money-grubbers, skinflints, religious fanatics, and sundry and various other types of sleaze-balls, would you want to work there, too?
- heucuva, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1We have outsourcing and immigratory hiring because our government provides more incentive for businesses to do so than to hire naturalized citizens. It's (our/our parents'/our grandparents') fault that we are in this mess and none else. We let this kind of ***** happen, because we either turned a blind eye to it or were misdirected away from it by our generally-elected representative scam artists.
- petebert, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2wow, 10,000 people from PA? thats enough to win the primary right?
- forceuser, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3There are about 12 million people here..
- kalvinb, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Are all 10,000 of these bitter people clinging to guns, religion and/or racism?
- Railz, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6I like the people saying, "get off your ass and get a job"
Most people who are bitter HAVE jobs. Its the bailing out of corporate firms, sub-prime lenders mis-used taxes (see: crumbling infrastructure) that they're bitter about. The definition of Fascism is a corporate run state, and if our money is going to bailing out corporations, that is Fascism. When regular people go bankrupt, little to no assistance is offered unless your city/town has the luxury of doing so.- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1
- Railz, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Okay, but Fascism is the definition of a corporate run country. People who are uninformed like to Godwin the word which is unfortunate.
- ZeroIce, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Free market much? Hell's yeah!!
- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1
- dekuscrub, on 04/16/2008, -7/+8If Obama gets elected, it will be really funny 4 years from now when NOTHING has changed. Please people.... I know things are bad, but if you think Barack is gonna get into office and wave some magic wand, you're in for a surprise.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3So you'd rather bend over for more of the same from the other candidates?
- spamcrusher, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Obama = more of the same
- brad3378, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul.
- RussellDovey, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6So which countries will Obama invade on a flimsy pretext? How many oil company executives will be in Obama's cabinet? How much will Obama drop taxes for the rich by? How much money will Halliburton get from Obama's executive decisions?
When people say "there's no difference between any candidate, why bother voting" they are not thinking.
Let me see, would Al Gore have invaded Iraq because of 9-11? No. No he would not. So there's a 2 trillion dollar difference right ***** there. - Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3We won't get everything, but we can get our civil rights back! Obama has pledged to restore Habius Corpus, and to have his AG review every Executive Order done by the Bush admin. in the last 8 years and to overturn any deemed unconstitutional.
- Aensland, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3So you'd rather bend over for more of the same from the other candidates?
- bingobongony, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1yeah..this matters.
- Bkaufman, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2OBMAMMAMAMMAMAMAMAMMAMMAMAMAMAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- eregorn, on 04/17/2008, -7/+7Funny how people seem ok with Obama being a prejudiced bigot who classifies people into groups simply because he is P.C. about it.
Try replacing the words "small town people" (or whatever) in his controversial statements with "black people" and picture it said by a white person.
The words change but the context hasn't.- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2
- javip, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1lol.. xen0 just came
- RussellDovey, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5The thing is, he was very specific in his comments. People in small towns in Pennsylvania. He didn't insult them, he just stated what he saw as the truth, in a pretty respectful way.
- eregorn, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Same thing if I was very specific about black people saying that they are all bible thumping baptists who cling to the civil rights movement and blame white people because they have nothing else to explain their failure as a people, as I see the truth. Does this make my statement correct? NO
- metaliq, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Thing is, he didn't do that. He referred to a specific group of people, and you just so happened to ascribe black people to that group. Even though the majority of them may be black, he isn't referencing them specifically. You are basically reversing his argument and using unbased logic to support your biased claim.
Gosh. I'm losing faith in the ability for people to think.- eregorn, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The thing is, he did. Specific or not, a group of people is still a group that Obama labeled generally - out of ignorance. NOT ALL of them are bitter and NOT ALL of them "cling" to guns or religion.
I am confused by your failure to see the obvious.
- eregorn, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The thing is, he did. Specific or not, a group of people is still a group that Obama labeled generally - out of ignorance. NOT ALL of them are bitter and NOT ALL of them "cling" to guns or religion.
- metaliq, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Thing is, he didn't do that. He referred to a specific group of people, and you just so happened to ascribe black people to that group. Even though the majority of them may be black, he isn't referencing them specifically. You are basically reversing his argument and using unbased logic to support your biased claim.
- eregorn, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Same thing if I was very specific about black people saying that they are all bible thumping baptists who cling to the civil rights movement and blame white people because they have nothing else to explain their failure as a people, as I see the truth. Does this make my statement correct? NO
- metaliq, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Yes to Russell.
Granted, there is a certain veil when it comes to being politically correct. But speaking the truth, especially when it deals directly with a certain subject, doesn't classify them as a bigot. The signified just so happened to have an identity of the same liking.
You aren't very smart... And stop using idiotic logic.- eregorn, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Obviously you don't get it. It is wrong to say "this group of people is this way" or "that group of people is this way."
- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2
- JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -7/+6Obama just released his taxes for 2007 today.
5 million dollars, yeah he feels your pain.- DevilInPgh, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3It takes money to run for office. Not just donor money, but seed money. You think you have the seed money? If you do, then start running!
- JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I got seeds germinating right now. Hoping for girls.
- danskal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0You're absolutely right..... let's find an unintelligent bum and make him president instead....
- DevilInPgh, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3It takes money to run for office. Not just donor money, but seed money. You think you have the seed money? If you do, then start running!
- btutor, on 04/17/2008, -6/+2Screw that. I live in PA and I wouldn't vote for either of these idiots. If this is the best of the best in the U.S.A., then we suck.
- xen0blue, on 04/17/2008, -9/+4
- DevilInPgh, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Based on your comment history, I would say you probably never had respect for him. So technically you're right. You lost 100% of the 0 respect you had for him in the first place! Just don't parade around as if you had some in the first place.
- allengeer, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3BUT wait.... he also lost .... . 0% of the zero respect...oh my goat.
- metaliq, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1How could you take offense to being called bitter over the mistreatment of the government?
If you denied being bitter of being treated wrong, you sure as hell took it the wrong way. If someone called me bitter for being pissed on for eight years, I would have to agree with them. If you wouldn't, you'd seem like a sedated sheep.
- aleone31, on 04/17/2008, -5/+5With the mistakes Obama seems to be prone to making. It looks like another 4 years of Republican rule. I guess the long election process works. I only wish the republican primaries could have been a little longer, maybe we would have ended up with something better than McClinton
- danskal, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0That's the thing..... Obama doesn't make mistakes (or at least he makes fewer than the other candidates), but republican media will do anything to take him down.
Republicans are fond of making people scared - well I am scared ..... I'm scared that maybe Obama won't get elected. And I don't even live in USA.
Obama is the smart man's choice. I think USA is a smart country.... please don't let me down.
- danskal, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0That's the thing..... Obama doesn't make mistakes (or at least he makes fewer than the other candidates), but republican media will do anything to take him down.
- rahrahrahttyl, on 04/17/2008, -7/+0obama isn't going to "change" anything for the better. he is full with socialist ideas when America is a capitalist country. he tells people to stay away from big business when big business is what supports the country. ugggh he bothers me so much he acts like his ways will fix the problems instantly hes horrible i don't know why people support him
- mikeyeah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6I'm all for Obama to turn this country around and everything, but if you ask me...
WE'RE *****. The damage that has been done to the US in the past 8 years is immeasurable. A big '***** you' to Bush, everyone in his administration, and everyone who ever voted for him. Nice work. Oh, and a big '***** you' to the Media as well.- dopre, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0word!
- JRJames, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0The real problem is that he was attaching a negative connotation to people who are religious or own a gun. His campaign redirects the core issue that's causing all the outrage and argues whether people are "bitter". Red herring anyone?
- spamcrusher, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1I'm bitter, hell everyone is bitter. Seriously, when have people not been bitter? It doesn't mean Obama is the right answer, most of his ideas are wrong for the country. His only good idea is leaving Iraq, everything else will contribute to the destruction of the country. The right answer is drastically lower the power of the federal government, Obama wants to drastically increase the power of the federal government. The answer is to cut unconstitutional programs from the federal government, Obama wants to institute more unconstitutional programs such as federalized health care and massivily increasing our foreign aid to "stomp" poverty worldwide.
I'm all for turning the country around, I just don't think Obama will be the man to do it.- Anisotropic, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Well said. We need to know if O really understands human and political natures. Big government spending invites corruption regardless of laws. Look at the failed campaign reform laws. It only provides employment to lawyers. Influence peddling continues. Feingold and McCain's bill was idiocy at its best.
- qxrt, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Funny how everyone who claims to support Obama as a bitter Pennsylvanian conveniently neglects the part of his comment that really caused this trouble...so are you all bitter people "clinging" to your religions and racism and guns, too? Either you answer "yes" and admit to sticking to your racism and religion because you are incapable of going anywhere else, or you answer "no" and reject Obama's statement. Either way, you lose.
Similar to Gandhi's statement ("I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians"), I find that while Obama may seem like a capable leader (as does Clinton), many of his supporters here on Digg don't even make an effort at providing balanced coverage on a "news" site such as this. I mean, seriously. This article is from a website domain called "barackobama.com"; do you guys really believe this is an unbiased and credible source of news?- 33PercentGod, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Of course we cling to guns. Have you ever been to PA? It's full of hunters and outdoorsmen. Most houses have 2 guns at minimum.
- lazerflesh, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Not just that- but that's not really what Obama said. That's just what Faux spun it into. Either way, America is turning into a big raging idiot. I think that the people with half a brain see that.. and see the stupid parts of America are nothing more than zombies. ... and if we want good for our country we need to seperate ourselves from that.
- Anisotropic, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2So, Obama states the bleeding obvious and he is a genius? If he is so smart why does he not enunciate the root causes of economic malaise and solutions. His solution: For everything tax and spend. Big brother knows best and will take care of you. All he does is point out obvious effects without causes. This is just like a doctor saying that one has a fever or cold.
He then accuses the people of being racists for being concerned about illegal immigration of people not like them. Except for a minority people accept legal immigrants. It is the illegals working a slave wages that people are concerned about.
The problem is that his life is a blank state when it comes to his beliefs, convictions and values. So we have to read between the lines when he says something.- Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2You know, maybe a 50% income tax rate wouldn't be so bad if I had health insurance and could go to a doctor. As far as more government regulation and intervention goes, did you notice that not so long ago the EU became the world's biggest and most successful economy? (citation: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie ...
I thought those EU freaks were just a bunch of clueless socialists. Except, that now they are beating us. I am ready to sign up for a little more socialism, a little more regulation. And single-payer health care is looking better and better. Try to scare me with stories about health-care rationing or waiting periods under single payer? Guess what genius, my current health-care ration is basically zero, and my waiting period currently sits at ‘indefinite’. So going from zero to anything else counts as an improvement!- Rapter09, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1But are they beating you because of all that regulation and intervention, or because your current President completely ran your economy into the ground, and then out the other side?
- Hyperion1144, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2You know, maybe a 50% income tax rate wouldn't be so bad if I had health insurance and could go to a doctor. As far as more government regulation and intervention goes, did you notice that not so long ago the EU became the world's biggest and most successful economy? (citation: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie ...
- powerfullogic, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4I'm voting for Obama but Hillary won the debate in Philly tonight.
- MikeFallopian, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Wasn't even close. Not at all what I was expecting.
- Timetheos, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1What debate was there to win? Looked more like a hit job than a debate.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're