Digg - 15 Whitest States in America: Dem Primary Results

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

473 Comments
Who Dugg It?

cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -224/+44Wonder why he has to make everything about race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs
We should not judge by the color of his biracial skin but on the content of his anti-constitutional character.
Does he actually think we are going to forget that he is not qualified to be president and vote for him because he's biracial?
He supports taking away our right to be secure and to keep and bear arms. He claims that the second amendment is about hunting and has repeatedly sought to keep law abiding Americans from being secure.
Criminals love Obama, he will disarm their victims.
Freedom and Obama are opposites.
- InfamousAtheist, on 05/19/2008, -15/+53One does not have to support every single desire of the NRA in order to support individual gun ownership rights. I'm a gun owner (from TX) and I support sensible regulation of handguns and automatic weapons.
  
  I believe you're the one who's been brainwashed, or are paid by the RNC.
  - Wargalas, on 05/19/2008, -25/+11There already IS sensible regulation, yet Obama wants to ban semi-automatic weapons. That's NOT sensible.
    - Bith8654, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9Obviously there ISN'T sensible regulations since there are so many ***** deaths by semi-auto weapons in this country. You're NOT sensible.
    - IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3would you give up hunting to save just one human life?
      
      I think this is where the real problem is
    - baatezu, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13Everyone seems to miss the real reason the 2nd amendment was in the bill of rights. Its definitely not for hunting (though I have not heard Obama claim that it is). Everything the founding fathers did was about checks and balances. One thing they knew was that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They did everything they could to spread out governmental power so that no one person/group could control the government (probably rolling in their graves now).
      
      The 2nd amendment was about keeping a military check on our government. As long as we had minute men all over the country, our army could not be used against our own people, because these militiamen far outnumbered the army. Now, that being said, even a fully-automatic belt-fed machine gun isn't going to do squat against our military. they will just drop a smart bomb on your ass.
      
      The only way the American militia can keep check on the military is through guerilla tactics, using hometown advantage. If our military ever does start rounding up 'dissidents' in mass numbers and putting them in all those mass jail camps that are going up everywhere, it wont be bazookas and cannons that stop them, it will be explosives and sniper rifles (both of which are still easily attainable). Also, remember that in order for those big guns to function they need parts and ammo from big gun manufacturers (which the govt. most surely would have control over).
      
      So really, why do you need an Uzi? it wont help you hunt, you'd blow the deer apart. it wont help you defend your house, you'd blow your walls apart. and it wont help protect your town from military control, they will blow you apart.
      
      Oh, and by the way, taking away people's guns wont stop people from killing each other. they will just use other weapons. England tried that, now there are just 4x as many stabbing deaths as there are gun deaths.
    - PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@Bith8654
      
      Less than 1/1000th of 1% of the US population died from a handgun in 2005
      
      So I wouldn't say there were "so many deaths" when it's 7,500 out of 300,000,000
      
      @IKORKYI
      
      Not every human life is precious in my opinion. Some people actually deserve to die.
  - skipdog172, on 05/19/2008, -5/+7But....he wants to ban SEMI-automatic weapons. That is 95% of the guns used for hunting. Big difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
    
    Besides, all banning automatic weapons will do is ensure that the only automatic weapons in the country, will be in the hands of criminals.
    
    Look at the drug war. Clearly making something illegal does not make something go away. Banning automatic weapons only takes away law-abiding citizens' freedom away. Some of you may think it is ridiculous to own an automatic weapon, but it is simply a hobby. Shooting automatic weapons is fun, and I believe I should have the freedom to use them as I wish.
    - minorthreat, on 05/19/2008, -6/+12Your passionate about your rights when you believe Obama will take away the right to own a semi-automatic hand-gun. Considering we no longer live in the wild west and a human being can easily survive without a semi-automatic handgun, I would say the right to privacy would be a bigger issue. Did you have a problem when bush took away your right to privacy?
    - PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@minorthreat
      
      As far as I know, my privacy is not being invaded. Of course, I'm not accepting wire transfers from Syrian banks...
      
      Why do you fear guns?
    - TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0both the right to privacy and the right to bear arms should be defended.
  - IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8what criminals do you know that wait for the 3 day period after purchasing a gun then go commit a crime? new rules will only effect those who follow the current ones...which are people who buy their guns with proper background checks and register the serial numbers - not the ones who buy them off the street with the SN filed off.
- bicyclethief, on 05/19/2008, -17/+53cashman57 and reason are opposites
- floort, on 05/19/2008, -10/+15Well, I'd agree with Cashman except that he has his facts wrong. Probably a Rush Limbaugh listener. That's what is really scary. Too many conservatives get their news from lying sources and they believe them!
  - TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Cash is right on the gun issue:
    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
    http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art ...
    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html
- Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -24/+15Why are Americans such cowards? Nobody else in the world is so gay for guns.
  - isaactwito, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9Can everyone in the world who isn't an American please stop being a total dick to Americans for a change? Most of us are in no way like this. I won't defend our current administration or some of the things our government has done in the past, and our country has done some stupid *****. But I don't stand idly by while I'm bashed for no reason. I, along with many people, would be completely fine with an outright ban on guns, they're completely unnecessary in the modern world. These uninformed idiot gun-nuts are a small minority, which the rest of the world has to ***** accept already. How would people react if I said every German was a Nazi, every Afghani a terrorist, or every Frenchman a baguette eating, cigarette smoking, wine-o coward who surrenders to everyone in battle? You'd all ***** hate me and think I was a stupid prick because I'm making horribly wrong generalizations about other nations. So, international community, shut the ***** up or go choke on a dick. Even with the idiots in this country, most Americans try to educate themselves to a point where they won't succumb to ***** like this, I suggest the rest of you try the same. Not to pick on Macrophallus specifically, but I can't stand this *****.
    - Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13"Can everyone in the world who isn't an American please stop being a total dick to Americans for a change?"
      
      This will probably happen when we elect policy makers who aren't total dicks to everyone in the world.
    - Bith8654, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Well as an American, I appreciate you trying to educate yourself like I do. The problem is, while you say these people are a small minority, sometimes I question how small they really are since we have so many problems and nothing seems to be done about them.
    - dynelol, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6You want that idiotic ***** to stop? His name is Macrophallus! Clearly, he has no choice but to be a big dick.
    - IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1i'd tell you to go kill yourself, but now i can be held accountable for that so...
    - senatorpjt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I'll be fine with an outright ban on guns once you get them away from all the criminals first. It doesn't work when you only take them away from the people who would get a license.
    - Maver1c, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2i agree with everything you said EXCEPT that banning guns would be the worst idea ever.
    - isaactwito, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1@Maver1c: I'm not saying we should necessarily ban all guns. It would probably be a good thing in the long run, I believe, but if people are responsible then I don't see why it's that big of an issue. Handguns and assault weapons however I can't usually justify as anything other than an instrument for killing people, which I don't think is something we need to protect the right for people to have.
  - Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7See: your name.
  - IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5what are you compensating for?
  - pitlord, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, nobody else has made more assault rifles than the U.S.A!
    >.>
    Oh wait.
    SNAP!
    There was that little Russian weapon, the AK something? Yeah, I think they made a few more of those.
    (X^P
    Dumbass.
- BonhamsGhost, on 05/19/2008, -8/+11I know you're just a troll and not worth the effort but........Obama is sooooooo much more qualified than G Dumbya ever was. You just have to hear the man speak to realize that. Also this administration has ***** on the constitution more than any other in history.
  - dynelol, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7Better than Bush doesn't mean IDEAL. We've lost our standards just to get anyone better in office. That's bad.
    - BonhamsGhost, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3While I agree with you, who do you suggest is that ideal candidate? Unless zombie George Washington rises from the grave, I'll take Obama over McCain, Hillary, Bush, etc. any day.
    - sparsely, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Ron Paul.
  - locamama, on 05/19/2008, -8/+6Yep, Obama knows all the facts like the fact that they speak Arabic in Afganistan, like there are 57 states etc.
  - TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It is not that black and white, not everybody who does not support Obama likes the GOP.
    - chicofaraby, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2True. Obama is too far right for me.
- wacomwacoff, on 05/19/2008, -4/+17cashman, you're being intentionally stupid. You know quite well that the reason this was posted was in response to Hillary's comments on race and "white states", and serves to prove her wrong.
  
  But it's a lot easier to just change the topic to misinformation about his gun policies, isn't it?
  
  That's called "trolling".
  - pitlord, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1You are proving his point. Both of the Democratic candidates are guilty of playing the race card. Everytime anyone disagrees with Obama, someone steps in and calls them racist to end the discussion.
    - wacomwacoff, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm proving his point about Obama's gun policies by pointing out that this list of states was posted to show that Hillary's comments on "white states" was incorrect and misleading?
      
      Don't give me that ***** about "playing the race card". I'm not even talking about race, I'm calling Cashman on changing the subject to gun policies.
- isaactwito, on 05/19/2008, -12/+10Could you please go commit suicide so that our country isn't as ***** up of a place anymore? No one in the world wants people like you to elect officials.
  - IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1i do. and if they elect an official who i can't live with - i'll move. i just don't think you can pick enough of "those kind of people" to worry me - but if thats what the majority chooses so be it.
    - TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Cash is right on the gun issue:
      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
      http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art ...
      http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html
- jaxcs, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10Maybe because he didn't make this about race? Or is Obama responsible for everything written by every bloger in the world.
- Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -3/+19I'd trade my AR-15 for Habeas-Corpus and due process. The alleged Semi-automatic thing bugs me a bit but do you really think such legislation would ever get anywhere? NRA types are never willing to make any concessions on anything and have a bit of a one track mind, It doesn't matter if a politician has a proven track record of lies, corruption and flip-flopping, takes money from corporate lobbyists, lacks even a basic understanding of economics and foreign policy or violates election laws, as long as they will let you take a stinger missile into a preschool they are the only viable candidate. I think this all or nothing mentality is a symptom of right-wingers in general, they tend to see things in black and white. That is not how the world works, there are shades of gray. This type of 2-dimensional thinking got us George W. Bush.
  - republicker, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3I can understand where your coming from but Habeas Corpus and due process will not fire a full metal jacket, and that my friend, is the only thing that will ensure we will not be turned into a dictatorship without a fight.
    - Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Fair enough, but I don't see anyone fighting, I do however see people more engaged in political discussion than I have in quite a while.
    - Brian48216, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2if it comes to the point that we need guns to put up a fight against a dictatorship taking over instead of laws and debate, then there isn't much left to fight for at that point.
    - republicker, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@Brian48
      I guess you have no self respect. Would you rather die by firing squad or die defending your family?
    - monoa, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2I wonder how you rationalise the fact that every other democratic country on the planet has gun control laws far tougher than the USA, and yet they do not turn in to dictatorships?
      
      This NRA fantasy about all those good ol' boys with 'full metal jackets' stopping the guvurnmunt is just that - a fantasy. It's a circle jerk so you can sit at home and polish your gun.
    - TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Monoa - look where those laws got Australia:
      http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html
      
      google "Switzerland gun law" for a look at a democracy with MUCH more liberal gun laws than the USA and see what it did for them.
    - Brian48216, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@republicker
      Not a matter of self respect or anything, but if the country degrades to that point, then we all would deserve the firing squad for letting it get that bad to begin with.
- kenedamick, on 05/19/2008, -3/+7Ahhhhh Cashman - king of the digg-down
- josereyes0, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when the constitution was signed they foresaw the ability to gather semi-automatics to be as easy as it is today. Not quite weapons of mass destruction but surely weapons that make a lot easier to create massive damage than say if you had a rifle... I do believe in the constitution but it does need to evolve with the times and be controlled a little so we can avoid troubled individuals easily going around shooting everyone they see in campus.
  - shiftclick, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yay! Flint muskets for the drug dealers! That'll work!
- chromerium, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1hey what does this block button do?
- pitlord, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1These libtards are kidding themselves if they think they can win the election with this kind of racist propaganda. The world is going to get pretty tired of being called racist every time someone asks Obama a difficult question.
  -_-
  So, yeah. Keep plastering Obama's racist rhetoric all over the web.
NoDrama, on 05/19/2008, -27/+112Ah, despite the evidence that Obama is supportive of gun-owners rights, cashman needs to try to find fault with a former professor of consitutional law, since addressing the actual subject of the article would require both reading it and examining the false premises that others are using to decry Obama's potential.
- cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -44/+17He has never been supportive of the right to keep and bear arms. He has repeatedly voted to infringe on that right.
  He voted to make you a criminal if you use your gun in self defense, supports banning guns if they are priced low enough the poor are able to afford them and ban guns if they are semi-automatic, the kind women and elderly prefer because they don't kick, barring law abiding people from owning guns if they live in the inner city and wants to enact a federal law to end concealed carry nationwide.
  If you are going to lie about Obama at least do it in some area where he does not have such a long record .
  http://www.sportsmenforobama.org
  Try again. Maybe you will find some place where I have been wrong about Obama but given the fact I have done my research I doubt it sincerely.
  - barackoblogger, on 05/19/2008, -22/+17Guns in the inner city kill people. they don't protect people.
    - Wargalas, on 05/19/2008, -8/+20No, PEOPLE kill people. Guns are a tool. Just like a knife or a car.
    - pintomp3, on 05/19/2008, -5/+11cars and knives have other uses.
    - cdahlkvist, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13Illegal guns in the inner city are being used to kill people. The legal gun owners aren't the ones doing the killing.
      
      I own 1 handgun as protection against an intruder. If you don't like that then start cracking down on these career criminals so I don't have a need to protect myself.
      
      I also have a license to conceal and carry and I'll be damned if they are going to revoke that because some people feel I don't have a right to arm myself.
      
      I don't conceal and carry but the option is my right and that is reason enough to have the permit.
      
      Too many liberals want to give these criminals not just a 2nd chance but a 3rd and 4th and 5th chance.
      
      How many innocent people have to be murdered before you realize that criminals are less likely to attack and armed person (they are cowards) and criminals will always have guns whether law abiding citizens are allowed to or not.
      
      Do you really live in such a fantastic fantasy world that you think banning guns is going to make the criminals put them down because it's now illegal? If that were the case there would be no crime at all.
    - Alreadyinuse99, on 05/19/2008, -2/+14So far, I have been able to restrain my gun from going out at night and killing people. It's hard to do. Especially when my gun gets on a drinking binge.
    - Alreadyinuse99, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7Is it a documented fact that all guns in the inner city have been used to kill someone and no gun in the inner city has ever been used to protect someone? I'm just curious about this. I am sure that with a blanket statement like this, there must be some sort of documented evidence right? You wouldn't be parroting a typical liberal response would you?
    - jwelchtex, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6Wargalas is right. Just the other day I was cleaning my knife, it went off and accidently killed my wife.
    - Wargalas, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Guns have other uses besides killing people. If you don't know what they are, you shouldn't be commenting on them and advocating laws and politicians who try to infringe on gun owners' Constitutional rights.
    - biotch, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3"No, PEOPLE kill people. Guns are a tool"
      
      Yeah and by that logic we should legalize nukes. Nukes are just a tool. Its the people that set them off. The problem is at some point, a tool becomes hazardous to the welfare of the general public. Where that line is drawn is the argument here. Dont distract everyone by suggesting he actually meant that a physical gun gets up and decides to kill people.
      
      "Illegal guns in the inner city are being used to kill people. The legal gun owners aren't the ones doing the killing."
      
      Id like to see some documentation backing this up.
    - cdahlkvist, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2biotch: "Id like to see some documentation backing this up."
      
      We can start you off with a nice PDF from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf
      
      Or how about a pie chart on Wiki (also from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firearmsources. ...
      
      Of course you probably don't really care about facts. If you did you could have found the above links yourself. Instead you were just trying to push your personal agenda with made up liberal hype.
  - cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -18/+13If that is true then Obama disarms his security detail whenever he is in the inner city.
    Of course 2.5 million defensive gun uses prove you wrong as does Obama hiding behind people with guns 24/7
    Perhaps you are like Obama and unaware that in order for there to be security in a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    It is sad to see people like you who have been so brainwashed by Obama.
  - okokokok, on 05/19/2008, -3/+19
    - AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Whose common sense gets applied? His regulations involve banning guns he doesn't like because they "sound or look scary." Most banners have NO idea what different action types mean, think semi automatic will spray bullets around, have no idea of the difference between a clip and a magazine, a round/cartridge or bullet, nor a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or suppressor. However, they will all just as easily ban them or regulate them into the ground rather than become educated about their purposes.
  - firstpost, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1"I think it's important to conserve the right to bear arms and arm bears and all points in between!"
    -Congressman Alex Shrub (GTA Vice City on VCPR)
- irvman21, on 05/19/2008, -27/+10Can you provide an example of Obama's support for gun-owner's rights?
  - okokokok, on 05/19/2008, -4/+27
    - irvman21, on 05/19/2008, -19/+7So he says he believes in gun-owner's rights, but he supports and votes for bills that are contrary to his supposed beliefs.
    - frankingeneral, on 05/19/2008, -1/+23How is tracing a bullet that was used in a crime infringing upon the average gun-owners rights? There is a huge difference between regulating dangerous weapons, and infringing on a gun owner's right to bear arms.
    - noahhoward, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5irvman21: Proving that common sense is anything but common.
    - Wargalas, on 05/19/2008, -6/+4@General
      
      He's also advocating banning semi-automatic weapons. Which means, that if you're in a situation where you need to fire at someone, you have to either re-***** the weapon or reload the weapon. That takes precious seconds away from when you could be putting down that threat.
      
      THAT'S infringing on people's rights.
    - Adelie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4As if the writings of Jefferson weren't enough to EASILY understand the meaning of the second amendment, compare with Section 8 - Powers of Congress in the Constitution:
      "...To raise and support Armies...To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
      BUT (as in an amendment to that)
      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
      Or in Jefferson's own words, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of guns."
      There is a big difference between opposing the violent overthrow of the government versus working within the system, and saying it is safer to just let one group of people have all the weapons. That is tyranny.
    - ParticleMan420, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2learn to aim then, it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone.
- burninthepyre, on 05/19/2008, -2/+44* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
  
  Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
  
  Google is fun.
  
  Obama also supports micro stamping.
  - mustafya, on 05/19/2008, -19/+17The only one of those I support is child-safety locks. The other stuff is most definitely infringing upon my rights.
    - PabloMac, on 05/19/2008, -7/+13...and won't do a thing to prevent crime.
    - skipdog172, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Now I was reading that this 'Test' was filled out by his aides. I have essentially been assuming that because I cannot find any other point where he says he is for banning the sale and transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
      
      Was the test filled out by his aides, or will he really sign a bill that outlaws semi-automatic weapons? Is there anywhere that evidence of this can be seen?
      
      In case some of you don't know, semi-automatic weapons are about 95% of hunting guns. It is not like semi-automatic weapons are "rare" or "unnecessary". They are a staple and just about anybody who goes hunting, does so with a semi-automatic weapon.
    - bicyclethief, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5Do the animals get machetes or anything to make it sporting?
  - MacEnvy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+15Those things are only valid if he believes that the FEDERAL government should be regulating those things as well. I see no evidence of that - in fact, he has been much more lenient on gun issues in regard to federal legislation, as opposed to his thoughts on state regulation.
    
    You states' rights folks should be applauding a politician who recognizes the differences between state and federal responsibilities.
- raybury, on 05/19/2008, -17/+3Lecturer, not professor.
  - The_Wallbanger, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. "
    
    SOURCE: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/19/2008, -8/+11Obama is as supportive of Gun Owner's Rights as Bush is of preventing terrorists from hating us for our freedoms. As already implied, he seems to believe that ownership of firearms is a privilege that can be whisked away by a whim and a pen stroke. He is wrong on this and wrong for the country.
  That a constitutional lawyer has such a poor grasp of the Bill of Rights is astounding.
  - roflbrothel, on 05/19/2008, -5/+5Ok... can you show us what lead you to this conclusion or are you just talking out of your ass? Is this based on any credible information?
    - AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7Simply put he is for marginalizing the right to K&BA with restrictions on the action type (Semi Auto) as well as other feel-good legislation that has no benefit in actually reducing crimes or murders.
  - Lazydriver, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
    * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
    * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
    
    Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
    
    Why do I have to post someone else's comment?
- PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7Supportive of gun-owners' rights? As in finding it perfectly acceptable to have cities and states ban guns?
  
  If that's being supportive, I'd hate to see what he would allow if he was against gun-owners' rights.
- monoa, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4cashman57 don't do facts and research. He don't need 'em. He just knows.
  
  A good example being his drivel on volcanoes / anthropogenic climate change.
- topace3000, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5Obama is the most restrictive of gun rights of the 3 potential candidates, and if elected will probably be the most anti-gun president the US has ever had. But you get dugg up for saying what people want to hear I guess.
  - Lazydriver, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Correction, Hilary was the most restrictive, and I fear all three for taking my liberties now...
    
    That gun thing really turned me off on my "Obama is a savior." thing. Like ***** would be any better though, that idiot's Bush #3 and Hilary? Anyone remember that Brady Bill? Yeah..... I'm gonna bet Hilary supported it. I want a liberal in office, not a god damned rightskiller.
    - topace3000, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Some would say they want a conservative, not someone who will restrict their freedoms. But in the end, there aren't that many differences between them.
      
      Anyway, from what I've read Obama actually does seem to be more restrictive. Remember, he made the comment about small-town people clinging to guns out of prejudice and fear.
- TruthExposed, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3!!!!!!!!!!!CASH IS RIGHT ON GUN CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  In Switzerland the government issues all men (and women who volunteer) a fully automatic assault rifle for their military service obligation. The weapon must be kept in operating condition, and X number of bullets must be available in the persons home. The weapon becomes the citizens personal property.
  This policy kept Switzerland out of both world wars despite being in the middle of Europe and loaded with wealth, and keeps violent crime at just about the lowest rate in the industrialized world, even in the "gettos" of their 3 or 4 major cities. Culturally similar Germany to the immediate north has draconian gun laws, and a very high violent crime rate.
  When they banned guns in Australia, violent crime increased 50% almost immediately - http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html
  Similar stories in the UK, South Africa, Jamaica, and just about every country you look at.
  Gun control advocates really have no case. I am not much of a Republican, but they are right on this issue.
  
  The Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963907/p ...
  http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_Obama_Fo ...
  
  http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12556
  I believe Obama is well meaning, just misinformed on this issue.
BevHlsHousewife, on 05/19/2008, -15/+287
- isunktheship, on 05/19/2008, -10/+2definitely not the backbone of the country
  - sevenvt, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1yes because most people in this country lack a backbone.
  - widgetmaker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1point..missed etc..
- Mackofalltrades, on 05/19/2008, -12/+6And have they been to college?
- ventralnet, on 05/19/2008, -3/+18Yea the racism doens't necessarily come from a white dominant state, but states with the least educated whites
- unclemeat, on 05/19/2008, -4/+12Maybe, but is your comment stolen from the blog????
  
  Robert W. said...
  [Better wording of your comment here.]
  at MAY 18, 2008 6:51 PM
  
  Yes, yes it is.
- Daedalus81, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Maine (2002)
  70% of Mainers lack a college degree
  10.7% received food stamps
  9.1% of households received home energy assistance
  11.5% of the state lives in poverty
  $97m was paid out in unemployment benefits
  - dynelol, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3I'm actually in Maine now and i'm doing the best i can to get the ***** out of it.
  - DevilDriver, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3So this is a good thing, right? If the uneducated, poor, most-likely bigot white people can vote for Obama, then we shouldn't have to worry about the educated, upstanding white folks.
  - CalvinMonk, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0Link your references or get no credibility.
- Hiltonizer, on 05/19/2008, -10/+2Anybody that Maine votes for, you can assure they are *****.
- ligyron, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Dugg for not being a lamer and saying "/sarcasm"
- mozert, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I lol'd.
- canUdi9it, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Nah, they spend all day on Digg.
- publiclurker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well, they don't move their lips when they read, so they can't be working that hard.
foxhaze, on 05/19/2008, -16/+42Wow, white people voting for Barack. Wonder what subtle racism could be happening there?
- provost, on 05/19/2008, -3/+29maybe its something like.. they are only voting for the white half of him while thinking that the black half of him must be his white half's house servant.
  
  You know, i dont even consider barrack black. He is my leading candidate, I dont care what race he is, anyways. The whole thing is a bunch of BS. But as I said, I dont even consider him black. He is just as much white as he is black, whats the difference? I just consider him a mixed race, the same as probably 99% of the population on earth is.
  - CrazedLeper, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Congratulations on not taking to heart the foolishness that has so very many believing that they are superior. Unfortunately, there are still very many such persons and some of those have learned to keep their mouth shut about it because they are in high places.
    
    Their silence gives them the invisibility and plausible deniability needed to continue crafting dual-purpose policies which have stated goals upon which everyone can agree but which also have secondary effects that *somehow* seem to be to the detriment of the people they secretly hate.
    
    It's really not that hard to do; you see how smart Bush isn't, don't you? Of course he's one of them. Remember Mark Furman? "I haven't said the 'N' word in 10 years" --yeah, right. You don't know who's who until they get caught on video (Michael Richards) but there are very many of them and they have a plan.
  - rezonq3, on 05/19/2008, -6/+2I don't know whether to digg you up or down. Regardless of whether you '...don't even consider him black' and that '...he is just as much white as he is black' shows how much you you see him as something with respect to race. You solidified your position when you said you consider him a 'mixed race'.
    
    The way that you think of things suggests to me that you have something to prove to the world, or at the very least, yourself.
    
    You want to know the way I see Barack? As a human being. A member of the HUMAN RACE.
    
    His ETHNICITY is of no concern to me as ethnicity should have no bearing on his ability to be President and Commander-in-Chief. His ideals, policies, voting record, intelligence, and anything else directly related to the aforementioned job of President is of concern and are the ONLY things I judge the man on.
    - Sherman901, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3eh, i'm digging you down because you came off as arrogant. the dude isn't trying to prove anything to the world by posting a comment on digg.
    - rezonq3, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Sometimes I just snap when I continue to hear people speak of groups of human beings as 'races' of human beings. It just shows how far we need to come when we still refer to each other as different the way we refer to a dog different from a horse. My apologies for the rant, this 'race' bs just really sets me off sometimes.
- jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -6/+13So if white people dont vote for Obama its racism.
  
  But percentages like in PA where 92 percent of black men voted for Obama
  and 91% of blacks for Obama in Northern Carolina ....
  
  THAT'S NOT RACIST????
  - growler1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3We Northern (sic) Carolinians would like to point out that "black" people only make up 21.7% of the overall state population, and an even smaller percentage of that are eligible to vote.
    
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html
    
    Also, I imagine the 91% [citation needed] of black people that did vote for Barack were probably voting for Obama because they like him (like I do) and also somewhat *against* the inherent race-baiting of the Clinton campaign that started before South Carolina (like I did).
  - zombies187, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Uhhh, dude? The point of the article is that white people ARE voting for him. As well as black people. Have you ever considered that the repubs just don't offer what black people want in a candidate?
  - sonstone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Actually, no it's not. Clinton had a lead in the african american vote when all of this started, but somewhere along the line she did something that drew them away.
- dudeguy1234, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1With travel and intermarriage we'll all be essentially one race within 2-300 years, so it doesn't matter. YAY!
redcolumbine, on 05/19/2008, -14/+129I voted for Obama, and I'm green with purple spots.
- mtwoar, on 05/19/2008, -3/+40Mom?
  - dynelol, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Check the deep cave thread.
- Blitzwing84, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Survivors of nuclear mishaps unite!
- DeadFox1, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12you should get that taken care of...
- follower64, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Time-traveling alien?
  - aptanalogy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8NOT ALL time-traveling aliens are necessarily green with purple spots, racist...
    
    /sarc
- Lbrewer42, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Does this mean that people who are ill will vote this way?
- flagg85, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2STD?
- HellDonut, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Green Tentacle, long time no see! So, who did your brother Purple Tentacle vote for? McCain, I'd bet?
  - sternje, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the Maniac Mansion reference.
    - aptanalogy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Great game or the greatest game?
- sylvok, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4You are a clearly unrepresented minority.
- zapatosdepatos, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5You just want better Healthcare, you selfish selfish green person. :)
- FXPooky, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3To hell with purple people!
  - TheCollective00, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1...Unless they're choking. Then help them!
- McShaken, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Err... I'm not a doctor, but you should probably get that checked....
- dudeguy1234, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Grandma!
cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -46/+18http://www.sportsmenforobama.org

That link is for those who make the false claim that Obama is for the right of the people to be secure and to keep and bear arms.
Americans are not going to sacrifice their liberty and security and vote for Obama.
He is of the belief that banning guns and barring law abiding Americans from owning guns is not an infringement on the right to the people to be secure and to keep and bear arms.
If Obama truly believes we are safer when we are disarmed he would disarm his security detail.
Please let me know when he stops being a hypocrite.
- mydigga, on 05/19/2008, -4/+13Again with your whining about ***** guns... let it go. No one is going to take your precious little guns. No one is going to take my guns, I invite them to try. Gun control is about # 963 on everyone's agenda.
  
  "Americans are not going to sacrifice their liberty and security and vote for Obama" You're damn straight, some of them learned their lesson after they voted for Bush!
  - jameskong15, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1He may not want to take your gun from you, but he's for a national ban (federal level) on CCW with exceptions for police and military even though this is currently handled by the states...
    - jameskong15, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Ohes noes, obviously some ppl can't take the truth.
  - m.sandstorm, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Church!
  - FatherVic, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2In the aftermath of katrina, the local police and US Marshals broke into houses and took firearms at gunpoint. The New Orleans Superintendant of Police, P. Edwin Compass said, "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
    And they were.
    They will take our guns we let them.
    - MacEnvy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Weird, I didn't know Obama was in charge of the New Orleans Superintendent of Police.
      
      Oh wait, he isn't? And your comment has nothing to do with Obama or his feelings on the issue? I see.
      
      Perhaps you should take up your displeasure with Mr. Compass rather than passing the blame for his error onto the shoulders of unrelated people.
    - FatherVic, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Did you fail reading comprehension?
      let me break down for you step by step so that you can understand what has happened here.
      cashman57 said...
      "That link is for those who make the false claim that Obama is for the right of the people to be secure and to keep and bear arms.
      Americans are not going to sacrifice their liberty and security and vote for Obama.
      He is of the belief that banning guns and barring law abiding Americans from owning guns is not an infringement on the right to the people to be secure and to keep and bear arms.
      If Obama truly believes we are safer when we are disarmed he would disarm his security detail.
      Please let me know when he stops being a hypocrite."
      
      to which mydigga replied...
      "Again with your whining about ***** guns... let it go. No one is going to take your precious little guns. No one is going to take my guns, I invite them to try. Gun control is about # 963 on everyone's agenda.
      
      "Americans are not going to sacrifice their liberty and security and vote for Obama" You're damn straight, some of them learned their lesson after they voted for Bush!"
      
      You see, cashman57 says that Obama is going to take our guns and mydigga retorts, saying that no one is going to take our guns.
      
      Now. For your sake, I am going to define some words that I have used so that you can comprehend what has just happened.
      RETORT - transitive verb1: to pay or hurl back : return 2 a: to make a reply to b: to say in reply3: to answer (as an argument) by a counter argumentintransitive verb1: to answer back usually sharply2: to return an argument or charge3: retaliate
      
      So, mydigga has "answered back" to a comment made by cashman57. Are you following me so far. Now the conversation is not about the article, rather it is about whether or not anyone is going to take guns away from the people. I replied to mydigga with some historical substance to prove my point that not only is there a possibility of them taking our guns, but they have in fact done it in one instance.
      
      I can see how you were confused and I hope that i have cleared up any misunderstanding you might have about my comments.
- frankingeneral, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6How are some of these votes "anti gun owners"? I mean why on God's green earth would any responsible, reasonable, legal gun owner ever need a "cop killer" kevlar piercing bullet? That's a common sense ban, that's not anti-gun owner.
  - FatherVic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1125429.html
    Criminals are starting to wear them now.
- Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6I live in South Africa, the most dangerous country in the world. I don't have a gun. Nobody I know has a gun. You gun nuts are paranoid wankers.
- jamesfrmmaine, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Classic refuge of the right wing, when all else fails tell them he will take away your guns. During the 2004 election they were saying Kerry was gonna take away their guns, before Clinton was in office for 8 years, he was gonna take away the guns.
  
  Standard FUD.
- Adelie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Do keep in mind he has his experience of working on legislation for CHICAGO. I am pro responsible gun owner, and I think Texas is a great example of how good responsible, community oriented gun control works (everybody has one and is trained); I live in California. I can at least be open minded to the idea I might feel quite a bit different if I was hanging out on the South Side of Chicago, and I don't think any number of guns would make my white ass safe.
macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -32/+305Is anyone not a racist? Let's look at the evidence.

If I'm black, and I vote for Obama, I'm a racist - voting for him because he's black.
If I'm white, and I vote for Obama, I'm a racist - voting for him because he's black.
If I'm white, and I vote against Obama, I'm a racist - refusing to vote for him because he's black.
If I'm black, and I vote against Obama... Wait, we have a winner. The only non-racists in this country are black people who don't vote for Obama! Yay!
- oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -0/+73Don't forget we're all sexist now too. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19wo ...
  - macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+32After further analysis, I have concluded that the only non-racist, non-sexist people in this entire country are black women voting for McCain.
    - serif69, on 05/19/2008, -0/+14I disagree. They would be known as "house *****" or "Uncle Toms" by the black community at large. It's a losing proposition no matter who you are.
    - Appleboi4evr, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1correction: Black lesbian women voting for McCain
      are the least __ist
  - mnemy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10“The most important contribution she has made is to show that women candidates are just like men candidates,” said Joan Scott, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study. “You have to judge them not on the basis of their gender but their character.”
    Damn straight. I'm sick of those fem-nazis that blame everything on sexism. If you're blaming all of your problems on the fact that you're a woman, YOU'RE the one who's sexist. Grow up.
  - thescimitar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Wow, sometimes the Times really sucks. What kind of lede is this: "With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit."
    
    Could there be any more subtle editorializing in that sentence? Jesus.
- toxicityj, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2Do those exist?
  - DteK, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1we would if we had other options other than this two party nonsense
- isunktheship, on 05/19/2008, -11/+3self-loathing blacks could be seen as racist, also whites voting for a black man isn't racist.. if anything it's revolutionary.
- romistrub, on 05/19/2008, -2/+49Let me simplify this. If anybody is voting for or against someone because of their race, they are racist.
  - locamama, on 05/19/2008, -10/+3And if they are voting for someone because of their race, they are also racist.
    - Dustmuffins, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Read his comment again.
      
      If anybody is voting FOR or AGAINST someone because of their race, they are racist.
      
      You are a skilled reader.
    - locamama, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Sorry sometimes real life distracts me. I noticed it later.
  - macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I know... Just pointing out the folly of everyone running around accusing everyone else of being racist based on their choice of candidate.
    - bicyclethief, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Don't forget accusations of being hillbillies.
    - sonstone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1No-one is accusing everyone else of being racist based on their choice of candidate. The issue has always been harnessing the racism that anyone that is from the south or appalachia would not deny exists at varying levels depending on the age of the individual.
- FutureGuy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+15No if you are Black and didn't vote for Obama then also you are a racist, he wasn't black enough for you.
  But seriously I like what romistrub above had to say, if you are voting based on race you are racist.
  - CaptainShaun, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5So the line of thinking is this?
    
    "Well, Obama isn't black enough, so I'm going to vote Hillary/McCain (because they are)."
- 11up, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Wow. Sad but basically true. What I don't get is why people aren't saying that many McCain and Clinton supporters are only voting for them because they're racist and don't want a black president. Somehow that actually seems more likely, yet it's getting far less attention.
  - jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7I'm not voting for Obama because I think he's an idiot...
- acegi, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6what about people who vote/don't vote mccain because he's too old?
  
  are they ageist?
  - zombies187, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Thats only one of many of my reasons not to vote for m'kayn.
  - chodges4, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2no they just think he might die any day now...
- Lbrewer42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+15Can you imagine what a stir it would cause if the shoe were on the other foot? Can we imagine what the press would do with a title of "15 Blackest States in America:" If the press were not so busy making a big deal of how bad the racist problem is, they might have the chance to figure out THEY are the ones who contribute to it most by keeping it on the forefront!
- taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Depends on the person's motives genius.
  - macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I was being satirical, genius.
- Zipko, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3"You ain't so tough now, little *****. I hate your black bastards, you stink! I hate your black skin. I hate your black pants. I hate black pepper. I hate black keys on a piano. I hate my gums, because they're black. I hate Whoopi Goldberg's lips. I hate the back of Forrest Whittaker's neck. Huh? Most of all, I hate that black-ass Wesley Snipes."
  
  Got to love black people being racist.
  - abby11, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Education in America :Gone!
- Adelie, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I don't know "people" that are actually saying that, other than those that might make money saying it. moot.
- DrCyclops, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Well I'm ageist, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for an elderly bastard like John McCain!
- exronin, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Only way to make sure you are not racist, is by not voting.
  - zombies187, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Racist!
    jk
- roflbrothel, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3WE MUST STOP THIS RAMPANT DISCRIMINATION!
- skippy17, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5So vote for Ron Paul, duh
  - qbthemc, on 05/19/2008, -3/+0NO
- sonstone, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Oh fun, let's oversimplify the issue into absurdity so we don't have to face difficult problems.
- siszam, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Obama is half white too. It seems pretty racist to ignore the fact that his mother is white. He's no more black than he is white. He's mixed. If he has light skin he wouldn't be white. He would still be mixed. Even Obama identifies himself as black. It irks me that he and everyone else portrays him as one race. I don't care what you are but be true to it and proud of it.
  - pensivewombat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1He does talk about his mixed background, I would imagine that he identifies himself as biracial rather than just black, but people impose the black label on him as a holdover from the old "one drop rule" and I'm sure he doesn't want to spend the time and energy to take that on along with everything else he's had to overcome in this process.
- SicKiller, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I'm racist - I hate the human race
  
  but seriously, I'm white and I vote - http://www.tshirtinferno.com/node/69
- portlyfrank, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2How come only whites are racists and men are sexist?
  - pensivewombat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Millennia of entrenched power structures. Why do you ask?
- sumgi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure these facts are racist, these facts appear to be saying that the people who are most likely to vote for a black president are the people that do not know any black people.
Macrophage, on 05/19/2008, -23/+23It is not racism alone that causes the lose..there were voter purges..Rush Democrates, shady poll practices etc too. Please keep in mind that in many state areas..the folks are poor rural..and they work very hard. They DO NOT have Blackberrys, cells phones that connect to the net , take pictures, play songs etc. They are hard pressed to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads...so they get very limited exposure to political commentary and research, nor do they have the time to go seek it..they eat they sleep they survive..and yes...they vote.

PEACE
John
- isunktheship, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5take your serious heartfelt comments elsewhere sir, this is digg.
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3very limited exposure means they dont get fed the propaganda garbage on all these ridiculous internet blogs written by armchair analysts. stop taking the damn leftist elitist stance that makes people hate liberals. "they dont have blackberries and macs and therefore they are not educated enough (like I am with my computers and digg and huffpo propaganda) to know who to vote for (like I do, because i research on huffpo and am therefore smarter than you on this topic).
  this is the logic of many wealthy, bored, netsurfing liberals. this is their justification for choosing who they choose. just because they dont agree with you doesnt mean they don't care as much as you, or research this stuff as much as you. that's just a ridiculously elitist view. liberals sop up the huffpo/dailykos/rawstory propaganda as much as any conservative watching foxnews and they call THAT "research". give me a break.
  stop trying to act enlightened to defend yourself against the fact that people can have a different, yet EQUALLY VALID, viewpoint. it's that kind of rampant liberal elitism that kills us, and dont try to tell me that just because you patronize people who "have to keep a roof over their heads" you are siding with them, because that was an obvious subtle putdown about how informed they are in comparison to you. =elitist.
  - Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Just because a blog presents a left-leaning opinion doesn't mean they're lying, it means they have an opinion. That's the difference between Fox news / Rush Limbaugh etc. and the "Liberal Media" It is very easy to make the distinction between "Fact" and "Opinion" if your brain functions, Fox presents untruths and speculation as though they were facts, which is then used to justify an opinion.
    - stonewaljacksn, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3 RawStory will take two words out of context n hit the frontpage of digg with it. This is what Fox does too. If you weren't blind and biased you would realize this. You are so caught up in the right vs. left thing that you refuse to see the similarities and hypocrisy from both sides.
      And then what happens? The liberals use "being educated" to justify their equally valid/invalid opinions. That is the stereotypical liberal defense, and the end result is elitism. The thing is, they are no more educated, they just think they are.
    - Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Heh, the raw story, they can get pretty ridiculous sometimes, I'll give you that. I'm glad you acknowledge that FOX does it too, I believe I have a pretty good ***** detector, and it does go off now and then with some of the more extreme leftist blogs, I don't really see a problem with posting opinions though (that's why we're here isn't it?) I do have a problem with anti-intellectualism, which I see constantly, If someone makes a coherent argument based upon fact and history, they are branded as some sort of elitist. Just because a tea-sipping city-dwelling bookworm like myself doesn't understand what it's like to be a poor factory worker in rural America (I don't) doesn't automatically make me wrong about anything. Wrongs happen on both sides, but every election cycle I've witnessed in my lifetime has Democrats trying to debate policy while the Republicans spout off ridiculous Ad hominem attacks based on elitism, religion, "values"(aka bigotry), guilt by association, patriotism etc, and it's worse then ever: this time around we get flag pins, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama: is he a secret MUSLIM infiltrator?!, GOD DAMN AMERICA!, and the list goes on and on. You see bias on both sides, fine so do I, but I also see more outright ***** coming from one side. Don't assume everyone on the left is brain-washed by propaganda. Shall I bring up evangelical Christians?
    - stonewaljacksn, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I am what would be cast as a latte sipping liberal intellectual bookworm myself. I don't agree with the Modern Right's emphasis on religion and "values", but it does strike a serious chord with a big part of America and therefore it deserves to be taken as a valid viewpoint. Not agreeing with THOSE people doesnt make someone "wrong". Calling them backwards or uneducated just because you don't agree WOULD make you wrong.
      Politically, I agree with the traditional republican POLITICAL stances of less taxes and small government, but the issue is so hazy these days that such talk is almost irrelevant anymore.
      By today's standards, since morality has become so intertwined with politics, I am a liberal (althought fiscally I side with true conservatives). The views of the Right are not my own, and although I try to understand them, I am not in a position to EVALUATE them or tell them how they SHOULD think. We are too different.
      This is why I save my criticism for my OWN side, the left. I went through the whole College "Blind Liberal" thing of thinking that every Republican is some kind of supervillain conspirator. It's EASY to hate on people you don't understand. We will not be taken seriously unless we show some maturity on our side regardless of how "immature" the Right may appear to us. If the left truly was "enlightened", everyone on this side would understand that the burden of enlightenment is on the enlightened.
      What disillusioned me and made me stop identifying with the blind far left so strongly was the emphasis on telling everyone who doesn't agree with them how "unenlightened" they are . It's a childish way of putting people down when we can't find a legitimate response. WE are unenlightened if we do not even take the time to understand the views of the far right. But *****, this is digg, where joining the herd and calling conservatives stupid hicks gets you 147 diggs.
    - Infidelcastr0, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Hmmm, what to say to that.... I agree with most of it. I do believe in some social programs but only to the extent we can afford them (which I believe we could if we got our priorities straight, including a tight monetary policy) It's true that there is a tendency for many liberals to look down on those we see as less educated, I guess I just get a bit annoyed by people using elitism as an argument when they can't win on the issues (which I mistakenly thought you were doing). It is wrong to look down on people but it seems like we're not allowed to attack flawed reasoning because that makes us smug or something, regardless of whether the reasoning was actually flawed or not, kind of a rock and hard place situation if you will. I also kind of went from a "republicans are evil" mentality to a "hmm why do they think that way? maybe they have a point" mentality. I do, however, believe that I CAN find legitimate responses to the majority of right-wing arguments, I guess it's hard not to sound elitist when you say: I'm right, You're wrong, Here's why. It, of course would be wrong, to simply dismiss the beliefs of such a huge portion of America, but the fact remains that a huge portion of America believes that Islam should be destroyed, Gay people are sinners, African-Americans and Latinos are criminals, and Poor people don't want to work. What do we do in such a situation? Acknowledge that they are right because there are so many of them? Try our best to change their minds without sounding dismissive and elitist? It's kind of a catch-22. People have a right to believe whatever they want, I'm just jaded because I sometimes feel like we're being dragged down by people who don't even understand what they are voting for (conservatives who haven't figured out they're libertarians yet) and people who are voting based on fear, hatred and god.This makes it pretty easy to look at people scornfully, which is wrong. I wish there could just be a fair debate of the issues without the name calling (hick or elitist) Oh well, my heads gonna explode if I keep going around in circles here. Bottom line, You are absolutely 100% RIGHT that we need to show some maturity (but so do they). Dugg.
    - stonewaljacksn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2agreed as well. and indeed it's hard to be a freethinking liberal and NOT be jaded.
      good little thread. dugg as well.
- taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1They don't deserve to vote then.
- riyehn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I smash Democrates with my crowbar for medkits.
- sithie, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1what exactly are you trying to say?
  
  PEACE
  Kevin
rjc5056, on 05/19/2008, -10/+3Irrefuta-burn!
ontain, on 05/19/2008, -6/+21Clearly Hillary means that he can't win the hard working 'southern' whites.
- HueyP, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1what about North Carolina
  - Terasiel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Good point.
- nylrym, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Apparently we're not hardworking ;)
- KLBP, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Anyone who knows their Civil War history knows that West Virginia is a northern state.
  - publiclurker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Just because the southern states don't want them, doesn't mean the Yankees are stuck with them does it?
bigpeeler, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6Start ad hominem attacks....now!
- Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5You are a nice person.
- xadhominemx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What if I don't wanna?
plizard, on 05/19/2008, -23/+15hey obama said he supports and loves people like ted kennedy. so basically, he loves murders.
sublimemm, on 05/19/2008, -13/+75dugg for "barack oblogger"
- AtlanticVortex, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3Big surprise with the subject of his sites submitted...
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10haha. thats funny cuz i buried it for that same reason.
Hetman, on 05/19/2008, -16/+14That cannot be right. White people are to evil to be voting for obama. Something is fishy here.
- Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3we're all honkys!
vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -17/+21Awesome! More Obama fapping material!
- isunktheship, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6you got 4chan in my digg!
- rex84, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You get the lotion, I'll get the tissues.
FeargusMcDuff, on 05/19/2008, -59/+160No offense, Americans, but for ***** sake, I don't want to see a Digg story every time Obama goes to the toilet. Its got to be getting close to 25% American politics? And the stupid thing is, its all for one candidate. WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA?

Buried.
- AtlanticVortex, on 05/19/2008, -9/+20That is exactly how I feel, every time I go on digg during a week day I find 2+ Obama stories on the front page. I realize that this is a very pro Obama site, but common lets read something new... Spamming the front page with Obama stories is not going to put him in the White House any sooner.
  - Kronk42583, on 05/20/2008, -0/+42 a day? you're not reading the same digg i am. its easily 8 or more a day. i havent turned off the election category but im pretty damn close to. these stories are getting ridiculous.
- jameskong15, on 05/19/2008, -24/+22Boohoo, just skip over it and quit your bitching.
  - Jackson0909, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1YOU are exactly the problem. I understand comments such as those of FeargusMcDuff interrupt your Obama whack off party, but try to understand that there are people who are sick of this crap.
- W00DR0W, on 05/19/2008, -7/+17Well, I still think it's less annoying than when it was Steve Jobs' who they wouldn't shut up about.
- poidh, on 05/19/2008, -25/+6All the Ron Paul nutcases have now jumped on the Hussein Obama bandwagon. Annoying *****.
  - W00DR0W, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7I happen to know they hold equal disdain for all candidates, maybe a little more for hilary.
  - Tebixan, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9OMG, his middle name is the same as the first name of the former dictator of Iraq? That must mean Obama is in Al-Quada, and he's going to fly a plane into my house! QUICK VOTE FOR MCCAIN
  - tbstudee, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Most Ron Paul supporters will not support Obama.
  - Adelie, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Complain to Ron Paul for endorsing him with his "This isn't an endorsement, but" endorsement speech.
- ICSU, on 05/19/2008, -3/+37You can remove the elections from your subscribed topics.
  - Jackson0909, on 05/19/2008, -4/+0You can stop posting all the Obama propaganda.
    - Lazydriver, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1You can shut the ***** up all together to make everyone and everything happy.
      
      See how the cycle goes?
    - Jackson0909, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0
      Lazydriver:
      You're 14. That fact alone tells me you are ignorant and out of your element. Thanks.
- noahhoward, on 05/19/2008, -2/+40Oh my god, the most amazing thing just happened!!! A category appeared for the 2008 US Elections! It must have just appeared while we were talking about this because obviously, had it been there when you commented, you'd have blocked the category instead of bitching. Digg really is amazing giving us categories to solve our problems while we're still bitching about them. Well I guess your problem is solved now huh?
  - Tebixan, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16*begins slow clap*
  - Misanthrope, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12*standing ovation*
  - Bologner, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8*is pissed because he wanted to start the slow clap*
  - chodges4, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1*faints*
- isaactwito, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9Yeah, I feel no more sympathy for people like you. I was annoyed with digg for a while, but then I turned off 2008 campaign stuff and I couldn't be happier. I still look at it from time to time when I want to get some news on it, but it really gets a lot of the crap out of my digg. It's been said a billion times before, but just turn off the ***** elections category. I used to get annoyed by people telling me to do it, but it's really the people bitching who are the problem, not those who supply such an easy and obvious solution.
- queotic, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5There is so much disinformation out there about Barack that people are attempting to combat it with accurate information like this, which dispels HRC's and the media's claims that Barack isn't getting the white vote (as though all white people vote alike).
- Adelie, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Because people aren't convinced that the crazy old hag won't pull one of her crazy tricks out of that carpet bag. Everyone needs to know that if Clinton takes the vote that it was a scam. I hope Clinton is running for the same reason Ted Kennedy stayed in against Jimmy Carter, to speak at the convention. I really no pray that is the only scam going on and nothing more underhanded. People just have to keep reminding each other that they are not alone in their opinion that everyone wants Obama to be president.
  
  I was recently talking with a friends Grandparents, each in their late 80's, that have voted Republican in every election as long as they have been able to, and are quite certain they are voting for Obama this election. And what is harder than changing the mind of a life-long California Republican?
- stevenstclair, on 05/19/2008, -6/+851% of Americans Re-elect Bush, you complain.
  Large amount of people on Digg try to promote a good candidate, you complain.
  
  Make up your mind, and this is coming from a fellow Limey.
  - Monk22, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Digg is not representative of america
    - ThisistheEdge, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Truest statement I've seen on Digg to date.
- drex8, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1You know there was this recent submit about *What Digg has Become*, and it was so right on about what you talking about.
  The *Top 10 in All Topics* were mostly Political News, and most of them were about Obama. Now I support the person, and I'm going to vote for him no doubt, but this all is a bit too much.
  Just earlier today when I landed on the front page of Digg, and after scanning the *All/Most Recent* articles..I couldn't but get a feeling that the front page, for some reason..for all the *Top 10/30 Awesome* collection of articles..looked more like a page from Guiness Records or Encyclopedia Britannica or even a front page version of cracked.com gone socially weird.
  http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6f6zia&s=3
  
  http://digg.com/comedy/Digg_Page_of_Records
- mille716, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Why are people surprised that Digg is having a lot of stories about the election? Its an important election and people are naturally going to be talking about the candidates more than in non-election years. Also, I don't like people telling me what I should find interesting. The site works democratically and sorry, Obama stories are popular now. If you don't like it just bury it.
- flossdaily, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3god forbid we all be active participants in our democracy. I'm sure the founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew that the American people were more interested in selecting the next president than speculating about the next version of the iphone.
- dn11, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1No offense random digg user, but you should learn how to use digg.
  http://i30.tinypic.com/2qt8v37.jpg
- abby11, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I believe it's called dont DIGG!kind of like "dont ask dont tell"
- ruyen, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, better to have 25% of diggs be about Britney or some other ***** that doesn't matter. Look, Americans have had such poor political participation, don't bash us for talking about what's important and determines the future of the country.
wesniles, on 05/19/2008, -22/+35***** propaganda...
- philman467, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Agreed, nice hit piece.
  
  Just wondering, but why didn't the author include the margins that Barack won by? I hate this one-sided *****.
- Attol, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2***** indeed.
  
  Obama won the small percentage of democrats in the "white states". McCain on the other hand probably got 3 times as much votes.
tman84, on 05/19/2008, -22/+39Why is this news? For people who want to "end racism" the Obama supporters sure make an issue out of his race. Can't he just be qualified or not qualified to be president? This same group of people will say "well I guess America isn't ready for a black president" if he isn't elected.
- Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -4/+15This is not being made an issue by Obama or his campaign, this articles simply refutes Hillary's racially charged claim that she's the only one that wins "White, working class' voters. She invents some ridiculous claim, it is soundly and thoroughly discredited. I know it's not a winning battle to fight racial ignorance with facts, but facts are all we've got.
  - tman84, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Wouldn't it be better to ignore the race comments and focus on the fact that America seems to like his message and are unified together? But "progressives" need to feel so self important and show how they support black people, because in the end, it's about showing how tolerant "they personally are" and not about how they support a qualified candidate.
    - Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Right, because ignorance is always the best policy. It's because of that type of thinking that voters in West Virginia still think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because an argument against you doesn't have any merit doesn't mean people won't believe it unless you prove the truth to them, especially attacks like how "white, hard working" people won't vote for Obama that come from Hillary. Even though it's a load of crap a lot of people believe it because she says it.
    - bicyclethief, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Debunking racism is not being racist.
    - tman84, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Where is there racism? Another issue I have with the "Progressive" movement is their inability to use words properly. Saying "white people won't vote for him" is not a "Racist Remark", its not "Racist". People need to be more careful with the words they are just tossing around lightly. Racism and Racist are serious words with very serious meanings. Even something as simple as "Chinese People are Good at Math" is being called "Racist". Stop the butchering of the English language.
  - jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4*****!!
    Everything Obama's campaign does tries to play the pity and defensive card using race.
    
    Ive never seen any other campaign in history try to use black guilt so much in every single ***** issue!
    - Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Name once.
  - locamama, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Maybe it's not a coincidence that most of those states voted before the Wright issue was made public. Maybe some white voters were swayed Obama's bitter, gun and religion clinging with antipathy towards other people comments.
  - PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Did you miss the part where he said "Obama supporters"?
- serif69, on 05/19/2008, -11/+8Modern liberals in general don't believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's message of unity. They like "diversity" instead, where everyone is divided into demographics. They fail to see how that works against the ultimate goal of ending racism, sexism, and other -isms. It's a policy of segregation, not unification.
  - isaactwito, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6Are you serious? Ending racism isn't about ending diversity. It's about embracing diversity in unity. We shouldn't be trying to make ourselves less diverse, that would be impossible. All we have to do is get along. I'm 19 and I can't imagine how this is still a problem. The only people clinging onto the idea of racism are the old and the ignorant.
    - Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1"old and the ignorant"
      That sounds familiar... hmmm, which candidate was it that wins the "elderly, uneducated voters"?
      :D
    - serif69, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2I don't think you get it. "Celebrating diversity" points out how everyone is different. "That person is black, this person is a woman, the other guy is gay, now separate them based on those characteristics." Those should be features of a person like blonde hair, green eyes, or tanned skin, not reasons to lump them together and label them. Any time a group has been separated out and labeled throughout history, it has divided them from others, not unified them with the others.
    - Mejari, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Because no one ever groups and labels for any reasons other than race and gender, right? Have you never said "psssh, those blondes"? Besides, ignorant people discriminate based on skin color, diversity is celebrating the CULTURE of an ethnicity, not the color of skin.
      Since when is it bad to point out how people are different? I'm different from you and you're different from me. Oh no!
    - 47f0, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3I envy you your sheltered life. Unfortunately, many of the old and ignorant managed to breed and make more of the same. Neo-nazis and other racist groups have a sadly strong component of young folks.
- wacomwacoff, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6it's in response to his opponent's comments on race.
- akamurph, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3They love to throw the race card in your face when it helps to prove their point.
  - zombies187, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1The 'race card' card always trump all dont it?
- queotic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6So when HRC and the media (and soon the Republicans) make the claim that Barack can't get the white vote, it's bad for his supporters to prove - WITH UNDENIABLE FACTS - that it isn't true?
removesstains, on 05/19/2008, -10/+18Because no body cares about the Primaries. I haven't even re registered to vote in my state and i moved here 3 years ago. I'll probably wait until September to register. Heck lets face it, probably October. But on election day i will still vote for Ralph Wiggum even if he's not on the ballot.
- bubba9999, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2And he got elected last time, didn't he? Good job, buddy.
fleischner, on 05/19/2008, -18/+11Good thing this election isn't all about race. You have to consider gender, too. F-ing hypocritical Dems. What color your skin is and whether you sit when you piss is all that counts to you.
- zombies187, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1said the party without women and minorities.
x1soundgarden1x, on 05/19/2008, -10/+10It doesn't matter if he wins or loses a majority white state if his voting bloc in that state is 90% non-white. In other words, just because a state is majority white doesn't mean non-whites didn't have a significant impact in his winning. For instance, Connecticut is majority white, but blacks played a big role in giving him a victory. A better post would base this on "States won with least black voters in the Democratic electorate." Buried for a stupid premise.
- W00DR0W, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2He won Ohio with the same number of white votes as hilary, I only remember that because they made a big deal out of it, I don't know what the split was on the others, but white people have a larger voting turn-out so I doubt you theory could hold any ground.
  - locamama, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Obama did not win Ohio. Hillary did by 9 percentage points.
  - W00DR0W, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Aw, damnit. Sorry, I meant Iowa.
- basefx, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Blacks made up 9% of the voting block in Conneticut, and even still a quarter of those votes went to Hillary, so I don't see how you're singling them out as playing a big role in his victory. But of course you already exposed yourself with that "least black voters" quip. Afterall they're only voting for him because he's black. Maybe you just want to go back to the 3/5 rule to make things a little more fair?
  - x1soundgarden1x, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What the hell are you talking about? Because I find fault in the statistical premise for this article you assume WRONGLY that I am 1) Racist 2) Not black 3) Anti-Obama. Good job dumbass. According to your own post you think Blacks made 9% of Connecticut democratic voters. You also say Obama won 3/4 of them. That would be SEVEN PERCENT OF THE OVERALL VOTE. Guess how many points Obama won by in Connecticut? Durrrr 3%. So you proved my point. It doesn't matter if a state is majority white, what matters is if the black population makes up a statistically significant margin for Obama's numbers. HENCE, THIS IS A STUPID ARTICLE.
    - basefx, on 05/19/2008, -1/+0You're a clown, I suppose the 50% block of whites who voted for him didn't play a part in his win? All you're really doing is whining about Obama's alleged automatic advantage with the minority voting block, isolated down to blacks of course.
      
      Meanwhile you choose to completely ignore the fact that most of them were voting for Clinton earlier in the primaries and in the past have voted for white candidates, but I guess it wasn't an issue then?
- queotic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3"It doesn't matter if he wins or loses a majority white state if his voting bloc in that state is 90% non-white."
  
  Huh? Are you really claiming that 90% of the people voting for Barack are minorities? Maybe you should check out a video of a Barack rally.
  
  "In other words, just because a state is majority white doesn't mean non-whites didn't have a significant impact in his winning."
  Bull$h!t. If you have a state where the black population is 3% or less, even if 100% of all black people vote for Obama, it wouldn't matter if the majority of white people didn't vote for him.
  Besides - this article is refuting the claim that Obama can't win the white vote, so I don't understand why you're talking about the minority vote anyway.
  
  "A better post would base this on "States won with least black voters in the Democratic electorate." Buried for a stupid premise."
  
  HUH?????? What is the difference between "the whitest states" and "states with the least black voters"? You're playing with semantics because you know you're wrong.
  - x1soundgarden1x, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2How many times do I have to explain this. It doesn't matter if a state is 80% white. What matters is the demographics of the DEMOCRATIC ELECTORATE in the state. Connecticut is majority white, but Blacks made up 10% of voters in the democratic primary. Blacks are going 80-90% for Obama which translates to an 8-9 point benefit to Obama. So, it doesn't matter how white a state is if the democratic voters in that state are mostly black. FOR EXAMPLE: South Carolina is 70% white, but guess what? Blacks are 50% of the Democratic party there. So it's a White state, where the black vote was the deciding factor.
    
    Take a frickin statistics class and you might understand why this article is misleading and poorly conceived. I'm playing with semantics because they are statistically relevant to understanding causation and correlation.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1LOL. Yeah, that 1% black population in Idaho is why he won.
  
  And he is polling to win here in Montana, because we represent nearly one percent of the population.
  
  Dude, you are severely retarded.
- abby11, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1By the way Sound Garden,isnt that the 90's Metal Band?how old are you?
poidh, on 05/19/2008, -18/+9Who is this Hussein guy everyone keeps spamming Digg about?
chrissku, on 05/19/2008, -19/+21Lets face it.....Obama's winning this election in November. I'm convinced.
- Hetman, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3I am convinced he is going to win the primary. We will see what happens in the general ele

15 Whitest States in America: Dem Primary Results

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

15 Whitest States in America: Dem Primary Results

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Related by Keyword

Texas tops Ohio State in Fiesta Bowl

The Growth of Walmart Across America [VidMap]

World Cup Whistle-Blower Shot Dead