Digg - 76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama

Remove

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

242 Comments
Who Dugg It?

Awesomecat, on 11/03/2008, -7/+113Ahem. *points to the picture*
- LimeParrot, on 11/04/2008, -4/+11That was awesome, awesome cat.
- fiatjustitia, on 11/04/2008, -2/+12Already did.
  
  O8!!!
- kolobcreek, on 11/04/2008, -4/+2I guess this would matter if you had respect for them. And if you though to yourself I'm a real dumb *****. I can't make up my own mind. So I'll look to people that everyone else thinks is smart.
  - ParanoydAndroid, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I don't think of myself as a "real dumb *****," but I still respect their opinion. If this was an open letter regarding the difference in foreign policy between Obama and McCain then no, they wouldn't necessarily be qualified to try to sway others, but that's not what this letter is about. They are discussing the state of science, funding, direction, etc ... A world they are embroiled in on a day to day basis - the fact that they are Nobel laureates just means they're even more qualified in their chosen areas of the sciences.
    
    What I think is really "dumb *****" is to automatically ignore their expert opinions in favor of being a "free thinker" who doesn't follow the herd. I'm just like the president I want - I have my own opinions, but am also open to guidance from people who know what the ***** they're talking about.
    
    If we'd had someone like that that in the white house for the past 8 years, we wouldn't be in nearly as much ***** as we are now.
- GawtMilk, on 11/04/2008, -3/+4A message to Republicans and Democrats alike: "George Bush" was not the reason for his failed policies post- 9/11, it was mostly due to unconditional patriotism and just following what the President said. George Bush's administration proposed these rights-sapping Acts and suggested War, but Congress never argued against it; the people didn't protest [I know maybe a few hundred thousand did, but it was a not a period of protest].
  
  We were scared, and we wanted a leader. This economic crisis has the hallmarks of an economic 9/11; and most economists [these "intelligent individuals" are intelligent in the field of science, not the economy] agree that we are looking at a policy over-reaction, a move towards more protectionism, and unsustainably high tax rates, three things that will only hurt economic growth [the true form of welfare] - and something each candidate supports in one way or another.
  
  Please don't follow Obama or McCain without taking what they say with a grain of salt. I respect both men's intelligence and public servitude of their country, but keep in mind that they both made mistakes after 9/11, mostly in the form of legislation that erodes Civil Liberties.
  
  Let's make this the first presidency truly in the "information age", where we try to verify and look for errors in the candidate's ideology, even when we idolize them.
  - lamiaconfitor, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1If only economists were half as smart as scientists... seriously, economics isn't a science at all, it is a skill that, at best, is comparable to weatherman. That is coming from a marketing major, who has spent more then a little time in econ classes.
JenniferInMO, on 11/03/2008, -10/+100Some of the world's smartest people support Obama. I really, really want a smart President this time. Please.

Vote. Today is our last chance. Pull out your contact list and call absolutely everyone you know. Persuade them to vote, offer rides, go to lunch with them and ask them to do the same. We are almost done. Just one more BIG push!
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/04/2008, -16/+7Ah.. but by the same token, some of the worlds dumbest people will vote for Obama too
  - fedja, on 11/04/2008, -1/+14I think Joe the Plumbers are in the tank for Bible Spice
  - MxM111, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1But we look what the smartest people do, not what the dumbest. And if the smartest people vote for Obama, that says something.
  - fedja, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1I hate to break it to you like this... but the Republicans picked Palin as VP.
- akchrs, on 11/04/2008, -6/+4So I guess you wanted a president who got higher grades than Kerry..... oh wait.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 11/04/2008, -15/+4Obama is just a big talker with no experience.
  - outcast23, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5but has the intelligence to surround himself with smart people. A president will never know everything is a given, a mark of a good president is one that knows his own limitations and seeks advise from the best people, i.e. not let the likes of Cheney take over.
    
    I respect someone who is able to take wisdom from others and then makes an informed decision over someone that rushes in and makes rash decisions.
  - TheFrozenOne, on 11/04/2008, -4/+0so obama is really just a puppet and not worth of the president title is what you are saying.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -1/+5*sniff*
    I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
  - TheNik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2@TheFrozenOne - Of course! The word "advisor" _does_ mean "decision maker," doesn't it?
- kolobcreek, on 11/04/2008, -3/+6I would whole heartedly agree. A man claiming to be a constitutional lawyer but never acts like one.
- IkeWarrior, on 11/04/2008, -5/+2Ah, so you are NOT voting for the two-dimensional empty suit hypocrite in your avatar. Good to see the Kool-Aid is wearing off.
- duckley, on 11/04/2008, -3/+4Pay no attention to the Republican shills behind the curtain.
  
  I, for one, am looking forward to a President who respects knowledge, science and the power of applied truth.
  - Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -3/+6I'm still waiting for one who respects civil liberties, a smaller government, and upholds the constitution.
  - TxAggie08, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2I'd settle for one who isn't socialist as hell.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -2/+4Woodrow Wilson was one of the most intelligent presidents elected. He brought us the brilliant machinations known as the federal income tax and the federal reserve.
- SchmuckofNI, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2Actions speak louder than words, he has already proven that he is not a man of the people by bailing out these bankers! If either one of these candidates had voted against it as the average American had wanted, I would have voted for either one of them. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/26/demonstrator ... So plan your votes accordingly and vote for real change by writing in Ron Paul or vote for third party!
MsLaurel, on 11/03/2008, -5/+18But ... but... but .... 10% of the country still believes that Bush has a good heart!
With all that cycling, undoubtedly Bush does, but I don't much care for the cycling of fear, pillaging and instability that His Relevancy has inflicted upon this country's people, economy, constitution and environment.
- bartpieters, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5Bush has a good heart, too bad he leased it out and forgot all about it.
- pintomp3, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2of course bush has a good heart. thanks to the socialized medicine he's been receiving.
- kolobcreek, on 11/04/2008, -3/+4I think you have that number confused with Congresses Approval rating. I can't wait for Obama to get elected with Democrats controlling congress. They're going turn America so far left we'll get another 20yrs or more of Republican Rule. Assuming of course states don't start pulling out of the union when federal taxes hit 60% to pay for all of this socialist government programs.
- coyote1284, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I think he does, not a good brain, though. I think he seriously believed what he was doing was best for the US, but misguided.
Eiknujrac, on 11/03/2008, -5/+107Obama is so elitist. Only elitists are endorsed by the smartest people of our time.

Clearly the REAL qualification is that you have to have graduated 5th from the bottom of your class, that makes you a "real" American. Or you could have gone to 6 different colleges to get one degree. That's what real, small town Americans do.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/04/2008, -28/+3No I'd say that real Americans fight for America
  - notoneofus, on 11/04/2008, -1/+19Which is precisely what Obama has done, is doing, and will do.
  - Brian48216, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2An American is anyone who was born on US soil, or naturalized citizen. If you fulfill either of those conditions you are as American as any other American.
    
    You're thinking of a patriot.
    
    Don't get them mixed up.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5A "Patriot", in the contemporary sense, has come to mean the political equivalent of a zealot. Someone who can't say a word against the policies of the government, nor do they tolerate others' criticism of the government - even that of their fellow countrymen.
    
    Someone who loves their country - even enough to say it when the government is doing wrong - that's a citizen with a sense of civic duty. Someone who can't give his country that sort of respect is someone I consider to be a coward and, at least intellectually, a traitor.
    
    Real Americans fight for America - even when it means fighting against its government.
  - BHorn56, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2Could not have said it better myself Fordi.
    
    If this country's idea of patriotism had always been blindly following your leaders, we would still be colonies. Our founding fathers taught us to watch, question and work to change the wrongs in government.
- kagebutsu, on 11/04/2008, -0/+28Exactly, I don't want someone smart to run the country, I want the retard from my 3rd grade class making the decisions.
  - u8myfoood, on 11/04/2008, -0/+17Recess all day! YAY!!!
  - gospe1337, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4To be fair, just being smart without a good tempering, careful judgment, and willingness to make gut decisions when the time comes does not mean much. I am *NOT* saying Obama lacks these things. I am simply saying I know a lot of "smart" people (IQ) who lack EQ. Of course, a lot of idiots lack EQ too.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I understand you're not necessarily saying Obama lacks EQ - but it has to be said that a man with that sort of charisma has quite a bit of it by definition.
    
    That his IQ is strong as well, and that he's wise enough to know when to defer to experts - that makes him the definition of a good leader.
    
    I should add: Not all military is quality leadership. Grunts and officers aren't necessarily qualified to lead a complex government; sure they can lead other grunts and officers, but leading people off a cliff takes the same skill as leading them into war. Knowing where to go, therefore, is just as important as getting people to go there.
- TurdZilla, on 11/04/2008, -1/+7Why the ***** is being smart non american or elitist. That ***** drives me *****....
  This voting is not ***** rocket science... Create a generic list of qualities you would like in a president then one by one do the check offs. One would hope being dumb is rocks is not on your list.
- ansatsu29, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4I enjoyed your sarcasm...
  
  Take that Sarah Palin!
  - ParanoydAndroid, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2She wouldn't understand. Sarcasm is a tool of the devil, and us small town plumber folk don't take to none of that devil talk.
    
    You can try to tell me what it is, but I just say thanks, but no thanks. You betcha.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I'm still waiting for him to talk about issues that matter. Not once has he mentioned monetary policy, the federal reserve, or smaller, less intrusive government.
Cuchanu, on 11/03/2008, -4/+121Damn Nobel Prize winners always thinking they are so intelligent.

I bet none of them are hockey moms, have killed a moose, or been POW's.
- spaceman84, on 11/04/2008, -0/+21James Chadwick (who discovered the neutron) and Robert Bárány were both prisoners of war. In fact, Bárány won his Nobel Prize while he was in a Russian POW camp and it wasn't until he was released two years later that he actually received it.
- hello3u, on 11/04/2008, -0/+17Robert Barany (Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, 1913) was a POW.
  
  Curiosity got the better of me.
- Cuchanu, on 11/04/2008, -0/+10Ok well then maybe I should have checked as well.
  - kraant, on 11/04/2008, -0/+9Don't worry... Somehow I doubt any of them have killed a moose.
- likwidfuzion, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2To add, I bet none of them are Mavericky.
holisticgirl, on 11/03/2008, -58/+8Way to go Dummies! I didn't know that Nobel Laureates were Socialists with a Fascist bent,...whew, glad I found that out.
- Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -3/+20Didn't know trolls liked holism.
- Oranqe, on 11/04/2008, -2/+13Your being serious aren't you. Your dissing Nobel prize winners, people who dedicated themselves to helping humanity, did you ever think you just might be some way... wrong?
  
  Or are Nobels now the devil too?
  - Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1You're
- noahgelman, on 11/04/2008, -2/+17What's wrong with Socialism?
  - Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2It has no respect for the individual and it requires the collective to be dependent on the state. As we move closer to a mix of fascism and socialism you are seeing how little respect our government has for our civil liberties, free markets, and sound money.
    
    It also is arrogant in that it believes an elite, small group of men are able to plan the entire economy of a country and that this group is more efficient that that of the free market. Socialism, also has proven not to work throughout history as it evolves into totalitarian government. Nazi germany, Russia, Italy, and now the totalitarian European Union.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Tenbatsu, what do you know about social democracies?
- Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1Holy crap, it's like people don't know sarcasm when they smell it.
  
  It's only one, but you've got my digg for that.
rpfinley, on 11/03/2008, -43/+5Most of these winners are not even Americans
- nosecohn, on 11/03/2008, -2/+33I think the point there is that the rest of the world really wants us to have a smart, measured, worldly President, so we don't go off creating conflict and instability in their necks of the woods.
  - 5urr3al5am, on 11/04/2008, -30/+3ahh.. yes.. that makes sense.. let have a president "the rest of the world" wants
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -3/+23"ahh.. yes.. that makes sense.. let have a president "the rest of the world" wants"
    
    *sigh*
  - noahgelman, on 11/04/2008, -3/+9@Hrodrik
    
    That's basically all you can really say at this point. There's just no reasoning with there people.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1No matter. We're getting Obama. I'll lay 20:1 odds on it, and that's conservative.
- fiatjustitia, on 11/04/2008, -1/+26"Most of these winners are not even Americans"
  
  So?
- Hermanator, on 11/04/2008, -1/+17"Most of these winners are not even Americans"
  
  You just don't get it do you. It's not USA VS the rest of the world... Not all countries are so xenophobic that outside opinion means nothing.
- phroztbyt3, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1(that just means most americans arent that smart.... genius)
nosecohn, on 11/03/2008, -2/+48Can we please get some STUPID people to endorse him! All these "elites" are sending the wrong message.
- hello3u, on 11/04/2008, -0/+8If I could get one of those McCain supporter...
- seltaeb4, on 11/04/2008, -1/+10Yeah, all of these "elitists" with their "brains" full of "ideas" ... bad, bad, bad for America.
  
  Joe the Plumber trumps 'em all.
  
  /sarcasm
  
  [feeling a sense of sadness that the sarcasm isn't self-evident...]
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I do find that very funny.
    
    Nobel Lauriates want Obama. Joe the plumber wants McCain. Kinda telling, isn't it?
- crocodilexp, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2Oprah?
- Ramenhood, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Chris Crocker has endorsed him.
theadvinci, on 11/04/2008, -4/+22Stupid people endorse Obama in their own way... by endorsing McCain with lies and stupidity.
pennsykid2000, on 11/04/2008, -5/+44Another reason to vote for McCain: So you can look like a complete IDIOT decades from now when your grandchildren ask you who you voted for during the historic 2008 election that put Obama in the White House and got the country back on the right track.
- cmootoo, on 11/04/2008, -2/+42I have a feeling by the looks of some of the McCain supporter's comments on here that they're long past caring if they look like complete idiots.
  - nihilville, on 11/04/2008, -1/+14I would digg that so many times if I could.
- Akairenn, on 11/04/2008, -8/+5If my grandkids ask me that instead of, "Did you support Ron Paul and the Constitution?" I'll have failed as a parent, and my children will have failed as parents.
  
  (And would my answer to the more proper question be, 'No', I would endorse their clubbing me to death with my own walker for betraying future generations by having my head up a donkey's ass.)
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2Hey, I supported Paul - right until he lost the nomination.
    
    At which point, I switched to Obama.
    
    They may disagree, but at least Obama's intelligent enough to know how to deal with the office.
  - Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -3/+2Then you should know Obama has no plan to fix the economy, our monetary policy or deal with the federal reserve. He also has no respect for our civil liberties the constitution, and free markets. A vote for Obama is a vote for continuing the corrupt two party system that has perverted our country and the principals on which it was built. You would be better off voting third party or writing in Ron Paul. Or better yet, not participating in this mockery called democracy we have in the U.S.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2I will be proud to say I wrote in Ron Paul, a far better candidate than Barack Obama.
  - gn84, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1Same here. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two fascists.
algaeturd, on 11/04/2008, -2/+30You're preaching to the choir here. Republibots don't care about educated people, scholars or intellects. Remember? They demonized all those folks and started to ramp up people like Joe Six Pack and Joe the Plumber. Because dumb people will listen to their lies; educated people won't.
- colsim, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6True but it's the undecideds that will make the difference.
- diggitupyall, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I'm sure ill get dug down...b/c im not screaming my Obama voting preference to everyone on Digg
  
  algaeturd
  
  I see what you're saying...
  
  but, it could be because most "educated people" go to colleges and universities --and b/c most educational institutions are liberal...the educated folk go to schools that have liberal teachers...are taught liberal ideas, and are completely surrounded by liberal ideas...thus they end up having liberal ideas and vote liberal = democrat.
  
  Also, why do people waste so much time arguing about politics on here? Does it help either candidate or does it just make you feel better...I just don't get it. Wouldn't phone calls, talking to real people who are actually still undecided make more sense? Most people on here are democrats and the few republicans on here seem like they are not going to change their mind b/c of some comment somebody puts on digg or the internet in general.
  
  Everyone stop wasting your time and get out and talk to the undecided voters...they are the only ones that need to hear this garbage.
  
  p.s. i feel better now
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1"but, it could be because most "educated people" go to colleges and universities --and b/c most educational institutions are liberal"
    
    Tell that to your average Business major (which makes up a plurality of college students). Business professors are overwhelmingly conservatives - as that's the rational position when it comes to finance.
    
    Meanwhile, reality has a well-known liberal bias, so there's that.
  - geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2makes me feel better. cheaper than going on a killing rampage.
- Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I wonder why the republicans didn't notice that courting stupid didn't work for Hillary.
AdeleMor, on 11/04/2008, -2/+27Smart people are the enemy for Republicans—and that's some Orwellian stuff right there, right for you. Would they want their kids to be taught by Joe Six Packs? No. But they don't mind hiring one to run the country.
dsa205, on 11/04/2008, -25/+2First off nobel prizes are not even that impressive. They just give it to these fools because they feel bad for them because they spend most of their lives for some dumb cause. Most nobel prize winners don't even know the difference between adjusted R squared and the Akaike and Schwarz criterion.
- cyrix, on 11/04/2008, -1/+20You really think a Nobel prize isn't impressive? What does impress you? A gold star?
- Eiknujrac, on 11/04/2008, -1/+20"First off nobel prizes are not even that impressive."
  
  You lost me right there, sorry.
- Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+15You just made an ass of yourself, dsa205. Most Nobel award winners are experts in their own areas.
  
  That's like me saying that most of them don't know ***** about Okazaki fragments, therefore they are stupid.
  
  I bet you will have to look up what an Okazaki fragment is.
  
  Moron.
  - PopcornDave, on 11/04/2008, -9/+3Yes but the article fails to mention how many of them won the Nobel prize for peace and politics, by your definition making them experts in that area. Otherwise they're no better or worse than anybody else making an endorsement.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+976 Nobel laureates in Peace? Some of them have to be really ***** old since there's only one peace award a year.
    
    I'm sure you'll find that many scientists and economists are amongst those numbers.
  - PopcornDave, on 11/04/2008, -5/+4Completely missed the point. People should be making up their own minds instead of being persuaded by who other people are endorsing. If people aren't smart enough to see through ***** they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
    
    I'm just sick and tired of each side throwing up a bunch of people that endorse them. I couldn't give a ***** if God and the Devil endorsed any of the candidates running. I'm still making up my own mind.
  - jmpeagle, on 11/04/2008, -0/+7@popcorn,
    
    the PDF is in the article...it's ONLY science Nobel laureates. No peace, literature, or economics.
  - geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2@PopcornDave
    
    Fine that your are such an individual and all, completely unswayed by any external force in your life.
    
    But...
    
    Endorsements are important.
    
    Of course everyone makes up their own mind (you are in that booth alone) but listening to the opinions of people you respect in various fields helps with that decision because they probably have points and ideas that you haven't considered.
    
    Politics is a civic activity - it is about people communicating and endorsements are part of that conversation.
    
    I'm probably guilty of it too but I'm totally tired of the everybody-is-an-idiot-but-me statements. Your statement "If people aren't smart enough to see through ***** they shouldn't be voting in the first place" is anti-American.
    
    This is America, every citizen gets a vote and that is what makes us so great. If you feel that some aren't understanding your point of view because of your superior intellect then it is your responsibility to get out there and persuade. Wait, you are against that. Hmm, maybe not so superior after all.
- noahgelman, on 11/04/2008, -1/+11You just wiki'd sum ***** to sound smart didn't you? Its okay, you don't need to put down Nobel Prize winners because you feel inferior, I don't (couldn't) think any less of you.
- kattapoga, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2lighten up! I think the guy was just being sarcastic. At least I hope its sarcasm.
- phroztbyt3, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2your right... what IS impressive is a "patriot" who "fought for our country" and yet actually did nothing. He only helped to fight in a war with no cause... as he tries to do so now. ***** hypocrticical moron.
- ParanoydAndroid, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I would also point that you made yourself sound like an idiot not only because you don't think Nobel prizes are impressive (as others have pointed out), but also because you just named three concepts from statistics, and there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics, and therefore no expectation they would know that material, no matter what they got their Nobel in.
  
  If you were trying to point out they have no real world political knowledge, you obviously still failed because you pointed out they don't have abstract stats knowledge.
  
  I bet Fields Medal winners don't know much about pottery either.
analogissoft, on 11/04/2008, -6/+9Make that 77

Obama/Biden 08
- sougly, on 11/04/2008, -3/+2Make that 78
  
  Obama/Biden 08
mrgeekguy, on 11/04/2008, -1/+12But five former Secretary's of State endorse McCain! There's uh, ummm. And of course theres uhhhhh, ummm, and who can forget about ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........
- MxM111, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Are they by any chance republicans? Next thing you gonna say that Dick Cheney have endorsed McCain... oh, wait!
CVL4317, on 11/04/2008, -0/+9Intelligence is for elitist!!!! They speak no english to us, the Joes. They're all blabbering with words like "recession", "deficit", "global security" and "diplomatics". We need something like gotcha logic to run this country and to prevent russia from sticking their heads over Alaska!
mv10, on 11/04/2008, -0/+14I cant wait to see how many Diggs the first "BREAKING: Obama has been elected President" gets. Im predicting a record-breaking 50-60,000 diggs in 24 hours.
Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -3/+12Nobel Laureates? What do Nobel Award winners know more than the average American?

Socialists, all of them!

ಠ.ಠ
- Vorphlack, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4For starters they probably know how to properly construct a sentence.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5First of all, thanks for getting the sarcasm.
    Second, thanks for criticizing the grammatic skills of someone that isn't a native speaker of English. Unless you were talking about Bush.
  - Vorphlack, on 11/04/2008, -0/+7Got me. It's easy to confuse sarcasm with the rants of a neo-con these days.
  - pintomp3, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5@hrodrik
    
    there are too many real trolls running around here to distinguish someone who is imitating one. it's like wearing a deer costume and not having an orange vest. practice safe commenting, always use a sarcasm tag.
  - FalseProphecy, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Don't say that too loudly. They might actually start wearing orange vests now.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1@Vorphlack:
    Should there be a named law concerning the political equivalent of Poe's Law? That is, any parody of political extremism is indistinguishable from the subject of the parody?
Mekun, on 11/04/2008, -23/+7Nobel prize is a joke. Al gore and Yasser Arafat both got nobel prizes and both are liars. I find either one unintelligent.
- Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -3/+19You sad, ignorant man.
  - Mekun, on 11/04/2008, -11/+1At least i made a comment instead of trolling. Look in the mirror much?
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -2/+15What do you want? Do you want me to explain how much prestige the Nobel Awards have in the scientific, literary and humanistic communities? Oh, I forgot. You people don't believe in science, don't read and have no humanity.
  - gospe1337, on 11/04/2008, -0/+6Not all Nobel Prizes are created equal. But I'm not sure how that argument translates to an article that only refers to those given to scientists.
- GordonFree, on 11/04/2008, -1/+13Oh you do? Really? Your opinion about them is sooo important. They got Nobels and you... your mom told you you were smart once! Almost the same thing right? /s
  
  You could never get a Nobel prize in a million years, so yeah, I guess for you, it IS a joke!
- Mekun, on 11/04/2008, -12/+2So Al gore making a movie that is full of lies is about science? I didnt know he was a scientist?
  
  Arafat was a terrorist im sorry people believed he was otherwise.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+8He didn't win the prize alone. The IPCC also got awarded for their SCIENTIFIC WORK. Don't start with the "global warming is a scam" right wing *****.
    
    Oh, and Arafat was involved in terrorism. But he changed.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat#Palesti ...
  - GordonFree, on 11/04/2008, -1/+5"Terrorist" is merely a word dependent of history.
    
    If you started a revolution and you succeeded, you're a national hero, a revolutionary patriot.
    If you failed... well... to the eyes of the government and the people, you're just a terrorist.
  - GordonFree, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3Nah just kidding, not really. Don't digg me up. What I said is only true because the current government has a twisted view of terrorist that they put out. But it's not supposed to be like that in a healthy society.
  - TheNik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2@GordonFree - Thanks, really, for helping point out that the word terrorist is PURELY dependent on which side you're on. I also love that, by definition, many Republicans and conservatives are terrorists themselves.
    
    "According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuassive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destory everything. Is it OBAMA??"
    
    Terrorism (and flat out stupidity) at its most redneck, people! Welcome to the world of McCain / Palin...
- nyrychvantel, on 11/04/2008, -1/+9I bet you're fat.
- jmpeagle, on 11/04/2008, -2/+6you are retarded, this is only the science medals. They aren't counting Peace, Economics, & Literature in this letter.
  - geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1He is retarded "I find either one unintelligent" but I'm not so happy about the bias against non-science Nobel lauriates.
- Makushimirian, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." - Henry Kissinger, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
  
  I agree - the prizes for science mean more (to me at least).
0260, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6If you think you only have to choose from the 2, then I guess it's not that hard.
financedude2, on 11/04/2008, -0/+18I love how people keep trying to tear apart nobel winners as if it weren't an incredible accomplishment achieved by very very very few.
akchrs, on 11/04/2008, -21/+5Who cares? I'm sure 76 liberals also support Obama.

Quick, without looking, name one Nobel Laureate. I thought so.
- Estariel, on 11/04/2008, -1/+7Roderick MacKinnon. No idea whether he signed the letter.
- Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -1/+14Are you really that stupid? Since when did rewarding intelligence and hard work become unimportant?
  
  You right wingers are the scum of the earth. Wake up, your retrograde views are doomed.
  - Mekun, on 11/04/2008, -6/+2At least try and back up your comments with an intelligent argument instead of name calling. But then again your just showing us your IQ.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6How do you know my IQ from a post? Does it give you insight about my past work? Maybe you found out on that post that I am a biologist?
  - akchrs, on 11/04/2008, -13/+3Since America is not a land of Nobel Laureates, but a country of hard working people who aren't socialists. It totally amazes me that people like you aren't willing to contribute to society but want the government to hand things to you. People like you are truly pathetic and I can only hope you're just a troll.
  - alappat1, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4akchrs, CONTRIBUTING to society by paying higher taxes is what the left is fighting for!!! They don't mind the rich paying extra to give to society. Hell, i am an electrical engineer, and starting a small business; i don't mind paying higher taxes if i end up making more than 250k- it may help provide for police coverage in a high crime neighborhood somewhere...
  - gospe1337, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5"nce America is not a land of Nobel Laureates, but a country of hard working people who aren't socialists."
    
    http://bucketoftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1 ...
    http://bucketoftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1 ...
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1@akchrs:
    "It totally amazes me that people like you aren't willing to contribute to society but want the government to hand things to you"
    
    Just because you're a poor and/or useless doesn't mean every liberal is. If I make >$250k, why shouldn't I be paying a higher percentage in taxes? It doesn't hurt me (I never really spend it all in a year anyway), and it helps out society on local, state and national levels.
    
    Yes, it's forced philanthropy when we do it by voting for logarithmically balanced taxes, rather than constant - but it's my vote, my dollar. And while my peers pay the burden with me, they often *need* such encouragement to give back to the community that keeps us comfortable.
    
    Don't you think it's telling that the places with the highest concentration of per-capita wealth are the ones voting for middle- and lower- class tax breaks at the expense of upper-class tax hikes?
    
    We *want* to reduce your burden. We can afford to do it. Why the hell do you resist so strongly? Do you *want* to pay high taxes?
  - prodigitalson, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2"Don't you think it's telling that the places with the highest concentration of per-capita wealth are the ones voting for middle- and lower- class tax breaks at the expense of upper-class tax hikes?"
    
    Indeed. Hell if i make more than 90k a year id be willing to be in that +250k tax bracket. Thats more than enough for me and my son. I make it ok on 40k a year now and really the only things im wanting are luxury items. Which, when compared against investment in alternative energy, solid nationwide public transit, national education, and health care... Well that new 8core MacPro and an Audi A4 are kind of insignificant when an IMac and my current Hyundai Accent will do just fine.
    
    Not to mention its in *everyones* benefit not to let the disparities between the rich, the poor, and the middle get to big... well unless you want a bunch of angry poor people pirating the coastal waters, kidnapping your kids, and trying to overthrow the government.
    
    Mind the Gap.
  - Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Exactly, man. Well put. This is what those defending the republican ideals don't realize. They only think short-term and feel that any money paid in taxes is just giving it to "unemployed guys that don't work".
- danj484, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6Watson. Crick. Einstein.
- danj484, on 11/04/2008, -1/+9What the crap? What do 76 liberals have to with Nobel Laureates? Unless, of course, you're saying that the most educated demographic tends to vote to the left, in which case you'd be correct.
  - phroztbyt3, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2i second that motion.
LocalApple, on 11/04/2008, -15/+2these nobel laureates are not too smart afterall
- danj484, on 11/04/2008, -1/+5Nor are you, evidently. Those in glass houses...
GordonFree, on 11/04/2008, -1/+15So, how many Nobel Laureates endorse McCain? Just asking....

None, maybe? Aww that's a shame. I wonder what that means...
Oranqe, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6Sadly, conservatives will just get angry at this because they can't stand the idea that they might in some feasibly way be wrong. They'll just call them Fascist and turn a blind's eye as they've always done.
palpacino, on 11/04/2008, -1/+12Its PDF. Its Official.
P4Paarth, on 11/04/2008, -6/+4He will actually not end the era of "trashing" competitiveness. Regarding Obama's policy on alternative energy research, his plan is to give 150 Billion dollars to companies for research. McCain, on the other hand, wants to provide tax deductions and incentives to the first company to produce better alternative energy sources. McCain's plan will fuel more competition and gives more incentive to the winning company.
That's just one example though; I don't know too much about others.
garths, on 11/04/2008, -11/+4So the vast majority of Nobel Laureates DIDN'T endorse Obama?
- davidryal, on 11/04/2008, -2/+12the vast majority endorsed no one. that many laureates endorsing anyone is unprecedented. i'm willing to bet less than 2 endorsed mccain.
- vinod1978, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5...And 0 laureates endorsed McCain.
mhelal2, on 11/04/2008, -4/+2I'm sure he is terrorist too, Plain will accuse him of lack of knowledge and he is not American, and he has no values.

Who cares, republican cares about Joe the plumber endorsing Mcsame.
FuckTheRlAA, on 11/04/2008, -7/+3Not a single economist!

Damn racists! /s
- jmpeagle, on 11/04/2008, -1/+7technically there is no bobel prize in economics, but those that have recieved the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", which was created by Sweden's central bank back in the 60s, have endorsed Obama while none have endorsed McCain (although some have endorsed parts of the plans from both candidates)
  
  A few examples are Joseph Stiglitz, Edmund Phelps, Paul Krugman, Dan McFadden, & Robert Solow.
  - FuckTheRlAA, on 11/04/2008, -6/+1These guys support McCain's economic plan: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell and Vernon Smith.
    
    See "300 ECONOMISTS SIGN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF JOHN MCCAIN’S ECONOMIC PLAN":
    http://mindmining.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/300-eco ...
  - jmpeagle, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I said some have supported plans from both candidates, but no one has endorsed McCain. None of them have endorsed McCain as a candidate, a few have said his economic reforms are good, but none have endorsed him.
  - FuckTheRlAA, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1I would prefer a good economic plan over a good personality.
  - daggah, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3Then vote for McCain, because under him you'll get neither!
  - Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Paul Krugman, lol.
gibbwake, on 11/04/2008, -20/+8Vote third party - hes a pawn of the finance oligarchs and you supporters are all part of the fascist movement rising up in this country.

1. When Obama recently made an issue of the number of houses the McCain owns. Obama's friend Rezko is a convicted felon, sitting in jail. Obama is the candidate of Chicago corruption. His other cronies Auchi and Alsammare are also convicted felons who have stolen hundreds of millions from the Iraqi Provisional authority and from the government in Illinois. This has been detailed by investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle on opednews, and by Webster Tarpley in his forthcoming book, "Barack H. Obama: the Unauthorized Biography."

2. Obama has very close links to the convicted Weathermen terrorist bombers Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn. He shared board memberships with Ayres on the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This and most of the following scandals are detailed in Tarpley's "Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate," released in June.

3. Obama is very close to the racist demagogues Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss III, Hopkins, Meeks, and Pfleger.

4. Obama has been accused in Federal Court of using crack cocaine by Larry Sinclair, along with gay sex. The Obama camp retaliated by arresting Sinclair in an enemies list operation by Beau Biden, son of veep candidate Joe Biden.

5. The mysterious deaths of black gays in and around Wright's Church: Donald Young, Nate Spencer, Larry Bland could be linked to Obama.

6. Obama's relations to Chechen Terrorism through Ilyas Achmadov.

7. His Relations to CIA-controlled Palestinian factions Khalidi and Abu Nimah.

8. The mysterious deaths of key Clinton delegates and floor leaders just before the convention: Bill Gwatney and Tubbs Jones.

9. The alleged Michelle Obama Hate Whitey tape.

10. Two mysterious envelopes sent to McCain HQ with powder in them raised questions of what Obama's fanatical supporters may be capable of.

11. He helped give the banksters robbing us blind over 5 trillion by voting for the bailout, and actively calling members of the house to vote for it. $103 to a random lady or 5 trillion to bankers? Get real, hes a pawn of the wall street finance oligarchs. Democrats say Obama key in bailout vote switch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081003/pl_afp/usfina ...
- SchmuckofNI, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1And yet these lame Obama supporters are digging you down for telling the truth. Well thanks guys! We now have yet another lame ass president that is nothing but a mere pawn for the bankers!
admntlv, on 11/04/2008, -14/+4Barack Hussein Obama!! I already voted for him. Praise be Allah!!

Finally we have a true believer at the top...Praise be Allah!!!
- Trunkhouse, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Savor the flavor of defeat my cherub.
- phroztbyt3, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1you wouldn't be saying that if Mccain's middle name was Hitler............. I care to wonder what you morons would think if Obama's middle name was Jesus.
pintomp3, on 11/04/2008, -2/+9of course republicans value the opinion of a fake plumber over nobel laureates. the anti-intellectual and anti-rational tendency in america has been growing for far too long.
- gospe1337, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Nothing new -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
DudeInAustin, on 11/04/2008, -10/+6The Nobel Prize has become a sad joke. When Yasser Arafat can get it, then why bother giving it out.
- weeFred, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I just finished reading Arafat's biography and I think that both him and Rabin deserved the Nobel. It's true that he supported terrorism in the 60s/70s but throughout most of the 80s and 90s he was doing all he could to stop terrorism. I believe that if Yitzhak Rabin had not been assasinated then there would Israel and Palestine would be two seperate states living in peace today.
  - 140Suffolk, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1And you're basing this on his autobiography?
  - cquinnd, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2biography =!= autobiography.
  - 140Suffolk, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I missed that. But the point remains that Arafat was a terrorist to the end of his life.
    
    Remember that ship Karine-A that was sneaking murder weapons into Gaza? And then it was proved that Arafat gave the orders? That was 2002.
macinit1138, on 11/04/2008, -3/+3No offense to the 76 Nobel Laureates, but where were they before today? Their voice may have helped with so many other issues in the last 8 years than a simple endorsement recently for yet another lying politician.
- emzerz11, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0They were probably working on their research.
  
  I think we should all be glad that Nobel Prize-winning scientists don't quit their jobs to "help with the issues".....
- macinit1138, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1Maybe they should stay out of politics and stick to their research then, who needs them.
ASSHO, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2Please digg this article before the elections:

http://digg.com/politics/Video_of_Obama_s_upbringi ...

It's a video made by Barack's friend, a renowned surf videographer and a friend of mine, that tells of his American roots and heritage.
Wryly, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3My guess is, they're pretty smart, too.
HBishop, on 11/04/2008, -8/+4Nobel prize is a joke. Al gore and Yasser Arafat both got nobel prizes and both are liars. I find either one unintelligent.
- geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Mekun? Is that you under a different login?
- MmmPi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Hahaa! Double Fail!! McPalinbot
- 140Suffolk, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Touche' Arafat pretty much invented airplane hijacks! His hands were so bloody they were beyond cleaning. Yet he wins a.-ahem- "Peace Prize".
  
  And I betcha Arafat, if he was still alive, would be supporting Obama big time. Just like the other Islamic terrorists.
c101011, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5What Obama needs is an endorsement from a reputable redneck.
- MmmPi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Bill Clinton?
kittnerrules, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Al Gore is amongst this group.
- 140Suffolk, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1So was Yasser Arafat!
phinious, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4Compare these two Wikipedia entries for academic endorsements…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Ac ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_p ...

… kinda telling, isn’t it?
- AtraNoxVII, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1I don't know, Bruce Willis supports McCain, and he's John McClane...so I'm not so sure anymore.
  
  (AtraNox The Neutral Guy)
- emzerz11, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0To be fair, John McCain got more porn stars...
  
  Since when do porn stars give political endorsements, anyway?
Rothbardosaurus, on 11/04/2008, -8/+476 Nobel Laureates are going to be very disappointed in about 9 months.
robungar, on 11/04/2008, -2/+4old story is old.
woodrow8292, on 11/04/2008, -6/+6Another great example of how the smartest people often lack even the most basic common sense.
- Opiate, on 11/04/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately this is all by design.. Elites don't become global socialists for the greater good of mankind.. Are we enjoying our prison yet? It's about to get very interesting.
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -1/+0Don't blame it on a lack of basic common sense! NO!!! Chalk it up to greed, selling out and opportunism!! :)
Opiate, on 11/04/2008, -5/+4If only scientists gave two ***** about liberty. Men of reason? please...
- geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1And this comment is based on...?
  
  Think you've been smoking your handle too much, opiate.
McNash, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2Vote with friends, I know I am.
RealHyperX, on 11/04/2008, -4/+476 idiots!
- emzerz11, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0rrriiiiiiiiiight......
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0No, seriously. Are you aware who gives money to the researchers, authors & scientists who receive these Nobel awards? Do you know how they're funded, how they get tenure? Do you know who VERY heavily (and with many strings-attached) funds the universities where they work? The 76 sing in chorus b/c it's how their paychecks are acquired.
    
    Follow the money.
stg3095, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2I, for one, welcome our new pointy-headed overlords.
maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -6/+2Oh, yes. Having Obama as our president will change things sooo much! See the difference is that McCain is cfr... oh, wait! So is Michelle Obama:
http://www.ccfr.org/chicago_council_board_director ...

What is this Chicago Council on Global Affairs, you say? Well, here ya go!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Council_on_Gl ...
An exerpt: "The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations..."

Why on earth would they change their name between 1922 and now? I just don't get it!

Here's more:
"At its inception, the Council included 23 members with the purpose of opposing what they viewed as U.S. isolationism during the first World War."

They oppose "isolationism". Oh, so what THAT means is they think we should be out there involved in the military geopolitical struggles around the world. Hmmm, maybe this means more of the same.

In fact, my friends, that is exactly what it means. George I, Bill, George II and now Barack; NO difference whatsoever, folks! The more things change the more we barrel headlong toward their agenda. The good news is that lot's of people are waking up and I think they're going to fail miserably.

"What if they threw a war and nobody came?"
Indeed. What if?
- geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Lots of words but I don't see your point? I'm voting for Michell Obama now? A Chicago group that talks about global affairs changed their name sometime between 1922 and now? - and that is some kind of conspiracy?
  
  Are you actually equating opposing isolationism with being pro war?
  
  You have gone way, way off the reservation with this one. My advice is to take a deep breath, gather your thoughts, and follow up with something coherent.
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1To begin with, your first sentence is not an interrogatory, but a statement. Your second sentence is also an interrogatory and NOT a statement. You also misspell the woman's name. Your THIRD sentence is also NOT an interrogatory (goodness gracious, son!).
    Your fourth sentence is a fragment. Your one real question that you ask is:
    "Are you actually equating opposing isolationism with being pro war?"
    Pro war, interventionism- whatever you want to call it. I'm not going to get into a contest over semantics with a person who can't distinguish the subtle differences between a QUESTION and a STATEMENT!
    
    Furthermore, you miss my point. Obama is not going to change ANYTHING at all. He gets his money and his marching orders from K Street and the criminals who direct the money.
    
    This presidential election is theatre- the illusion of choice.
  - emzerz11, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0Your first five sentences are irrelevant. You're not gonna get into a contest over semantics, but you will get into a contest over grammar?
  - geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1@Imaspaz
    Of course I missed your point, Linguo, because you buried it in BS.
    
    I asked you to clarify your post and you deflect by parsing my sentences and didn't address my questions at all.
    
    - Why do I care what groups Michelle Obama belongs to when she isn't running for anything?
    - Why did you bring up the Chicago Council on Global Affairs?
    
    I read the Wikipedia link you gave:
    
    "The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning."
    
    Wow, that is damning stuff; let's not have discourse and public learning.
    
    I think I get it. You are cynical and conspiracy theories are fun because it means you don't have to participate in the system we have. Could have just said that up front and saved us the trouble.
    
    Finally, while you are pointing your poo-stained finger at me remember there are several more pointing back at you:
    - You made up the word 'cfr' (hey picky is as picky does)
    - You misspelled the word 'so'
    - You misspelled the word 'you'
    - You misspelled the word 'excerpt'
    - You OVERUSE CAPITALIZATION which is both rude and diminishes any valid point you may have had. It is like shouting.
    - You misspelled the name Barack twice *
    
    "What if you posted a message and nobody could understand what the hell you were babbling about?"
    Indeed. What if?
    
    * made you look
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0@ geodebug the smug
    
    Wow, this is great! You really are a hardcore intellectual.
    
    First, CFR: Have you never heard of The Council on Foreign Relations? Has no one ever hipped you to the war of Think tanks? Have you ever heard about the press that the CFR receives when they meet in secret (show me the minutes) with leading Democrats & Repulicans attending? I haven't. You say they need to dialogue without the commoners interrupting their work? Where is the healthy skepticism? Do you really trust them because they're "elected officials". You call it public learning; really? Public? Again, where are the minutes of these meetings. How is it you've got the inside skinny on how ridiculous it is to question there meetings (btwn super-rich, media reps & parlaimentary whores)? What divine insight do you have that trumps my legitimate skepticism? You're obviously more well-connected to the elite than I am. Please, grace us with your insight.
    
    Little boy, have you attended the parties where your fate is decided? For all you defend these Washington insiders they don't give a flyng ***** about you. Really! I mean they hate you. Let me tell you sthg else: if you think a wife's affiliation with a group means nothing, you know nothing about how money-politics work. You call it cynical; I call it informed. Let me guess: you go to K Street parties and find out first-hand how money flows through the infamous DC street from the money interests to the parlaimentary whores, right?
    
    The funniest part? You tell me to take a breath as if I'm the rabid and too-invested one. Babycakes, relax! What's wrong? If I point to sthg and you don't understand it, well I'm under no obligation to educate you. Conspiracy? Read the Washington Post, NYTimes and Foreign Affairs (published by the cfr). It's all right there. Undeclared war? Unconstitutional. Our lobby system is perceived as legitimized bribery (and rightfully so) by the rest of the world... b/c THAT'S WHAT IT IS!!!
    
    You want me to clarify my post? Okay, K Street and the same big money interests fund both parties. That's why you get a neo-con like Rupert Murdoch funding a supposed Democrat like Hillary Clinton. Still haven't distilled it down enough yet? Okay, there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican party (Pelosi was made Speaker of the House and promptly got down to the business of spewing rhetoric while at the same time rubber-stamping the legislation that was important to Bush). The bailout (which is criminal and unconstitutional by ANY standard) was supported by virtually all party insiders on both sides of the aisle. Don't listen to the rhetoric of politicians so much and instead look at their voting records and please don't tell me you already know all this b/c you don't
    
    The president of the USA is NOT the most powerful man in the world, but a puppet to deflect attention away from the true criminals.
    
    And then you end with your little "*made you look". No, you didn't make me look, but I congratulate you on your acute sense of humor and you ingenuity. Very clever and maybe a little disappointing. I was hoping for more of a challenge. There, I've made my point. Now tell me how you got a subscription to Foreign Affairs and how you know about everything that I'm talking about and how I'm still wrong even though you can't substantiate anything you've said.
    Barack, McCain. Democrat, Republican. It's all the same machinery. If you suck at "Follow-the-money" well that just means your not really paying attention.
  - geodebug, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1@imaspaz
    I never claimed to be any kind of intellectual, only asked what you were talking about. If I'm smug it is only because I'm reflecting back on you.
    
    CFR: I've heard of it but honestly don't know much about it. Every time I ask you to explain it why it is so terrible you deflect and attack me for having the gall to question your words. Maybe you don't know much about it either?
    
    Your responses are almost entirely ad hominem attacks and putting words into my mouth. I've made no claims to special knowledge so apparently you are battling with voices other than mine. You seem upset that I told you to take a breath yet look at your last post: you're practically frothing.
    
    Let me wrap my pea-brain around your big, novel ideas:
    
    - Every politician in washington is corrupt and being controlled by men behind the curtain (wow, never heard that before)
    - K Street (a.k.a lobbyists) spend money to influence policy. (astonishing, you should go public!)
    - The bailout is unconstitutional. Unpopular sure, but I it seems to me if it was unconstitutional then somebody would have filed a lawsuit. But that is coming from the man-on-the-street.
    
    Some mind-bending stuff there. Why are you hanging out at Digg, you should be working on getting published!
    
    BTW: Little Boy, Baby Cakes? Your flirting is flattering but I'm already taken.
    
    Thanks for helping me waste the day though. Didn't feel much like working.
    
    Little Boy out!
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0@ geodebug
    
    My attacks are not ad hominem. They're pointing somewhere. Again, you're missing my main point. Democrats and Republicans are the SAME party. We have no REAL choice. If you want to get down to it, what this country needs is an ideological revolution, an awakening.
    I'm pointing you in directions, but I can't explain everything b/c this is Digg and space is limited. I encourage you to read up on the things I'm pointing out. You say that you know that politicians are corrupt, that K Street means lobbys, you've 'heard' of the cfr. If you honestly don't know then do a little reading. I didn't form my opinions based on nothing. You don't think the bailout is unconstitutional? My god, that one's fundamental, geodebug.
    
    I guess I'm a little guilty of being smug as well b/c I do know a lot (from personal knowledge as well as reading). Let's just say I've been privy to enough inside conversations to know that these people you're speaking in defense of would find it laughable and proof that you deserve to be used the fact that you would actually speak in favor of those who fool you and enslave you. They pride themselves on their cold, cool detachment; it's a badge of honor to not give a *****.
    
    My honest advice to you is go to your library and read old books (history and otherwise). Am I frothing? No, I'm just picking on you and being a little unfair about it; sorry about the "baby cakes" and "little boy".
    
    Seriously, don't take my word (or anyone else's) for anything. In fact, don't believe anybody unless you've checked it out and read (not just the internet). That's exactly my point. You don't even have to dig very much before you start finding inconsistencies. The elite left/right are counting on apathy and diversion (tv, pop culture) to work their magic on human consciousness. If you want to see the *****, read the NYT (or any Hearst Corp rag, etc) w/ a critical eye and (this is very important) read the article to the end. I remember getting chills up my spine reading articles (when I still subscribed) and then the truth lay in a little sentence way at the bottom of the article. The title of the article completely contradicted the reporting!
    
    Go and check out Foreign Affairs (at your local library. DON'T pay for it please) and read between the lines. Anything you don't know, look it up and you won't have to take my word for anything. I prefer it if you don't take my word!
    
    A large part of how I make my living is researching the most far flung topics you can imagine. Trust me when I say: I have no agenda other than uncovering truth and I am not at all happy about the things I'm discovering. I'd much prefer that things were the way I thought they were when I was 20.
  - maspaz, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0I am published and will be again, too.
  - geodebug, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1I've taken no real offense to our exchange, just fighting word fire with word fire.
    
    By 'ad hominem' I meant the "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument" definition, though I wasn't really making an argument but was asking questions.
    
    I 100% appreciate that you've changed your tone and it has the big side-benefit that I actually understand where you are coming from so much better and in exchange I'll drop my snottiness also.
    
    I'll take you at your word that you've done more research than me but you'll have to give me some credit. I'm no youngster and I'm not naive to the world. If I'm not as well read on the fine details of how our political sausage gets made in Washington it is not out of disinterest.
    
    I'm not disagreeing with you on corruption, influence of money, but I am skeptical on the unified conspiracy aspect. If anything I see enough crap on the surface to believe that most of the bad stuff happens in the light of day.
    
    "You don't think the bailout is unconstitutional? My god, that one's fundamental"
    Again, I'm claiming lack of knowledge not asserting it. The best I could find was that "anything not specifically detailed in the constitution is 'unconstitutional'" but that doesn't seem solid enough. I guess my answer would be if it is so obviously unconstitutional why don't the bailout's detractors (and there seem to be many) file a lawsuit (or its equivalent in politics)?
    
    I once heard the theory that people get the government they deserve and maybe it is true.
  - maspaz, on 11/05/2008, -0/+0I started by writing another long entry and opted for this instead. To begin with, I'm not trying to act smarter than you. I know people who are a lot more well-read than me and others who are a lot more intelligent than me. I have friends who have graduated from Stanford who have the common sense An anecdotal story:
    The American Bar Association had a blue ribbon committee investigate Bush's unprecedented use of Signing Statements. Some of the countries leading lawyers found that Bush's use of Signing Statements was "unconstitutional" and "illegal". He has not been impeached or indicted.
    Karl Rove ignored a subpoena to appear before congress to testify. He was not taken into custody and forcibly sat down in the chair to testfly. Iran/Contra was one of the most thoroughly investigated and proven conspiracies in US history (to buy cocaine, ship it to the US in C-130's and then sell it on the streets of the US; all of the preceding is a matter of congressional record). No one went to jail but quite a few people close to the situation died "mysteriously".
    
    The meaning of the word "conspiracy" has been slowly changed to mean sthg suspect in it's veracity, instead of what it is which is a group of people working in concert behind the scenes to attain an agreed upon goal. Conspiracies have occurred throughout all human history (Egypt, Rome, Mongolia, Spain, and yes, even the US-the Maine/Randolph Hearst). Only in the past 50 years has the word been corrupted.
    The debate over whether or not the Federal Reserve system should exist began very early in our history. Jefferson & Madison (the good guys), et al squared off against Hamilton & Co. The very, very rich have succeeded in imposing central banks on every country with European leadership from The US to all of Europe and further.
    I suggest studying the history of banking and find out who owns who (what media outlets are owned by GE, eg). If I may very sincerely and humbly suggest one thing it's "follow the money".
  - geodebug, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1I'll agree that 'conspiracy' is now a word you can use to derail an argument.
    
    I'm up on the signing statements; actually I've made Bush's endless steps over the boundaries a hobby, which is why I'm trying to take at least a little bit of joy tonight before reality steps back in.
    
    While I don't know exactly which corporations own which media outlets I do understand that the consolidation of mass media over the last few decades has provided us with so much less diversity. Believe me, I don't watch television news (besides the Daily Show for a few yuks).
    
    I do what I can browsing the internet checking out the different outlets in the US and international when something is interesting.
    
    Much of what you are suggesting is why I'm a 2nd amendment liberal. I think it is important for Americans to be armed when the day comes where we realize we need to protect ourselves from our own government in a more visceral manner.
    
    I promise to do some more reading. Happy election day, though it doesn't seem like you'll get much joy out of it :-)
  - maspaz, on 11/05/2008, -0/+0It's been good writing back and forth with you geodebug. In fact, my election day is okay. I'm actually really encouraged by all the people I've known for years who would never have questioned things (my family is very establishment) now speaking up and doing some learning.
    I'm a true constitutionalist conservative. I believe in small gov't and state's rights. This used to be a union of individual and independent states (as in countries), but has now morphed into a more Soviet-style massive, centralized bureaucracy that exists to perpetuate itself. The individual has fewer rights while the corporations get tax breaks and bailouts and incentives while being a lot less accountable (arbitration clauses are omnipresent in cell phone contracts, credit card contracts, etc. It's an end run around the legal right to suit in civil court).
    The fact is I love the American people, but detest the mercantile synergy between Big money, elected officials and the Bureaucrats. I really love my home state of Texas a lot! I've lived in Europe and spent a lot of time down south. There is a lot we can learn from other cultures, but Americans are still a damn good lot. Mainly, the big difference between us and the rest of the world is that between our education system (obedience training for human beings. No propositional logic, no analytical thought, no classes on small business ownership) and our media, we know nothing of the world. Education makes sure we're ignorant and TV misleads continually. What every other culture understands to be true is distorted in the media. Go to a public library, however, and you'll find that all the truth is there in old books.
    
    The American people are really pretty cool, especially compared to Europeans- they all hate each other, they're judgmental and they really envy us. Over the past 60 years though, TV/media has worked it's magic and now we are becoming intellectually impotent. "They" have overplayed their hand, though, and, because of it, people have been awoken.
    
    Take care, geodebug. I wish you Health and Prosperity, Love and Peace.
    
    Maspaz (translated from Spanish means "More Peace")
  - geodebug, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the parting words. (now you make me feel bad about making fun of your handle)
    
    Actually, you write/sound a lot like one of my younger brothers (I have 5). We argue all the time then go have beers and watch terrible movies.
    
    I live in Texas too but only for a year now. Moved down to get away from the Minneapolis cold.
    
    More Peace, we can agree on that.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1This man speaks the truth.
odxWallz, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6I had trouble sleeping last night because I had a small pang of doubt that McCain would somehow manage to win the election. I tried remembering all of the things that I thought would be deal breakers for the election, and that only gave me minor solace.

Please, Americans. Don't ***** this up. You have a chance to simultaneously make history, and save what I believe is a beautiful nation filled with great people.

Love from British Columbia, Canada.
- AtraNoxVII, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4Thank you America's Hat.
  Heh Jk.
  (AtraNoxVII the Neutral Guy)
- 140Suffolk, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Mind your own business, America's Attic.
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Login or register to add a comment

76 Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Related by Keyword

Nobel Laureate: Bush's Economic Time Bomb. Cover story 2007

76 Percent Of Americans Want a Candidate Different from Bush

President Bush to protect ocean reefs, fish and volcanoes

Login or register to add a comment