digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Big surprise: Republicans are spreading un-true smears

unknownnews.org — Every single one of these hundreds of emails, ostensibly sent by dozens of different people, all come to my Republican-only email address -- which means they're either being sent by GOP workers, or (pretend this is a meaningful difference) Republican Party membership roles are sold, leased, or loaned to people who send these email lies.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dBass, on 05/12/2008, -7/+14Good thing we had "campaign reform".
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8"Republican-only" email ... RRRiiiiighhht
      • CokeBear, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Actually, I understand exactly what he's talking about. I own several domains, and whenever I want to give out my email address to someone who I suspect might sell it, I customize it so that I can identify the source when the inevitable spam starts flowing. Also makes it easy to cut off one particular source of spam if it gets bad.
        • kolobcreek, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Even bigger surprise. YOU THINK ONLY REPUBLICANS DO THIS. Politician is Latin for "full of *****".
    • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -7/+13Un-true smears - not just Repulicans, but also Democrats - like Howard Dean saying McCain wants the Iraq war to continue for 100 years. Like the O-man saying Hamas does not support him.
      • Malacandra95, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Dean never said that McCain wants the Iraq war to continue for 100 years. What he does say is that McCain has no problem with Americans staying in Iraq for 100 years, which McCain did, in fact, say.

        True, the DNC's ad did leave out McCain's statements suggesting a long-term stable presence, such as our bases in Korea or Japan. But then again, McCain's premise that we could have any presence in Iraq in the foreseeable future that wouldn't be a magnet for violent extremists is a fantasy. In fact, isn't that the whole rationale for the Bush Administration's "flypaper" strategy? So to get to those many, many years of US troops who aren't at risk in Iraq means many, many years of our continued presence as targets of violence.

        The DNC is aware that the vast majority of Americans wants our troops out of Iraq... and the John McCain has no interest in removing them.

        So tell me how that's a smear again?
        • jbenson2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Check the Chris Wallace video on Youtube. Dean sputtered and spun, but didn't make any headway against Chris Wallace. He tried to flash a piece of paper that supposedly contains what McCain really said, but Wallace called his bluff and showed the whole clip.

          FACTCHECK.ORG confirmed that the DNC ad was a lie and exactly opposite to what McCain said.
          .
    • quomen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9Don't act like only the republicans do it. Sad truth about politics is that it's dirty dirty dirty. The Clintons have done more than their own fair share, while some of Obama's campaign members have also released untruths about Hillary. John McCain pledged to have a clean campaign, purely about issues and i'm holding him on that. Hillary is wrong, but in the case of McCain and Obama, they can't control what the people around them say. ffs there are bumpers stickers that say George W. is a terrorist. While he is a terrible president, that is still a lie. The individual needs to be held accountable for their dumbass statements, not the party.
      • quomen, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2To clarify, the lie is that George Bush is a terrorist. Unfortunately he still is a terrible commander in chief.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Look at all the OBama-lover crap on the internet.. its above and beyond all the crap for Ron Paul... are we going to see OBama with 20% of the votes comes election time :) !
    • pitlord, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Puuuhhhleeeze!
      -_-
      WTF is "unknownnews.org"?
      >.>
      Why do I care what "Max" writes about?
  • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -15/+47The republicans can throw whatever they want at Obama. The simple fact is, the more Obama talks, the more people like him.
    • thirdcoastborn, on 05/12/2008, -12/+9and the more people bash Obama over stupid stuff, the more people choose him and back him up.
    • Dewhead, on 05/12/2008, -19/+14The more Obama talks the more his lack of experience and his far left views are known. He is too far left for the majority of Americans. Too far right isn't good and neither is too far left. The majority of people are closer to the middle.
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+27Anyone not shooting an AK-47 at an endangered baby panda to extract oil from its bone marrow while lowering taxes for billionaires and giving public funding to the creationist museum is too far left for the Republicans.
        • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -18/+6Wait, I thought you were upset about smear tactics, yet you are entirely duplicitous about it, transparently even.

          Just so you know... The reason I am kicking your ass so badly is you probably got your start on some netroots web site, and they um... Ban and delete anyone who disagrees with them and has good points. They do it to a fault.

          When Bush engaged in this exact same process it resulted in the Iraq war. When democrats did it, it resulted in Obama, perhaps the least electable candidate to run in a GE in American history. So can we agree that censorship is a bad idea yet?

          At least Edwards had the good sense to fire Amanda a week after he found out the kind of crap she did and said.

          Get ready, this general election season is gonna be a bitter pill. LOL.
        • bgrah449, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5The state of the Republican Party is pretty sad. They used to be the Party of Ideas. Now they're just the Party of Inertia.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Sounds like propaganda to me Flossdaily. There is plenty to counter your comment. Evidence that the rich actually pay more now then before Bush tax cut and that they still pay more taxes then any other group. The problem with liberals is they would love to just bleed the rich dry. The problem with that is the rich can easily find ways around. Other problems occur because the rich support liberal candidates as well. Kinda hard to bleed a supporter. If you think it is in a Democrat politicians best interest to bleed the rich you are dead wrong. They may huff about iit but I bet you they never blow. In the end the middle class will pay. The poor who pay no taxes will get free money. And we will still have debt and climbing to pay for all the socialist programs people like Ted Kennedy and Obama support. I mean look at Bill Clinton's years. Those were great years for the rich. During his time billionaires became common rather then few.
    • quomen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2That's not necessarily true. Obama has made some very controversial political statements. I'm not saying that he's wrong, but it's best not opening your mouth sometimes.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1How bout I throw a brick house at Obama? Will the people like him then?
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0I like to bash him over his voting record, when he bothers to show up and actually cast a yea or nea vote. Please have a look at his voting record and come back and explain to me how he differs from Clinton, or for that matter the Democratic majority, since he votes with them over 96% of the time. Obama, for all hi s talk, is just a business as usual politician. If you want a guy who actually has some different ideas, pick Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The democrat party started bashing Bush in 2004 for not dealing with Iran who they considered to be a real threat(more real then Iraq) because they thought Iran was making nukes. Of course Obama fell right in step and declared that he would rather attack them then let them become nuclear. He showed poor judgement because a while later Iran was proved to be free of nuclear weapons. Since then the Democrat party has been silent. But Obama now says we must talk to Iran the very country he supported attacking on what was obviously crap evidence. A change or better judgement? I think not. OBama is NOT right for America. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=4 ...
    • Veretax, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2actually Obama lost my interest after he went out to an Elite group in Cali and demeaned gun owners and those who may be religious. Republicans are not scared about Obama, at all. Good Grief, he'll be easy to beat.
  • callinthelaw69, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Shocking.
    • jriggs420, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't even read the article..

      ps - diggstaff...looks like the 'thumbs up' button isn't working on this page at 1:45 EST
  • redcolumbine, on 05/12/2008, -15/+30GOP SOP (standard operating procedure).
  • oldhick, on 05/12/2008, -22/+7What republican is going to vote for Obama anyway? This is retarded. Republicans emailing republicans and we care why?
    • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -4/+18Recent polls show up to 38% of registered republicans are antiwar. And quite a few Republicans simply hate John McCain. I'd say these emails are a damage-control strategy to prevent people from crossing over based on issues.
      • follower64, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Anti-war republican is an oxymoron.
        Ever heard of a pro-war liberal?
        • homah, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Maybe these days it tends to be an oxymoron, but there are still a number of Republicans who would rather have someone like Taft than someone like McCain.
        • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Way to go - ignore the facts, just go with your opinion. "Polls" are all biased anyway, right? And YES FFS I have heard of a pro-war DEMOCRAT - Sen. Rockefeller comes to mind, among others.
    • chdodd2012, on 05/12/2008, -6/+24I am a republican, and I am going to. I personally agree with the conservative ideology- but not what it has turned into. I think Obama is what our country needs right now.
      • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -17/+6I am a Democrat, and I am Voting McCain, because just like Bush becoming president based on a hate movement was bad for the country, it will be bad if Obama becomes president based on a hate movement.
        • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -4/+18Oh, you must have read the bumper sticker wrong... Obama is running on HOPE, not hate.

          Get those glasses checked.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -16/+4He also claims to be the Unity candidate. See all the Unity? I sure don't, he is the single most polarizing candidate since... I don't know, Im not that old...
          • chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -4/+10"I don't know, Im not that old..."

            The story of your life.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -13/+3chaosium,

            It must be a blow to your ego, that a single person can come on one of these well orchistrated campaign propaganda threads, and utterly destroy the party in about 5 posts.

            As far as I can tell, thats all you guys have... the entire sum of netroots is petty irrational insults, occasionally some witty snark, and not a single other thing. You got nuthin.
          • chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -3/+13If he thinks that Obama is the most incredibly polarizing personality of any election in his lifetime, he doesn't have experience with participating in any completed elections.

            He's not even the most polarizing personality in THIS election.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -11/+3I have been a Democrat since I first voted in 1992. I volunteered for the Gore campaign, and I carried a freakin sign in the marches during the recount. I blogged my ass off leading up to 2004 (see the movie blue state) I was crushed. I watched a Pelosi totally caved into bush after 2006, and had my fill with the democratic party at that point. I totally lost interest in the process after Edwards hired Amanda Marcotti, I have seen it all before.

            The single most polarizing event of this election was when the netroots (who uniformly support Obama if you didn't know) started trashing Clintons legacy in the 90's.... That combined with me working my ass off the last 20 years has resulted in me having a substantial income, and I'll be damed before I support a LOSER, who wants to double my taxes.

            But thanks guys!!! Now that the democratic convention is likely to look like a mixture of Freaknik and the Folsom street fair, yeah!!!! This election is gonna rock!!! McCain in a landslide after that freak show.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3@B16633:

            #1) who are these 'netroots' you speak of?

            #2) The only reason Obama supporters are so vocally anti-Hillary, is because Hillary has been so negative to US! She basically accused anyone supporting Obama of being naive. Hillary has been negative and divisive, not Obama. In fact, it was Hillary's negativity that drove me into the Obama camp.

            #3) I haven't heard Obama supporters bashing BILL Clinton's legacy- only pointing out that Hillary isn't allowed to run on her husband's success.

            #4) Obama isn't going to double your taxes. You need to stop getting your information from Fox News.

            #5) Even if the party isn't united BEFORE the convention, we will be united after. Once Obama has the nomination, the debate will finally turn back into a contest about POLICIES. And when it comes down to policies, Obama has this thing won hands down. (Out of Iraq + No more Bush-style economics = win)

            I've read your post. If you were EVER really a democrat, you certainly aren't one now. I've never seen anyone other than republicans whine so much about taxes. Most democrats don't mind contributing money to help the country. With republicans its like pulling teeth.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -9/+4#1 - well lets start with Huffington Post and Daily Kos, but there are MANY MANY MORE. You are obviously playing dumb(perhaps not), that wont work with me.

            #2 - Oh BULL *****, you want me to pull out anti-hillary postings from major netroots bloggers going back to 2006 and embarrass you even more?

            #3 - you havent been listening then

            #4 - No he is not going to double YOUR taxes, you will only get a significant tax increase. He is going to double MY taxes, because Im rich apparently. You are sticking your head in the sand on this one dude, and Obama has already lost the general over it. Hillary was overly generous to not talk about the magnitude of Obamas tax plans, because she had tax increases as well, but they were not the huge overarching tax increases that Obama has proposed. Also, I am getting my information from the wall street journal. You on the otherhand need to stop getting your news from the Obama campaign and netroots.

            #5 NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. With the Obama campaign and netroots continuous insulting of everyone that is not supporting Obama, there will be no unified democratic party. Obama might want it to stop, but the Netroots is based on hate of George Bush. Now the Bush is out of the picture that hate is going to be directed at their vilan of the moment. Also a significant contigent of people will show up at the convention who don't want massive tax increases.

            #6 You don't get to define what a democrat is, and that is the entire problem with the Obama campaign. Additionally, you have obviously never paid taxes. I have no problem with my fair share. Do you see me complaining about the taxs I pay right now? No. You see me complaining about Obamas plan to double what I am paying right now. He wants to increase my taxes AND massively increase government spending in areas that I think... the government is best left out of. This by the way is one of the ways Obama is trashing Bill Clintons legacy, but I am getting tired of mercilessly battering you about the head and don't care to explain the subtlties of it at this time. But I will give you a hint, you called me a Republican. ***** you.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7You want a polarizing candidate? Just wait and see what happens if Hillary gets the nomination. The Republicans desperately want Hillary to get the nomination - because it'll be a goddamn ***** if she goes up against McCain. Even with all of the apathy regarding McCain, the Republicans will be howling for blood at the prospect of Hillary winning the election.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4@B1663r:

            Ah, I see, so your idea of netroots is basically any liberal on the internet. Okay, good to know.

            Well, if you are rich enough to get as screwed by Obama's tax plan as you seem to imply, then you're clearly out of touch with the hardships that most Americans are going through. The last two presidential elections have been filled with republican promises that lowering taxes for rich people was going to help the economy in general (because they still believe in trickle-down economics in spite of 25 years evidence that it doesn't work like that).

            The fact is, we're massively in debt because of Bush's war, and because he refused to pay for it, the next president is getting left with the bill. The only responsible economic policy is to increase revenue to pay off our record debt. That revenue has to come from taxes- so now we're looking at all the rich folks that enjoyed MASSIVE tax cuts for the past 8 years.

            If you choose to see Bush's tax cuts NOT BEING RENEWED as an affirmative step to RAISE TAXES, that's pretty disingenuous, and you're really only echoing Fox News propaganda. You can call yourself a democrat all you want, but the only other people I know who do that are republicans.

            Also, you seem to really want McCain to win. I'd like to know if you were a Bush fan? I'm starting to think that maybe you recently turned rich and you decided that money was more important than your liberal values? You wouldn't be the first person to say "screw the poor" as soon as they got a little scratch.

            If your argument is about divisiveness in the democratic party, then you are more problem than cure. We'll have a candidate in a matter of weeks. Get behind him for the good of the party. I would have sucked it up and gotten behind Hillary.

            We can't afford another 4 years of Republican incompetence. Well, maybe you could, on account of how rich you are. But there are poor people out there hurting. Millions of them. Without Healthcare. Any true democrat would care more about that then they would about being able to buy that second summer home you've had your eye on.

          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2Lets see you spin some about the Obama tax increase, You flippantly insult me some more, and then you pretend that I'm being the the divisive one. Then finally you insult me some more. Well at least you didn't call me a racist...

            Have fun losing to McCain and your paranoia is really getting out of hand man, lay off the pot.
          • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2@b1663r:

            "Me fail english? That's unpossible!"
          • chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1"The single most polarizing event of this election was when the netroots (who uniformly support Obama if you didn't know) started trashing Clintons legacy in the 90's."

            The only people trashing Clintons' legacy are named Bill and Hillary.
        • LeadOffMan, on 05/12/2008, -6/+10HOPE is not a viable strategy.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Its a bumper sticker, and its a philosophy. No one ever said it was a strategy.
          • Neo829, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3It's rhetoric. Who's going to have the nerve to vote against Hope and Change after all?

            It doesn't mean anything, though. Obama went to great lengths to make people believe he is a different kind of candidate, but the more that comes out, the more it becomes apparent that the only thing different about him is his lack of experience.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2#1) Obama is a different kind of candidate. The man rights his own speeches, he doesn't take money from lobbyists and he's not insanely wealthy and out of touch.

            #2) He's as experienced as Abraham Lincoln was. I think that turned out okay. And Bush's experience didn't make him a good (or even competent) leader.

          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1#1 Right... Um Rezko.

            #2 Lincoln inexperience caused the civil war, americas most costly war in terms of human life. A more capable politican could have prevented the war. Bush's inexperience caused the 911 strike. So experience does matter.

          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2@B1663r:

            #1) Obama has donated to charity $150,000 in political contributions linked to Mr Rezko. (According to the Times Online)

            #2) Your understanding of the Lincoln presidency is completely detached from reality. For starters Lincoln didn't cause the Civil War. Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office.

            Stop pretending to know things that you don't know. You're just embarrassing yourself now.
        • bgrah449, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6McCain getting elected on the stupid movement would be just as bad.
  • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -17/+8How ***** stupid is this?
  • Dysarthria, on 05/12/2008, -11/+45Hey, didn't Hilldog spread this rumor when she wouldn't deny reports Obama is a Muslim?
    Hey, didn't Hilldog push the Reverend Wright story?
    Hey, isn't Hilldog saying white people won't vote for Obama?
    Hey, didn't Hilldog push Obama's association with a U of Chicago terrorist in a national debate?

    There isn't a single "smear" the Repubs will use this fall that Hilldog hasn't already used.
    • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -17/+13Is it a smear to tell the truth about Obama? Because he plans on raising taxes ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Thats a fact. So when you haters read a fact like that, that you don't like, does that make it a smear?
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+14#1) That's a complete fabrication.

        #2) There is no #2.

        Stop making ***** up.
        • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -11/+20No its not... Its right on his website. He plans to raise taxes. Numerous economists have looked at his plan and said it is a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax hike that will affect virtually every american in spite of Obamas claims that he is gonna give people making less that 50k a tax cut.

          You should have done your research before you drank the coolaid, because now he is your GE candidate and peeeugh! You guys picked a stinker.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -4/+10Nothing but hearsay. Show me your numerous economists.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -10/+5Look Im sorry you are too ignorant about politics to do proper independent research, and you are going on the marketing materials all alone. So I am gonna do you a favor and spoon feed it to you, because I feel like humiliating you some more.

            First, you agree or not agree that Obama plans to lets the Bush tax cuts expire? Second do you agree that there has been inflation since 2001? How about peoples incomes have inflated more or less in accordance to that income?

            On that basis alone, a lot of middle class people have moved into higher tax brackets based on inflation alone. They are all middle class people. Their taxes will be going up. This means people with incomes as low as $32,000 will see a significant multi-thousand dollar tax increase, much greater than the works for a living tax credit obama plans to give.

            This is seperate from Obamas plan to just straigh up dramatically increase taxes on people (famlies) making 250k or more.

            Secondly, Obama freely admits he plans on moving the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 28% Never mind that each and every time this particular tax is lowered it brings in more revenue. But none the less, basically anyone who saved any money at all will effectively see a doubling of their taxes. This will be the highest captial gains tax rate since... iirc 1982. To offset this (guffaw) Obama plans to eliminate income taxes on retired people. But most economists agree, they will still see an net tax increase under Obamas plan. This tax increase affects about 100 million americans and the vast majority of them would be described as middle class.

            Finally, Obama has not been clear how he plans to modify the payroll tax (we know he plans on raising the employer side of the payroll tax, but it is nebulous how much and on whom) He has claimed a donut hole, but there are still lots of questions to be answered, and there are many political uncertainties of the viability of the donut hole plan (like the donut hole plans do nothing to fix ss)

            When the economists add up all these figures they come up with a TRILLION DOLLARS give or take a few dozen billion dollars. They are in unity on that point, it will be a train wreck for the economy.

            But *****, it doesn't matter. Once the guy on the street realizes the extent of the Obama tax hike, he doesn't have a chance this fall. (but never mind looking at the electoral figures right now, he doesn't have a chance before then either)

            Hey but you guys showed those dirty nasty Clintons who is boss!
          • Jio666, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7"Show me your numerous economists"
          • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12So lemme get this straight. For the past 8 years, Bush has been selling this country to China with uncontrolled deficit spending. Obama comes along, and realizes that hey, someone's gotta clean up this ***** mess, and you get all pissy at Obama? You're acting like a teenager who just found out the credit card he just maxed out isn't free money.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9I see why B1663r is so confused now. He seems to think that inflation has been accompanied by wage increases. He seems to be completely unaware that for most people that isn't the case at all- wages have been stagnant for quite some time- which is why so many people are hurting right now.

            Just because the dollar is worth LESS doesn't mean the number of dollars I get in my paycheck goes up. And the cost-of-living raises that SOME companies give out haven't even begun to scratch the surface in the face of the massive inflation that's been happening.

            Even if B1663r's ridiculous hypothesis was true, Bush's tax cuts disproportionately benefited the top 10% of the population. Letting them expire in order to put in place a more middle-class friendly plan is the only sane way to go.

            Anyway, the crux of B1663r's argument is that Obama's tax plan will be harder than bush' on people making A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.

            Well, I'll tell you something, you republican shill- if I were making A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, I wouldn't whine so much about my tax rates when so many other people are falling below the poverty line, living without healthcare, and my country is amazingly in debt because of Bush's war.

            Greed is disgusting. If you're living comfortably, GIVE BACK to the community that helped you get there.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3@flossdaily

            Let me explain something to you VERY clearly. The community didn't give me anything to get me where I am today. I paid my own way through college with part time jobs, studied hard, and worked my way to the top. The only one who "helped" me get to where I am today is me.

            That's the basis for America. You get to have the life that you earn, not the one that you think you're entitled to. If you get a degree in some ***** subject, don't be surprised when you're flipping burgers for minimum wage at age 25.
          • Neo829, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3@Wargalas:
            Well said. If we could somehow get the population to start valuing personal responsibility over victimhood and entitlements, real Change™(Obama did trademark the word, right?) could start to happen.
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1@Wargalas:

            Let me explain something to YOU VERY clearly: The community gave your ungrateful ass everything.

            #1) You know those roads you travel on to get to school and work? Yeah, the community paid for those.

            #2) You know how you have the freedom to pursue the career of your choice? Thank the military for keeping those liberties secure.

            #3) You know how you enjoy OWNING the things you worked so hard for? Thank the police for protecting your possessions. Thank all the poor people in the world who don't riot and take all your ***** for themselves.

            The rich owe their lifestyle to the poor people, who as a whole, agree to abide by the laws of society, even though those laws keep them at the bottom of the food chain.

            You think you OWN your house or your car? Why, because you have a piece of paper saying so? No- you own what you own because we live in a society that respects and enforces private property rights. Every goddamn thing you own, you own because the poor masses let you own it.

            When the rich too ungrateful and self-righteous, the poor tend to rise up. Read up on the french revolution sometime.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4@flossdaily

            Again, you're incorrect. The roads, military, police, ALL were paid for with taxes taken out of MY paycheck. Society didn't wake up every morning at 5 and walk to work. I could have easily spent my days lounging around doing nothing but watching Jerry Springer, but I didn't.

            That's the difference between me and a loud portion of Digg users. I saw what I wanted in life, and I did what it took to earn it. I didn't spend my days talking about how the rich need to give back to me like you do. Perhaps you should learn about personal responsibility like Neo829 speaks of.

            Just because I earned my way to the top doesn't give you the right to one damned cent that I EARNED. You want a better life with bigger houses, cars, and xbox games? Earn it. Go to college, pay attention, get a better job. Otherwise, yes, I would like fries with that.
          • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I tried to read what you said B1663r. I'm not as well read as you apparently, so don't be too harsh on my retardedness please.


            1. Bush tax cuts expire by obama's hand.
            So GW saw that our econmy needed help, and he said to congress, lets put some tax cuts in place to provide stimulus. This COMPLETELY turned the economy around, and it worked so well that we're no longer experiencing inflation.

            2. capital gains tax, only people who are affected by that are in the higher income tax brackets, amirite?

            3. hasnt been clear on how he is going to modify the payroll tax. so you can't speculate on this one. since he hasnt been clear on how it's going to be done, it might not even happen.


            so 1 + 2 + 3 = higher taxes for the poor folks?
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, Mr. Asspants, you are incorrect about number 2. Capital gains tax effects everyone who's invested money, not just the rich. Many people buy stock in various companies to help build up wealth for retirement.
          • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1MOST people with an income of less than 50k a year don't have enough money to pay their bills, much less invest it.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Well Mr. Asspants, perhaps if you put your money into investments instead of buying GTA IV or any other frivolous items, you'd be able to invest as well. You can open a sharebuilder account (http://www.sharebuilder.com) with no minimum. You'd be surprised about how quickly your money can grow if you make small sacrifices.
          • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Well Mr. Wargalas, we're not here debating that placing extra income in a high yield savings account or investing in a roth IRA is the best thing to do with the extra 50 dollars one could save by not purchasing grand theft auto. We're talking about CAPITAL GAINS TAX affecting poor people and by proxy somehow obama not extending bush's tax cuts is the reason he's unelectable.-- it doesnt.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2My point is, is that economic data supports that lowering taxes on capital gains shows an increase in investment AND revenue in taxes, all the way back to the Reagan administration, and when they go up, investments slow and tax revenue dries up. People invest because they can get a decent return on their money and the economy flourishes. When they know the IRS wants a bigger cut, they'll look elsewhere to put their money.

            Plus, literally ANYONE can invest money, even the poorest person can invest $5 in a stock. Many people seem to not understand what "poor" means anymore. If you own a car, have a roof over your head, and eat every day, you're not poor. If you own an xbox 360 or ps3, you're not poor.
          • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The logic is there, and it makes sense that reducing capital gains tax could have a marked effect on the amount of investments and tax revenue, Back in the regan administration, we weren't exactly in the same global economy that we are today, and wal-mart really wasn't the small business crushing behemoth that we've all grown to know and love. I don't think that day trading for the average joe that flips hamburgers, and pays child support to his baby's momma is the antidote to our countries woes, do you seriously think that the same women who voted for hillary just because she is a woman are capable of researching a company and making an educated decision about which stocks and bonds to trade when pork bellies are at an all time high? The harsh truth is that people are stupid, really ***** stupid. And people with above average intelligence are VERY few comparatively. It's not like they're going to have an epiphany one day and turn their life around by investing the next. The poor are going to stay poor, and the rich are going to get richer.
            Yes, I agree that if you have a house and eat every day you're not really poor. But lets just call the lower class lower income tax bracket, non investing, general population of people in this country that for the sake of the argument. Raising CGT does not, and will not affect them. They're the voting mob that determines who gets to sit in the oval office.
            You (the smart investor) are of no special interest to them.
        • LeadOffMan, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4put down the crack pipe flossdaily. Nobama has made no bones about his intention to raise taxes, as if that's what this economy needed now. What an idiot
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8Tell me again about how Bush's MASSIVE tax cuts EXPIRING is Obama's fault?

            Tell me again how Bush's MASSIVE tax cuts were GOOD for the economy?

            You republican's are pathetic. They've got you guys out here arguing for economic policies that benefit your boss's boss's boss and are turning America's middle class into slave labor.
      • Turambar, on 05/12/2008, -4/+11WHERE THE HELL ELSE IS HE SUPPOSED TO GET MONEY

        you can't just invent money like the republicans seem to think, you have to have real money to actually do things.
        • tman84, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7How about getting spending under control, I know thats not the liberal way to do things, but he could try consolidating some of the redundant government programs, reducing the amount of private jet flights Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi go on, instead of just increasing taxes and wasting more money.
          This country does not need Socialism
          • lostarchitect, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Sure, that would help a lot. Cut down on jet flights, sure, but that's small potatoes. How about ending a pointless and incredibly expensive war?
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Well put tman. Cut spending and magically money starts to appear from the TAXES WE ALREADY HAVE.
        • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Do you have any suggestions of where we should cut spending that aren't canned partisan attack responses? Getting spending under control is a necessary part of economic recovery, I'll grant you that, but what gets cut, and by how much?
          • tman84, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3the trillion or so dollars we're spending on a war would be a nice place to start
          • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Yes it would.
          • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Tman, where do you propose we start cutting AFTER the war is over?
          • tman84, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3If saving 1 trillion dollars isn't enough to curb the left's check writing frenzy, I'd propose looking into so many redundant government agencies, do some consolidations, we've got a DEA, FBI, ATF, DHS. I'd look into Hillary's penchant for being the queen of pork, Who knows how much is wasted on earmarks in laws each year.
          • Wargalas, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Well to give you an idea, she racked up I think around 380 million last year and has asked for 2.4 billion this year in pork. Those aren't absolute numbers, but they are close I believe.
    • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+11can we stop with the Hilldog please? That's just elementary school smack talk.
      • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -11/+5John Stewart is a failure. I believe a lot of his intent was to teach you kids about Irony, and he has obviously failed.
        • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12It's like you're having a completely different conversation than everyone else around you.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -8/+2People alaways snark like that when they are geting their asses kicked.
          • lostarchitect, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1people always talk about kicking ass when they've just gotten a wedgie.
        • Diderotten, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Hilldog comes from South Park, not Jon Stewart.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Didn't Obama fanatics post 20 or so articles a day on digg.com. Most of them garbage? I swear Digg.com has only become a place for Obama fanatics to circle jerk and worship thier False Idol.
    • rmxz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Perhaps this is part of the Democratic Party's strategy.

      Hillary's staying in the race so she can make lame half-hearted attacks that Obama can easily shoot down so that when the republicans bring it up in the general election it's "old news" and the media won't really care.

      Brilliant if they're doing it on purpose, but I just can't imagine the democratic party that brought us John "I like the war almost as much as Bush but not quite" Kerry is that smart.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3ah lukassmith, you are dead on, and will be dugg down for showing them the truth.
    • Veretax, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Right. so all that talk from the major networks on Right, was HIlary's dooing. Oh even the MSOBAMANBC
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/12/2008, -18/+12Vote Republican:

    Destroying American Families One Surge At A Time

    (paid for by the anti-American, screw the troops, coalition of white trash Republican voters association)
    • JoeB4ever, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2you made my head hurt
    • patrsup, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4"American Families One Surge At A Time" - not sure from your vindictive comments you would know a normal American family.
      • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2He has shown, in other treads, signs of a troubled youth.
        • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1*in other threads*
          /spell-check doesn't catch the typos that are other words :(
  • SeventhSon, on 05/12/2008, -1/+22Politicians lying? You must be mistaken.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah we all know the liberal media is alive and well. For instance why is it when I ask Obama supporters if he ever supported going into conflict with Iran they say no? In 2004 Obama and his entire party mostly were bashing Bush for not doing enough about Iran. They did this based on evidence. Evidence that proved false. Remind you of another year? perhaps 2002? The fact is Obama has already has proved his judgement is superior to nobody. The liberal media has just covered it up. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=4 ...
      Speaking of cover ups you people aught to know that Obama himself did some fancy cover ups of his own in his book "dreams from my father." Instead of honestly telling the American people that his father was a scumbag he made him out to be a hero. For your reading pleasure, let me introduce, the true Obama senior, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5 ...
  • i70CuDa, on 05/12/2008, -9/+13Did you hear, democrats are too. oh wait those are republicans acting as democrats. dam them slimy republicans!
    • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -7/+9Yeah, it doesn't get any more duplicitous than this. It is kind of sad. Obama+netroots has run the nastiest campaign we have seen in as far as I can remember. So for the Obama campaign to start complaining about the Republican party using the same tactics they have been using the entire primary is kinda... lame.... And it is the sort of whining that makes me think Obama is unelectable. But not as much as his inability to with either Ohio or Florida (or several other must win states for democratic candidates).

      But look at it this way... A whole new generation of Democrats are going to learn what it means to be democrats... A lot of dissapointment on election night... The circular firing squad this time should be fantastic.
      • blinkatron, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Uh... no. Obama has not run a nasty campaign. He has barely put out any attack adds. I believe you are confusing him with Hillary and McCain.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3I believe you are a frickin blind idiot if you haven't noticed that obama has delegated his "smear-campaigning" to his operatives so as to avoid looking like a mudslinger himself, but still being able to mudsling. brilliant move, like something karl rove would do. so yeah, I can only guess you are 16 since you actually are so blinding defending your boy Obama. I would've been a blind follower too long ago, but ever since the 2004 election where the worst president in the history of our country was re-elected because we democrats had to act like a bunch of ***** retarded blind pretentious *****, i;ve strongly disliked the dems and the blindness of their followers.
        • blinkatron, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2yeah, turns out i'm 23 and not a blind obama supporter. show me one commercial that barack has approved that has attacks in it. please. cuz i saw plenty of attack adds from hillary and none from obama in PA.

          and it's not my fault that the Repubs do a good job of smearing Dem candidates and morons buy into it. But hey, why do something about it when you can just complain and give up on a party you believed in. way to go.
    • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2"I know you are but what am I" seems to be a frighteningly common argument ITT.
  • MJDub, on 05/12/2008, -7/+20I look forward to the Obama-McCain debates being like the Kennedy-Nixon debates: young, fresh, and inspiring versus old, angry and fear-mongering.
    • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -11/+12No not really... In the GE, the press will not let Obama get away with dodging questions about his ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax hike. I'd like to see what he has to say to the criticisms of a growing number of economists who think his tax plans are horrible.
      • MJDub, on 05/12/2008, -6/+7Probably fewer economists than who think McCain's tax plans are sub-par (see gas tax holiday, etc). Plus, consider the fact that taxes, as much as they can be a burden, go towards public works projects like keeping the bridges from collapsing and the like. This so-called "trillion dollar tax hike" you mention sounds like rhetoric.
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+7Bush TEMPORARILY cut taxes by one trillion dollars. That tax cut is coming to an end. It has nothing to do with Obama.

        And the fact that our economy is in the ***** should be proof enough that those tax cuts didn't do what they were supposed to in the first place.
        • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8HAHAHAHAHAHA

          So Obama+Netroots supports ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax hikes. Can I quote you on that?
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Since no one said that- no you can't quote it. Next time you have a minute, look up how quotes work, 'kay?
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3"Bush TEMPORARILY cut taxes by one trillion dollars. That tax cut is coming to an end."

            And if elected Obama has promised to make sure that tax increase happens, raising everyones taxes, but without correcting for inflation, meaning even the lowest tax brackets will see a significant tax increase.

            So yes, I will quote you on it!!!!!
          • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3you seem unable to grasp the basics of cause and effect.
          • jaznova, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Gawd you are getting annoying

            You had three apples. You get rid of an apple. You gain an apple. Now you have three apples again. Simple, right?
          • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3B1663r, you're really starting to piss me off. Have you no comprehension of the fact that Bush is guilty of rampant deficit spending? Seriously, we gotta put an end to that *****. Now we're either gonna have to cut spending or raise taxes, and with this whole ***** known as the Iraq War, it'll probably take both to get this mess under control.
          • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1***** it, I'll bite! ***** yeah, I'm all for it. At least Obama has a plan to settle our national debt. Just another point that further cements my support. Yeah, it'll sting, like quickly removing a band-aid. You cry that it's going to hurt, but the pain won't last long. You've just gotten so used to the ass-pain of the slow screwing we've been getting for the past 6 years that you've deluded yourself into thinking you enjoy it. (BTW I'm speaking for MYSELF, not Obama or his campaign.)
        • LeadOffMan, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Those tax cuts are the only thing that saved us from a severe prolonged recession, following Clinton's bubble economy. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to get that
      • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1How much is the tax-hike?
        IT'S OVER 9000!
      • Rendonsmug, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2He's raising taxes by 1 trillion dollars? Really? Damn, thats nowhere near enough.
    • Cyrus042, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3That's one way to look at it. Or it may look like the Reagan-Mondale debates. Age won't necessarily be an issue.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4"young, fresh, and inspiring versus old, angry and fear-mongering." what a joke. you just used a bunch of VAGUE words that show how much emotion you have invested in your boy obama, and emotion makes you blind. young fresh and inspiring? in the debates I see them sounding very much like the same person. as a matter of fact, if mccain didn't win this thing for the repubs and have to pander to the far right, i think he would be the best running mate obama could have chosen.
      but go on ahead, child. keep turning whoever obama is against into an evil supervillain overlord whose goal is to take over the universe and enslave us all. it speaks very bad things of the supposedly enlightened state of humanity when we still go around "mythologizing" every thing, meaning : "Obama is our lord and savior, everyone who is against him must be made out to be Satan." why people can't see the GOOD in both candidates and just choose the one who has MORE GOOD, instead of blindly choosing one from the start and calling him a SAVIOR vs an evil satanic opponent, is beyond me.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'd like a debate on their voting records. I'm happy to concede that Barack's all about hope, change, and unity, what I'd like him to do now is show me how any of his votes would ever actually cause any of that, since he's continuing funding for the Iraq War and reauthorizing the Patriot Act plus a whole lot more Washington business as usual votes.
  • casuallyevil, on 05/12/2008, -4/+33Are we REALLY going to pretend that this doesn't happen in both parties? And are we REALLY going to pretend like these sorts of lies/exaggerations don't show up on the Digg front page every day? I'm against this kind of crap from both parties - the stuff that comes out of the official camps is bad enough, but do we really need to give these nutjobs the sanction of recognition?
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8Just because both parties do something doesn't mean one doesn't do a whole lot more of it. And besides, while democrats have been known to sling a bit of mud here and there, flat out fabrications are another story, yes somewhere sometime some democrat has lied, but, seriously, read the article, Obama an Al-Quaeda Operative? Give me a ***** break, that is beyond low and far beyond anything the democrats have pulled in recent memory, although I suppose that has more to do with the average intelligence of each party's base then the honesty of those in charge.
      • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -8/+11Um, Daily Kos has said in the past that Cheney personally ordered the 9/11 hit.

        Democrats (the netroots at least) have gone FAR FAR beyond anything any republican has ever said.
        • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Comments on an open internet forum can be equated with mass-mailings by the national GOP fundraising machine? How, exactly?
        • Infidelcastr0, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Wow, great example, a conspiracy theory on a blog. Hell if we're going by that logic I guess you could also say all the troofers here also represent the DNC, digg does tend to have a bit of a liberal bias after all. Seriously, give a real example, If you're gonna start quoting blogs as official Democratic statements, I'm gonna start quoting Evangelical ministers lol.
        • Malacandra95, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1In fact, the fastest and surest way to be permanently banned from the Daily Kos by its owner is to make that claim. Kos has zero tolerance for it.

          You don't know what you're talking about.
    • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3"I know you are but what am I" is a great argument, did you learn how to use that in grad school?
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2If you report the philandering of one party, that doesn't mean the other party doesn't do it either. It's just a report about one of the parties. Get over it.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2look at how horrible the leftists are at justifying why they, the pot, have called the kettle black.
      it is beautiful to watch.
      free yourselves from political affiliations, and you can laugh at this too. a true liberal would be liberated from ties to political parties.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1My response to you is that in this case, it is a measurable phenomena. If you set up six e-mail accounts: two would be the control. You would put your e-mail address into 10 random websites in the top 500 visited websites. Same with the other control. For two other e-mail addresses: Submit one to the RNC and the other to another republican fund raising branch (the Republican Senate re-election committee.) You would do the same with the democratic one: one to the DNC and the other to a Democrat re-election committee. Compare results.
      I find it unimaginative of you to make such claims and realize that it is testable. Otherwise, you're spreading FUD.
    • whalt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No but we're not going to keep pretending that both sides are just as bad when the overwhelming majority of this ***** flows in one direction. I love how Republicans cry bias and foul at every turn until someone catches them dead to rights then the answer is always the same, "But everybody does it."
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3That's un-believable.
    • goblindegook, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I know. I was un-able to believe it myself at first.
  • paranoiabacon, on 05/12/2008, -10/+8I'm a high school student and even some of my "friends" (i use that term lightly for some of them) were passing these slurs around as chain mail over the past few months.

    Anti-Obama Chain mail. In high school. Which they got from their ignorant parents, no less.

    >>REPOST THIS MESSAGE IN 5 OTHER DIGG STORIES OR HILARY WILL BE GIVEN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. ALSO TERRORISTS.
    • Dwebtron, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I too got a chain letter from one of my dad's co-workers trying to persuade me to vote McCain. Some of the "facts" on there are funny, like:
      "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim; he is quick to point out that "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.""
      "Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking Major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's presidential candidacy... ... The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level?"
  • DrPaul2008, on 05/12/2008, -5/+13How is it that half the population can see that the Republicans (all but one, anyway) do nothing but lie, and the other half sees that the Democrats do nothing but lie, but only... what? 5-10% can see both?
    • scamper22, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2yes, and that 5% vote for ron paul
  • LeadOffMan, on 05/12/2008, -9/+9Obama has yet to win a state in the primaries that we could win in November. But go ahead and think you have a shot dims with obobblehead.
    • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Good example of the subject.
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3And keep pushing the status quo - same old, same old, McCan't.
    • papipablo, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2You don't think he could win Illinois? Even Mondale won his home state. Oh wait, you're clearly retarded. Want a cookie?
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Again! a bunch of retarded responses to a LEGITIMATE comment.
      -I live in dark blue new jersey and im telling you there is STRONG mccain support here among people who actually vote. hillary won this state.
      -anyone who is badmouthing your comment mustve never followed a ***** election. jackasses dont remember AL GORE LOSING HIS HOME STATE OF TENNESSEE IN 2000 (which woulda won it for him)
      -maybe things will be different this time, but probably not. the fact of the matter is that leadoffman just raised some LEGITIMATE concerns and you bitches gave elementary school responses which only prove that you have NO REAL ARGUMENT AGAINST IT.
      -i like obama, but i am afraid mccain is going to win this thing.
  • Mandragon03, on 05/12/2008, -7/+14Nice one sided story here... Propaganda anyone?
    • tman84, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Remember, It's not propaganda if you're being duped by it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Well, if ONE side was massively corrupt, and helping the elite steal, and the other side, was slightly corrupt bust mostly trying to get government back to helping the people -- how exactly would things look?

      You cannot have equivalency if one side is doing the right thing and the other side isn't.
      • justz00t, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yes but what side is doing "the right thing" is only your opinion and we all know what opinions are like so don't act like one and try to remember there is no truth in politics only opinions.

  • Calann, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11Republicans are hoping to be able to smear Barack Obama by falsely defining him. Barack Obama does not have a long history in the media spotlight, so most people don’t know what a good, decent person he is. Among the conservative lies are that he is a Marxist, a Muslim, a racist and a homosexual.

    Conservative talk show host Dennis Prager states that Obama is the most liberal senator currently in office while at the same time saying that we no absolutely nothing about him. How do we know how liberal he is if we know nothing about him Dennis? Hmmm?
    • paradox4190, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Even if he was a Muslim, it's not like that would be a bad thing. And, it would probably help Middle East relationships, it's not not they could get any worse...


      could they?
      • tidu, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You underestimate America's prejudice against Muslims.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The Marxist label comes from the picture of Che Gueverra in one of his campaign offices, his black liberation theology church and the whole class struggle mantra that is prevalent in those liberation theology movements, and from his book in which he mentions a relationship he had with a man he identifies only as Frank, who is presumed to be Frank Marshall Davis (a memeber of the Communist Party USA).

      As to the question about how we know he's liberal, look at his voting record: "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings."
      http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
      • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I don't understand what the problem is with Che Guevara poster.
        And "it's just not american" as a response simply won't do.

        You could say that he was a marxist and disagree with everything he stood for and that means that Obama is a marxist.

        Or you could say that Che was a hero to his people and that means that Obama is aspiring to be like that.

        for the record... I will not be voting for obama.
    • Veretax, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Not to mention that his wife, Michelle's comments about taking a piece of the pie from folks. If the guy is married to a person who espouses Marxist views you just gotta wonder.
  • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -10/+8Please. Have you heard of the Huffington Post? Seriously they must collect Obama's pubic hairs.
    • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Obama trolls' phallic fixation is honestly getting to the point where it is extremely disturbing.
      • papipablo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4What can you expect? They see a black man and they are immediately obsessed with his *****. They're probably afraid Obama is going to steal their white women too.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Phallic fixation? I call your bluff buddy. You actually believe anyone obsesses about Obama's *****? Seriously I am well known to Obama articles and I have not even seen ONE mentioning his *****. I just mentioned pubes. You sir, utter nonsense.
      • hayzeus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You just mentioned ***** twice and pubes once in a single post. Silence would have been a better rebuttal.
        FAIL
      • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1You just mentioned them both too. fail. Seriously your childish. Grow up.
      • swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You call my bluff? Here's some comments I dug up relating to Obama, *****, and/or masturbation (mostly found in the recent "Obamamania takes Capitol Hill" article)-
        "And the Obama circlejerk continues. Can't wait to all the election crap is over."
        "obama's dick must taste quite good for as much attention as it's getting"
        "DIGG NOW OFFICIALly IS BEING RENAMED "OBAMA BLOWJOB!"
        "I scream "Barak Obama" everytime I have an orgasm."
        "4.) Politician's followers wet themselves with spontaneous Obamasms"
        "Smoking his pubes gets you high."

        Hundreds more where that came from. And don't even ask about Obama Trolls' well-documented anal fetish.
      • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Your knowledge of Phallic qoutes disturbs me almost as equally as your desire to drag on an argument about Obama's lower regions.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2yeah, way to not respond to the fact that digg is the foxnews of the liberals. typical liberal response. ***** THE REAL ISSUE LETS MAKE JOKES!
      • papipablo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sean Hannity has a message board where you'll be well received. Please go there and don't come back.
  • CaptRage, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9Reason #2 I am getting sick of Digg
    Republicans lying = bad, democrats lying = good story
  • Avor, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I read the entire article, but I couldn't focus on the point of it, because I was fighting around the excessive, and unneeded use of commas, throughout the article.
  • mustaphou, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6democrats would NEVER lie, right?
    • whalt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah but it's not constitutionally impossible for them to occasionally tell the truth like it is for the modern Republican party.
  • dan222555, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7As if there weren't comparable (probably more) smears going around about John McCain. Please. The Huffington Post? Daily Kos? Rawstory? Thinkprogress? They smear McCain and Republicans on a daily basis and its ***** celebrated on Digg. All of your minds are so ideologically clouded that you can't even see what's right in front of your faces.
    • asspants, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2There is nothing wrong with smearing McSame, I don't care which party you're affiliated with.
      • dan222555, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You epitomize the smug liberal attitude of "we can smear the hell out of your guy, but don't you dare smear our guy!"
        • asspants, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7You epitomize the retarded republican attitude of "make grasping stretches of logic fit into whatever fit into whatever argument i want to use" and then "when that doesnt work cry that we're being repressed"
          I didnt say don't smear my guy.....
          wait who is my guy anyway?
          • dan222555, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1You said there's nothing wrong with smearing McCain. That implies that is something wrong with smearing somebody else. Otherwise you would have said there's nothing wrong with smearing any political candidate. So obviously there's someone you're exercising this double standard on.
          • asspants, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1And you would be incorrect.
          • dan222555, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1So you have no problems with smears against any candidate? So you're not bothered by the content of this article? In your mind there's nothing wrong with smearing Obama and there's nothing wrong with smearing McCain. If that's the case then that's just a sad take on politics.
          • asspants, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1It's sad that every last one of them are the way they are, it's sad that the GP will be forced to chose the lesser of the evils. And you're sad for defending John McSame.
          • dan222555, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Well then I guess you just have a cynical never-pleased view of politics. It's just that "John McSame" sounds like a phrase right out of the typical Obama supporter's lexicon. So just for clarification, you have no problem with people smearing Barack Obama by claiming he's muslim?
          • asspants, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, they can claim that all they want. They can keep repeating it untill the cows come home, because that will not make it true Dan, I see what you're trying to get at (and I'm flattered you took the time!), but it's not going to work. I'm not voting for Barack.
  • tman84, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Obviously with such a credible news source as this, I can only assume the Republican Party is the only party that fabricates things. Or we could say "both parties are obvious pieces of *****, and do nothing they promise, and maybe we should demand more from our leaders and stop worrying about who is being voted off the reality show this week.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, you make the incorrect conclusion based on the evidence. You can say that the Republican party is prone to share your e-mail address with political spammers. That is bourne out by the evidence provided by the blogger (and the McClatchy news service. Since this was founded by former members of Knight-Ridder Service, it's highly reputable.). Since, the writer only gave anecdotal evidence for the Democrats (he did not set up an e-mail that was democrat only), you cannot make any legitimate conclusions either way. I do think that this is a measurable phenomena, and so making claim that Democrats also do it because Republicans do it is unimaginative.
  • DearDearDarla, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I think the authors of these lies ought to be sued for libel. Email can be tracked, can't it? Sue the f-ers!
  • taradisiac, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0The general election is a war, don't expect either side to play "by the rules".
  • FredFredrickson, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3But I thought the Republican Party was composed of nothing but upstanding citizens? The moral compass, the fiscally responsible?

    Oh wait... turns out that was never the case at all. Not very surprising!
  • LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Seriously this is the last article you democrats and Obama fanatics should be digging up. The taint of Hypocracy is all over you.
  • itstodd, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2WOW this one is so hard to believe! Dirty politics? Who would have thunk it. Politicians are turds. The best you can hope for is a polished turd.
  • trixterIreland, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4so one person advertising anti-republican wares for sale is claiming this, and instantly its proof? Has anyone else gotten one? If it only costs $10/year to get them why dont more politically minded people sign up to get them and report on them? Why is it just this one source?

    It seems less likely to me that its real given that the site is actively selling merchandise promoting a political agenda, one this story furthers. I would have thought that others would have tapped into this as well. Maybe it is real, maybe its partly real and partly distorted (quoting real people, giving their names and cities, does not mean those people really didnt say or believe that, it doesnt mean its right, and what I read indicated that they were only quoting people and taking the context of why they were quoting them out).

    For anyone that reads that page and instantly believes it, perhaps you are guilty of what the article itself is claiming "the other side" is doing. Without 3rd parties coming out indicating that they too have seen these things it just seems like someone with a webpage trying to fool the sheeple to me.
  • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Fair enough, but you do have to realize that being endorsed by Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef doesn't really help his case dispelling these rumors any. Nor does his voting record.
  • drgooch, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It is absurd to think that the Dems don't also do it. Both parties are in the wrong. Don't be naive.
    • Malacandra95, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That may be the case... but without similar proof, it's only conjecture. Don't be cynical.
  • Hetman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I believe this is going to be the most negative campaign we have ever had in the U.S. And the funny thing about it is it is not even going to be done by people directly associated with the republican or democratic parties. You are going to have crazy bloggers on both sides spread so much dis information that it is going to be insane. And these bloggers are going to actually think that what they are doing is justifiable. I personally cannot wait just because I want to hear all the crazy stories that are going to be brought up. But seriously it is getting out of hand on both sides.
  • Tomson74, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2This just in, its called Politics!!!!!!! One party is NOT greater then the other. They both do this kind of crap. BURIED because this is nothing new, and I dont really give a crap.
  • siamesedream, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Of course a dem wouldn't admit nor know it when receiving propaganda from the democratic party. He buys into it and believes it, the same way the republicans buy into this ***** about Obama.

    Oh, and I love how digg.com has become a place for everyone to suck Obama's dangling balls while posting bunch of news stories that are either outright false, misleading, or utterly retarded altogether. This place is simply wonderful.
  • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4What are you kidding me?
    huffington post, dailykos, rawstory
    then come fcuking talk to me bout REPUBLICANS smearing. you ***** hypocrites.
    • whalt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Criticism isn't smearing even if you think it's biased. The fact that you can't tell the difference explains a lot.
  • mycatsasha, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Great. Now people will think that all republicans are ignorant jerkwads who like to drown kittens and tear the wings off of butterflies. -_-
  • 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The problem with being so politically biased that you'd vote for a chimp in a suit, as long as he's got the right party button on his lapel, is that sooner or later, you elect a chimp in a suit. Anybody who voted for the current chimp and was busy telling everybody why they should vote for the chimp too, really should clue in, sit down, and shut the ***** up.
  • IPublius, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I was with him right up until the point where he said the Democratic Party never lies. Just a party shill after all. What a shame. I thought maybe it was someone who simply liked the Democratic point of view better and distrusted both sides equally (always a wise choice).
  • jayscot, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Big Surprise... Obama is a socialist who has no respect for middle-class self-employed America.
    • scamper22, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0Well duh. Unless you work for the government or are really poor, you gain nothing from an Obama presidency.
      Thanks to government policies (both republican/democrat), those groups are increasing :)
  • normalkid0615, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1im the only one who is shocked, you all can go to hell or heaven if god decides to save you which he wont cause he is not real :P
  • Birdie1111, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0And>>>>>>We should believe you????>>>>Why!!!!!!
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1McCain today, came out as being fully against evil. A provocative, and maverick position to take for this tough, fearless American candidate.
    In other news, Evil, appears to be the only special interest group, not on the McCain staff.

    OK, now I count as an "evil Democratic operative" so the Right can continue dismissing their misdeeds as something "everyone does."
  • LastVisibleDog, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Clearly this blog writer is trustworthy - with statements like "I despise the Republican Party", you can be sure these comments are factual (roll eyes now)
    More moron rambling from a bankrupt "We hate Republicans" blog
  • thedogfatherx, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Big Surprise Republicans AND Democrats have always spread un-true smears. Where the ***** have you been? Don't be a dick and only "smear" one side yourself. Your just like them *****.
  •  

    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.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.