What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- duckley, on 09/05/2008, -44/+139NOTES:
(1) In the charts, the frequency of use of "Opponent's Name" by Republicans is misleading...
Republicans usually did not use Obama's NAME in their speeches, but clearly indicated their target. Actual references to Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden were much more frequent than indicated.
(2) The word "Reform" as used by Republicans usually indicates endless committee hearings, where personal and regional interests eventually result in the status quo, i.e. NO CHANGE, NO REFORM.- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -7/+31Let the reinterpretation begin.
- Aliwalla, on 09/06/2008, -7/+47Also, when Republicans refer to "Hockey Mom's" they are in fact referring to genetically enhanced bears.
- Super6, on 09/06/2008, -0/+17I thought Palin made it clear they they were pit bulls with lipstick
- worldchanger, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1has anyone notified Colbert??
- jetboyterp, on 09/06/2008, -23/+11Source?
dkapuchino is correct...Watch the lefty-loo's spin even this chart their way. Lies, innuendo, and baseless accusations are all the left has.- david76, on 09/06/2008, -6/+15I guess you didn't listen to any of the Republican speakers.
- jetboyterp, on 09/06/2008, -14/+9@david...
Yeah, I did. I also listened to the Dem speakers.
Of course, we should add in how many faux Greek columns Obama had, vs. McCain.... - br0ck, on 09/06/2008, -2/+5These columns http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/27/greek-columns- ... these columns http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/08/pres ... or maybe, just maybe these columns http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Martin_Lut ... ?
- AyaJulia, on 09/06/2008, -1/+3br0ck: Psh, that photo from thinkprogress is OBVIOUSLY fake. The man's head is in front of the words behind him! You just want us to THINK he's at the Republican convention, but he's actually at the... um.... red pelican convention. Yeah. That's it. Liberal wacko revisionist!!!!111eleven
- bodisatvah, on 09/06/2008, -2/+3jetboyterp, if you did listen to the dems, then you're just an idiot.
- NeptuneZen, on 09/06/2008, -12/+8No change, no reform? Two lawyers vs a veteran and a hockey mom, who do you really think will bring change?
- raisputin3, on 09/06/2008, -4/+10None of them, because they are basically the same
- Malacandra95, on 09/06/2008, -5/+18Well, when you frame it that way...
Or you could say: Two senators vs. a senator and a right-wing extremist, who do you think will really bring change?
Or you could say: An outspoken opponent of the Iraq War and a Foreign Policy expert vs. someone who voted with Bush 90% of the time and someone who thinks Iraq is God's Plan, who do you think will really bring change?
Or you could say: The editor of Harvard Law Review vs. someone who graduated 894th out of a class of 899 at Annapolis, who has the intelligence to bring change?
There are a lot of ways you could look at this. - ZenMojo, on 09/06/2008, -4/+14Correction: Two constitutional law professors vs. a veteran and a sportscaster.
- schuder, on 09/06/2008, -6/+9Yet if Biden is such an expert over McCain why did Biden vote for the war? Honestly people, you can be liberal or conservative and give the other side a fair shake and at least listen to their ideas. Labeling Obama or Palin extremists is dumb, neither of them are. The blatantly pro-Obama or McCain people are the real extremists, and blind to boot. Honestly people, both parties suck, open your eyes a little. Obama's not going to change *****, McCain isn't either. If you want real change you should have voted for Ron Paul or even Kucinich (though Kucinich is an incompetent, but he would have brought change, granted to socialism, but that's still change I guess).
- Larsonal777, on 09/06/2008, -2/+4We all know lawers are the worst kind of people.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 09/06/2008, -14/+4NOTES:
The words "affirmative action candidate" were not used by the Democrats however, they were implied when speaking about Barack Obama.
The words "I put a cute little hamster in my anus" are words Democrats usually use to define fun in some north western geographical locations, but those words were not used during the speeches, only at the hotel rooms to the DNC in Denver so the words were not included. - Nerfdude, on 09/06/2008, -1/+24notes:
buried as inaccurate. the chart shows Giuliani using "9/11" once.
i'm calling shenanigans.- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -2/+4..... Per 25000 words......
- gkrat, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2he didn't talk THAT much. I agree, somethings off. Maybe he referred to it as "the attacks" or "the most important thing that's ever happened that i'll never get over" or something. Sorry for being insensitive but the guy lives off 9/11.
- schuder, on 09/06/2008, -3/+2He did only use it once.
- Nerfdude, on 09/06/2008, -2/+8so did he say "september eleventh" all the other times? because he probably said it nine hundred eleven times.
- badmonkey6186, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5I'm surprised they didn't chart maverick. That word was getting thrown around all over the place at the RNC.
- gkrat, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1i remember back in 2004 when the guy COULD be referred to as that. He was still a douche and i wouldn't have voted for him, but he wasn't bush back them...
- AngelaQ, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Reform is a toughie. Whether a candidate has been responsible for holding up the status quo or has worked to change it is the most important consideration.
- iamjboyd, on 09/06/2008, -1/+33) The word "change" as used by Democrats (or Republicrats) usually indicates backing down on principal and changing policy to match special interest which match the status quo; i.e. NO CHANGE, NO REFORM
Ever heard of Ron Paul? - Gamer2k4, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4"(1) In the charts, the frequency of use of "Opponent's Name" by Republicans is misleading...
Republicans usually did not use Obama's NAME in their speeches, but clearly indicated their target. Actual references to Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden were much more frequent than indicated."
And the democrats only referred to McCain by name? - JayD16, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1This chart is pretty interesting but I wouldn't give it TOO much merit. Technically the Dems used the phrase "September 11th" more then the Reps but I certainly didn't see a montage of flaming tower footage at the DNC.
- nygenxer, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1This isn't misleading.
You are missing the point: that frequency with which words and names were spoken is highly significant in and of itself.
Words repeated frequently, or intentionally avoided, provide insight into the intentions of the speaker. - waluum, on 09/06/2008, -1/+3Same goes for Democrats, but whatever you need to tell yourself to stay convinced that Obama is your savior and McCain is the devil. Mind you, I support neither, I just pity your foolish defense tactics.
- msimeth, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2The New York Times must have a Republican bias
/s - VigRoco, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3Wow, you mean that the facts are biased? I am sure glad you pointed that out.
- duckley, on 09/05/2008, -37/+87
(3) The word "Business" as used by Republicans means BIG BUSINESS and Big Oil, most in the form of Tax Breaks when they ship our jobs overseas.- derekcannon, on 09/06/2008, -15/+25They ship our jobs overseas because of high taxes and labor unions. Don't you see? ._.
Tax breaks can only bring them back.- derekcannon, on 09/06/2008, -16/+9They ship our jobs overseas because of high taxes and labor unions. Don't you see? ._.
- bodisatvah, on 09/06/2008, -8/+2No, they do it to take advantage of exploitative labor practices overseas. The global economy is ***** because a dollar in India can actually buy you something.
"Don't you see?" Who the ***** do you think you are? Some sort of economic theorist? The problem is that we're not investing in our future by funding education, advancing in green technology and space exploration, and letting our infrastructure degrade instead of paying Americans to keep it functional and safe.
Get off your pedestal you pompous piece of *****.
- TinternAbbot, on 09/06/2008, -9/+27Um, most of the time when they talk about business, Republicans are talking about small businesses. They often make this explicit.
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -10/+20Would you rather buy a 3000$ cell phone, but 100% American, or a 400$ phone that was engineered here, but manufactured overseas? How would you feel about the price of the phone becoming 600$, because of government taxes?
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -6/+10Don't digg me down, answer my valid questions. It might be an uncomfortable truth, but these are exactly the tradeoffs.
- NeptuneZen, on 09/06/2008, -11/+12Liberals don't answer valid questions like this dkapuchino, because if they actually thought about it they wouldn't be liberals anymore.
- Malacandra95, on 09/06/2008, -6/+4Well, if I can't afford the $400 phone (who puts dollar signs after the number?) because I lost my job to off-shoring... or because I kept my job, but my salary has been cut in order to compete with workers in China that don't have to provide livable wages, decent working conditions or adhere to minimal pollution regulations, then it really doesn't matter to me how much the damn phone costs.
- BrainInAJar, on 09/06/2008, -2/+6@Malacandra95
"waah waah, I can't compete"
If you can't compete with them because they live in squalor you have two choices:
1) live in squalor
2) find something to do that they can't
manufacturing as a career is gone, and good riddance. There are plenty more jobs out there that can't be replaced by robots or third-world quasi-slaves.
The Luddites were a group of people that smashed technology because it replaced human labour, and we look at them as ridiculous now because all it did was cause human labour to advance away from menial tasks. - ajames01, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3@Malacandra95
Sure China is taking some jobs... have you honestly looked into which jobs those are? Those are jobs most Americans wouldn't take for $20+ an hour. We have a wide gap between some of the manufacturing and other jobs and for good reason.
To replace these jobs, Americans have "higher standard" jobs with more pay (and as some see, more integrity). Even a Chinese spokesman on CNN said it right... why are we complaining about the lower quality jobs being sent to China while we have opportunities and markets that cast a wide shadow on those available in China?
An un-educated lower class individual in America can get a job that most of those in China's workforce would never be allowed to be placed in regardless of their ability.
Even as a freelancer myself, I have to "compete" with those in India who can do my job for about 10% of what I charge. The difference? Quality and Higher Standards. It is not much of a competition when what I can provide is of much higher quality, and in effect much higher worth, than those overseas. This isn't going to stop and why should it?
We simply can't stop China or India from doing these jobs... but we have the resources and standard to do them with more worth and provide jobs they do not have the resources to support. - phreakinpher, on 09/06/2008, -2/+0Well, if some of those taxes helped me with health care and education, as proposed, then I wouldn't mind spending $200 more on the phone, because I'm spending way more than that on school and health care....
And if some of those taxes helped lower income families to buy their own phone, or other commodities, then we are actually helping the economy--the more people that have disposable income, the better the nation is economically.
The reason we have a manufacturing gap is entirely to do with labor costs--nothing to do with ability or desire. Please tell me again why, e.g., auto builders in America didn't want to do their jobs anymore? Why they wanted their jobs to be shipped overseas? Is it so they could be higher paying jobs in America? Why hasn't anyone told them that yet? Why haven't they got those jobs yet?
We may have a market that "overshadows the Chinese", but we are also facing the highest unemployement in half a decade. I doubt those Americans who have lost their jobs to the Chinese feels as though their markets dominate the world.
There are many, e.g., Indians, Chinese, etc. that are willing to do the EXACT same work, but for less money. THAT is the reason jobs are shipped overseas. You keep believing that what YOU do is of much higher quality than them. And I'll keep knowing that they are every bit capable as we are, and vice versa. Again, the only difference is the COST. American businesses do not want to pay American wages. (Further evidence: American businesses that hire illegal labor, so that they do not have to pay minimum wage) - ajames01, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3The only difference isn't cost as they do not have the resources to provide the same quality of work... it's not solely based on ability (we're all humans).
But if some of those taxes would help you with health care and education you would end up in a stalemate (at best) when the money you now "save" is being spent more on your utilities, services, and products. Your wages will also decrease while prices increase.
Businesses are not to blame. If they cannot afford to provide their products or services because they don't have the option to outsource then they are no longer a business. Without those businesses, we don't have "fewer" jobs... we have no jobs. If they have to outsource to compete then our products become cheaper... but the jobs that they somehow can't outsource (how can they provide jobs in the U.S. if they can get the same quality and education overseas?) will either be non-existent or the pay will be much lower so they can keep operating as a business.
You can't tax us less and tax business more all the time. If we tax business less they can afford to increase wages and lower prices... which provides us with more money to spend on the economy which helps business... which again helps us... which again helps business...
If this were the case then your dependence and the dependence of the lower class on having the government provide Obamas idea of health care would lessen... but if we're all paying for Joe down the street who smokes, drinks, takes drugs and intentionally hurts his own health... then we're not exactly helping ourselves or our economy or anyone... but Joe. - Fragger404, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3@phreakinfer:
Let me show you how I read your first paragraph:
"Well, if some of those taxes helped _ME_ with health care and education, as proposed, then _I_ wouldn't mind spending $200 more on the phone, because _I'M_ spending way more than that on school and health care...."
Sounds like you're all for raising my taxes to pay for your wants. That's why socialism sucks. If you want those things then pay for them youself and leave my wallet out of it. - phreakinpher, on 09/11/2008, -0/+0Well the question was posed directly to an individual and not the the culture at large.
But I think what I said is true of ANYONE is college, of ANYONE who needs health care.
What's ironic is that all you conservatives are telling people to go out and get better jobs, but you don't want to help them train for those better jobs. You want to take away the jobs they know how to do, and then complain because they don't know how to do other jobs.
I didn't say anything about raising YOUR taxes. I just said _I'd_ be willing to pay that money. As you emphasized yourself, and then contorted my words around.
Oh, and an educated society benefits (nearly) everyone. You never know who might make the greatest invention the world has ever seen, but can't develop it because he/she didn't get the resources to attend college. They wouldn't even have the knowledge to know that they could invent it, if they don't go to college. So don't give some answer like: well they could just sell their idea. Ideas come from education--not the other way around.
Further, if you have all the answers and I don't--if you vote for the right man and I don't--is that because your more informed than I? Then in a democratic society, wouldn't we elect the best leaders by having the most informed society? I hate to Bush-bash, because many of you will think it's just that, but a largely uneducated electorate voted for Bush, and see where that got us? The problem you all have is that you think education only benefits the student. That is wrong. And that's why I'd be willing to pay for many ignorant people to go to school.
As far as health care goes, do you know who pays for the health care that low-income families can't afford? The state and insurance companies. And do you know who pays those costs? You and me. So I don't think 'socialized' medicine (which isn't what Obama's proposing anyway) would be all that different from what we see today. People who can't afford health care are a burden on the system anyway: how you YOU propose to resolve that burden?
BTW, what does this mean: when the money you now "save" is being spent more on your utilities, services, and products ? And why would my wages decrease as the price increased? That REALLY doesn't make any sense.
"If they cannot afford to provide their products or services because they don't have the option to outsource then they are no longer a business." Business that "outsource" are not doing so because they can't afford it otherwise--they are doing to increase their profit margins and to attract investors due to enlarged profits. I know many, many small business owners who do not have to outsource or close their business. I work for one in fact.
Also, a great deal of the health care budget would be contributed to by so-called 'sin tax', on alcohol, cigarettes and other things that are both dangerous to your health and unnecessary.
By the way, if helping business helps the ordinary man, then why did the average income in America drop under G.W. Bush, and raise under B. Clinton?
- Aroundtheworls, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5Can someone please give me an example of an actual tax break that a company gets when a job is shipped overseas. As someone who works in international manufacturing and trade I'd sure like to know what these tax breaks are as I've never heard of them before.
- nalen33, on 09/06/2008, -5/+7You don't get a tax break when you ship a job overseas from the US, you ship the job overseas because you NEED a tax break in order to keep the job in the US and be competitive with the lower tax rates overseas. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, yet I hear many Democratic supporters and even Obama himself proclaim that "we've tried tax cuts for the past 8 years and they don't work" which is complete *****. Same for McCain, who has said NOTHING about the economy of any relevance that I have heard.
The corporate (actually all of them) tax rate needs to be much lower than it is, but that would cut down on the amount of entitlement programs and pork barrel spending projects Congress could push through to appease all the people who got them elected. But we'll just keep believing Obama and McCain are going to change things when they get elected, then complain about them like we do Bush, when they don't do anything close to what they claim they will. That's politics. - DooM, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3Senate bill S.1637 created $37 Billion in tax breaks that covered US corporations' overseas operations. Interestingly enough, much like the 'Clear Skies Act' the wording of the bill indicated that it was doing the opposite of what it was doing. That ***** has to be my favorite.
- TimDigg, on 09/06/2008, -3/+7Jobs are shipped overseas because americans demand vastly more money for their work.....as far shipping jobs overseas taxes are an "around the margins" issue.....
When the dollar plummets to nothing, you'll see jobs come back...I guarantee it - Diggnabbit, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2Corporations still pay the corporate tax whether the jobs are overseas or not.
- bodisatvah, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Corporations sole purpose is to maximize profits. Cutting wages are the best way to increase profits quickly. In the US we have laws that protect our wages so we can actually live. It isn't taxes they are leaving for, it is cheaper wages. That is based on the cost of living which is increasing in the US becuase... well... we buy ***** and spend money.
You're completely missing the reasons companies ship jobs overseas, and it IS NOT taxes. It is wages. - phreakinpher, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Which is why Obama wants to tax US companies who ship jobs overseas--to help balance the cost of US labor with overseas labor. Because what is happening is that these companies are making huge profits while very little of their capital is flowing through America--even though they are American businesses. These taxes would be an effort to keep American capital IN America, either by workforce or by federal taxation.
Opponents say that this would discourage foreign investments in American business. One response to that would be, if Americans saw a little more of this money, they could invest in American businesses themselves.
One last thing about competition and wages: it may be true that manufacturing jobs, largely unskilled labor, is one of major markets that have moved overseas. Well, this means two things: More Americans have to go to school, and that educated work now becomes the lowest rung of society. The question is: if more Americans than ever HAVE to be educated to work, what are we going to do about the gap between Americans who are educated and those who have to be educated? And what happens when our teachers and engineers (or whathaveyou) become the lowest paid job in America?
I'm no economist, but I think a lot of you are missing the point when you don't think it affects you because other jobs are shipped overseas.
- nalen33, on 09/06/2008, -5/+7You don't get a tax break when you ship a job overseas from the US, you ship the job overseas because you NEED a tax break in order to keep the job in the US and be competitive with the lower tax rates overseas. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, yet I hear many Democratic supporters and even Obama himself proclaim that "we've tried tax cuts for the past 8 years and they don't work" which is complete *****. Same for McCain, who has said NOTHING about the economy of any relevance that I have heard.
- derekcannon, on 09/06/2008, -15/+25They ship our jobs overseas because of high taxes and labor unions. Don't you see? ._.
- thankuvrylittle, on 09/05/2008, -23/+31I guess this is a trend, so I will follow it:
(4) Note that the Republicans couldn't find any usage for the word four more years without sounding quite foolish since the country is worse off now than it was almost 8 years ago. - bamassippi, on 09/05/2008, -34/+27Notice how the Democrats referenced 9/11 more than the Republicans. You won't hear THAT on MSNBC.
- fizban, on 09/06/2008, -8/+43"The Republicans continue to evoke the memory of 9/11 as a basis for their actions."
Look, I referenced 9/11 in a sentence!
That word bubble chart thingy doesn't provide any insight into WHY the words were used or the CONTEXT in which they were used. Completely useless (except for techies who like to say "COOL! A bubble chart!")- kaelyiesta, on 09/06/2008, -0/+11Couldn't agree more. This is absolutely useless for making informed decisions about politics.
- dopste, on 09/06/2008, -0/+6Yeah, true but look at it it's cool, 'cos it's a bubble chart
- Mejari, on 09/06/2008, -5/+18Where's the chart that says how many videos of planes flying into buildings for each convention? Oh, here,.I'll make it:
DNC: 0
RNC: >0
A picture is worth a thousand words, and videos are thousands of pictures, so really the Republican's "9/11" bubble count should be in the millions.- SakisRakis, on 09/06/2008, -3/+2Specious logic sir.
- Mejari, on 09/07/2008, -1/+2Really? The logic that it is insensitive and fear-mongering to show videos of the worst terrorist attack on American soil ever at a political event solely to gain a few points in the poles is flawed somehow?
- ramiro, on 09/07/2008, -2/+2This graph shows how Democrats talk too much and bad mouth their opponents more, while Republicans are more concise and concerned with the issues more than with their opponents.
- fizban, on 09/06/2008, -8/+43"The Republicans continue to evoke the memory of 9/11 as a basis for their actions."
- dbs1221, on 09/05/2008, -11/+29Fun with spinning,
Counting down from most frequent to least frequent part way,
Republicans:
God taxes businesses and change, energy (is what) Obama reforms, (the) war (created) jobs (for) characters (helping) Iraq's Economy (not ours), (socialized) healthcare (payed for all of the ) Vice President's (heart operations), Terrorism Bush (used to instill fear and distract the public from) Hurricanes, Hockey mom (blames) 9/11 (on) Iran....
(oh did the party of national security even explore how terrorists got here in the first place to commit the attacks)
Immagration
The Democrats:
Changes (in policy define) McCain's Energy (plan).With Bush's job (you get) healthcare (which unlike the) economy (is really good, its also payed with our) taxes, (as is the) war (in) Iraq.(since 2004 for) Four more years (instead of trying to fight) terrorists (the gop focused on) iran, Cheney reformed (the role of the) vice president (subpoenas need not apply), (by exploiting) 9/11 (the administration showed their true) character, immigrants (now less of an issue than) hurricane (Gustav)- opticwind, on 09/06/2008, -16/+2Too...many...parenthesis! Just give us the list, don't comment if you're freaking quoting.
- kaelyiesta, on 09/06/2008, -1/+13Whoosh
- emalen, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2This is a perfect illustration that words mean very little without context. While the diagram is interesting, it does not convey meaning, tone, inflection, or intention.
- opticwind, on 09/06/2008, -16/+2Too...many...parenthesis! Just give us the list, don't comment if you're freaking quoting.
- heathwater, on 09/06/2008, -6/+17I like the unbiased feel of this chart. It reminds me of the proverb "A picture is worth a thousand words". I suspect democrats will concentrate on the republican words and visa-versa.
An interesting thing I noticed, is the words that the VP candidates used more often than the Presidential Candidates tend to be attack words. Change and God for Biden -- Energy, Taxes and Reform for Palin. Just my opinion. Which, yes, I know everyone's got one.- Mononuclear, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4My opinion is these words are useless without context. What is and isn't an attack word? Taxes could be someone talking about lower taxes, it could be someone talking about higher taxes, it could be someone talking about how taxes aren't important and people should stop talking about taxes.
Let's say the word "Bitch" was used several times in some speech. Is it someone attacking a women calling her a Bitch or was someone giving a key note on female dogs at veterinary convention? Here we know that they were used at a political conventions but still a word by itself does not give you any idea about how it was actually used. - heathwater, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Well, looking at your average comments - you're always on the attack. Why not provide a comment about the article instead of always playing devil's advocate?
Though there will always be short-comings in graphical representations of data, I laud the efforts of Matthew Ericson, who not only thought of a way of representing his idea, but actually did the work.
l8r troll!
- Mononuclear, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4My opinion is these words are useless without context. What is and isn't an attack word? Taxes could be someone talking about lower taxes, it could be someone talking about higher taxes, it could be someone talking about how taxes aren't important and people should stop talking about taxes.
- CJ117, on 09/06/2008, -6/+17Who the hell counted the 25,000 words of every speech they ever made?
- zeblith, on 09/06/2008, -1/+11Thanks to stenographers/transcripts of the speeches, and those cruddly little computer programming projects in introductory classes like "Determine the top 25 most popular words in this text file." and all the lexical filters you can add on to that... yeeeah. Nobody counted, just like a box sits in a warehouse.
- Aliwalla, on 09/06/2008, -1/+19Ctrl + F
- andrewtheart, on 09/06/2008, -3/+1That would take way too long...
- austenfan, on 09/06/2008, -0/+7Concordancer
http://www.lextutor.ca/concordancers/text_concord/- TunaFishGangsta, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the link. That will come in handy when I do a spoof of this "words used" during the next mayoral election in my city. ;)
- Egg333, on 09/06/2008, -1/+37hockey moms?
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -2/+21Clearly Biden has yet to realize his potential as a hockey mom as well.
- jennycherie, on 09/06/2008, -2/+2thank goodness - he'd look terrible in lipstick.
- EvoPsy, on 09/06/2008, -3/+3HMILF
- darkciti2, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1lipstick lesbian with a bulldog?
- ajayzav, on 09/06/2008, -10/+19
- Phendrana, on 09/06/2008, -1/+14I got an alligator.
Wait, are we talking about Animal Crackers?- Phendrana, on 09/06/2008, -0/+10No :(
But it would be cool if there was.
- Phendrana, on 09/06/2008, -0/+10No :(
- RabbiBizarro, on 09/06/2008, -4/+5I cant believe you were dugg down.
They are all the same. Only difference between Obama and McCain is skin color and name.- Mononuclear, on 09/06/2008, -2/+2while I agree both have some things in common they are not the same. There are many more differences than just skin color and name. Some differences are inconsequential but others are very important.
- vbullinger, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2He was Dugg down because he didn't insult McCain or praise Obama. He spoke the truth.
They're both war-mongering Socialists, with cosmetic differences in both appearance and substance. Plain and simple, people.
- Phendrana, on 09/06/2008, -1/+14I got an alligator.
- webkami, on 09/06/2008, -7/+24Message I am getting is:
Rep: Businesses Change, God Taxes
Dem: Change Economy, McCain Taxes- Stout, on 09/06/2008, -3/+2I think you would agree with me that Businesses and Economy are very similar, so pretty much the only differences are between McCain and God. Lol.
- AmnesiacJack, on 09/06/2008, -6/+5At this rate I don't care what they say as long as the LHC and science in general keep making the front page.
- OfNumbers, on 09/06/2008, -15/+7Marked as inaccurate. One example is Palin: She said Obama a whole lot more than once at the RNC.
- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -2/+8.... wanna check your statement? No? It's occurrences per 25,000 words spoken.
- EpicSelekta, on 09/06/2008, -2/+9it is an average. A lot of it has to do with Republicans not bothering to name their opponent when they make reference to him.
- Diggnabbit, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4It's not "not bothering to" so much as "deliberately avoiding."
- jennycherie, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8Palin did not actually use his name, she referred to "our opponent" and she referred to him by responding to his remarks, but without naming him.
- AmnesiacJack, on 09/06/2008, -7/+1I want to see this in a vin diagram please.
- Synesso, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5Venn
- eigenweasel, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4No, he means a diagram made of wine.
- eyepennies, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4Vin Diagram is RIDDICK in Chronicles of Riddick 4: A Finite Collection of Sets!!!!
- Moderatorated, on 09/06/2008, -21/+12Inaccurate. McCain referenced 9/11 repeatedly.
- 808ethan, on 09/06/2008, -10/+2Sorry it's friday and I'm too drunk. I need a dumbed down version of this...
- AmnesiacJack, on 09/06/2008, -5/+1Damn Google said Vin Diagram was right.
Next time I'll check further down the list of links.- fishbeef33, on 09/06/2008, -0/+9Vin Diagram? Is that Vin Diesel's half-brother or something?
- Tyrghast, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Starring in Pitch Bright and Fast and the Cuddly. Might be signing a deal for Chronicles of Bill.
- fishbeef33, on 09/06/2008, -0/+9Vin Diagram? Is that Vin Diesel's half-brother or something?
- amagiri, on 09/06/2008, -5/+0I noticed that the breakdown on the bottom has the count for "Sept. 11" as 3 on both sides, but the bubble diagram has it as 4 to 2. I understand that the chart might not include all the speakers, but how on earth do you subtract from the count???
Overall, I thought it was a pretty interesting presentation, but it doesn't say much about context in which the words were used.- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1Note, it says "some of the ____ speakers" in the breakdown...
Edit: Wait... your statement is confusing. If you mean the bubble chart might not be all the speakers, then that's just odd... If you mean the list of speakers might not be complete, then yes, and the 2 is odd... - dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5The count is relative (per 25K words spoken), not absolute.
If A and B both say "Pickles" 4 times(each), and both speak 100K words, that's 2 pickles per 25K words.
If C adds another 200K words, but doesn't mention pickles even once, that means ABC as a group have said pickles once per every 25K words.
As the chart shows by the way, neither the Dem's or the reps have the courage to even think about mentioning pickles.- amagiri, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Ah, sorry. I missed that part about the per 25k words.
Only bad things come to mind when I think about politicians and pickles...must be one of those topics they like to sidestep, eh?
- amagiri, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Ah, sorry. I missed that part about the per 25k words.
- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1Note, it says "some of the ____ speakers" in the breakdown...
- TinternAbbot, on 09/06/2008, -10/+11The Democrats sure do like to talk about McCain a lot.
- nalen33, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Bush is in there a lot too. I'm curious as to why the Dems didn't use character more.
- darkciti2, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1Because he's part of the failure machine that's been wrecking American households for the past 8 years.
- EpicSelekta, on 09/06/2008, -5/+55I would love to see the Rudy Giuliani version of this chart. It would be a big circle with "Sept. 11" in the middle. At least 12000 times.
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -7/+11Right under the chart, you can clearly see that Giuliani only mentions 9/11 once.
- nalen33, on 09/06/2008, -2/+15Per 25000 words. Maybe he spoke 400000000 words and we just didn't know it?
- mcsenget, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4i don't know why people are digging dkapuchino down.
the chart actually shows that...even though the chart is wildly wrong about that.
- AManWithNoName, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Scroll down. There's a chart of the various people used to form this bubble chart, and what they said. Rudy only used it once. He must be trying to cut down.
- AngryFox, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2This chart indicates that the Dems used "9/11" four times but the Reps used in only twice?? Is this discounting the unbelievably exploiting 9/11 video shown at the RNC? Did they have a similar video at the DNC?
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -7/+11Right under the chart, you can clearly see that Giuliani only mentions 9/11 once.
- swik, on 09/06/2008, -5/+5Wouldn't claim this to be unbiased and anyone who uses this as a basis for ANYTHING without actually having heard all the speeches themselves...well that's one of the frightening things about today's media.
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -2/+4I wonder how many times diggers mention "media" per 25K words.
- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -9/+7It is really interesting that the Dem's most used topics are their opponents and and "change." Very nebulous imo. I really wish the candidates would start talking issues rather than who had who's baby and which family members will vote for who.
- fizban, on 09/06/2008, -0/+17Maybe you should try visiting their websites, where they do spell out their policies in more detail. If all you do is listen to rally speeches, you're not going to get anything but non-specific, inspiring words, because that's what rally speeches are for. This is applicable to both Obama and McCain.
For Obama, check out: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
For McCain: see http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
If you want to be like the rest of America and not take any personal responsibility to find out the issues yourself, then don't expect to be informed.- Aremihco, on 09/06/2008, -2/+2Oh, I'm aware of their stance on issues, I'd simply like to see them actually DISCUSS them for the masses to hear. Informed voters seem to be such a tiny minority of voters that attacks on family and hairstyles seem to affect things more than policy stance.
- fizban, on 09/06/2008, -0/+17Maybe you should try visiting their websites, where they do spell out their policies in more detail. If all you do is listen to rally speeches, you're not going to get anything but non-specific, inspiring words, because that's what rally speeches are for. This is applicable to both Obama and McCain.
- Jeepy, on 09/06/2008, -4/+11Have to mark it as inaccurate because the whole page didn't load as a picture of giant bubble that showed Giuliani: 9/11.
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -4/+2The page shows that Obama mentions 9/11 more than Guiliani. Must be LIES.
- albinorhino101, on 09/06/2008, -1/+0Actually it's not inaccurate, Rudy only mentioned 9/11 once in his RNC speech.
- Lavarock, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1Very cool chart, needs to be done more often.
- bisser, on 09/06/2008, -15/+13
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -9/+4Perhaps this is the kind of change he's talking about:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/85513 - ideadude, on 09/06/2008, -2/+4I'm getting tired of the "change is vague" comments. I think it's pretty clear now what Obama and the Dems are talking about: _Change from a Republican White House to a Democratic White House_
And they are pretty good at contrasting the policies of the two parties and making sure that we know Mccain and Co are Republicans too. The "Do you want to take a 10% chance on change" message, I think, has helped to make change a bigger idea in their campaign.- nalen33, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8Change is relative. McCain voted with Republicans 90% of the time. Obama voted with Democrats the same amount, if not more than that. So you change from one set of failed policies to another set. We need a hybrid of both policies, some socially liberal policies and fiscally conservative policies, and until we figure that out and tell the extremes of both parties to go ***** off, we'll be stuck in this partisan nonsense and the giant douche vs. the turd sandwich.
- ZenMojo, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4You think Obama voted with Democrats the same amount, if not more than that. No one has actually measured it, you're just making up a number out of your ass.
But McCain is on tape saying he voted with BUSH 90% of the time, not Republicans. Again, another number you pulled out of your ass.
- enantiodromia, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4did you notice McCain's speech was all about how he is going to bring change? and that his slogan was copied directly from Clintons, which was a slight modification of Obamas?
seems McCain can't change anything without look to the Democrats first and copying them.
- dkapuchino, on 09/06/2008, -9/+4Perhaps this is the kind of change he's talking about:
- opusaz, on 09/06/2008, -1/+15Word clouds from the acceptance speeches...
Obama: http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/166487/obama_accept ...
Biden: http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/166493/biden_accept ...
McCain: http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/166486/mccain_accep ...
Palin: http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/166484/palin_accept ...
FWIW- deluca92, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1love palin's "one oil man like McCain" while i know McCain isn't comparable to bush as much interest as he has in oil still interesting.
- opticwind, on 09/06/2008, -2/+7Interesting points...
1. Democrats used the word "911" literally twice as much as Republicans. Woah? However, and I'm a Republican so I don't have a bias like you'd guess, if you include only the top 4 candidates or speakers from each side, the Republicans did speak about it more. So...it's up in the air on that one.
2. Both groups talked about terrorism in equal numbers.
3. Immigration from the top 4 speakers of each party was one of (if not THE) least talked about issues.- stuma9000, on 09/06/2008, -14/+3You're a republican? Seriously? I thought a Republican would never admit to it here on the net because we all know deep down that their policies are driven predominantly by irresponsible self interest. I mean lots of people vote Republican because they want more money or to stop things changing but i thought only jerks admit to it in public. Am I wrong?
- dopste, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8Yes.
- DogsArePeople2, on 09/06/2008, -3/+6My sarcasm sniffer isn't awake yet, but I'll bite anyway and apologize in advance if I missed it.
If serious, yes you are wrong. Capitalism is based on ~rational~ self interest, which means you realize you can't do it all on your own and that your actions and how they impact others will ultimately come back around to you. It is fine to make money and most of us (I think democrats and republicans) want more of it, but you must realize competition, the marketplace, the treatment of employees (and their option to work for other people if they want) and a number of other factors beyond your control can crash you if you are negligent. I can go on and on, but there are people that can explain it all better than me.
My opinion is that most of us republicans are voting to maintain more control of the fruits of our labor. Let me invest (fuel other businesses and individuals) or donate (support the social programs of my own choosing) with the money that is taken from me in taxes and redistributed sometimes in ways that I don't agree with. - danielttt, on 09/06/2008, -2/+3stuma9000 Cant you read? He said he's a republican. That means, he's a republican. It can't be put any more simply than that. You think there's no admitted republicans here.? ...I guess you're just a very slow reader with little comprehension. Ther rest of your drivel is thoroughly nonsensical. You should try thinking for yourself sometime.
- stuma9000, on 09/06/2008, -14/+3You're a republican? Seriously? I thought a Republican would never admit to it here on the net because we all know deep down that their policies are driven predominantly by irresponsible self interest. I mean lots of people vote Republican because they want more money or to stop things changing but i thought only jerks admit to it in public. Am I wrong?
- GammaStream, on 09/06/2008, -5/+0Well someone couldn't count. In the cloud the Republicans are listed as having used the " Sept 11" two times yet in the counts for the individual speakers it adds up to 3.
- dcsohl, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Look at the label at the top. The cloud is "number of times PER 25,000 WORDS". The charts at the bottom are absolute counts. (Which means, I guess, that we can conclude those four Republicans spoke about 37,500 words...)
- dcsohl, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5I would have liked to see a break-out for "that's not the change we need". Seems like a lot (but certainly not all) of the GOP references to change were variants on that phrase, attacking Obama...
- samimnot, on 09/06/2008, -5/+3Interesting list, and correct me if I’m wrong ;-) but the way I read this chart is:
Republicans: GOD TAXES BUSINESS CHANGE
Democrats: CHANGE McCAIN/BUSH ENERGY, JOBS, HEALTH CARE, ECONOMY, WAR and JOBS...I’m assuming they mean the lack of jobs ;-) - richirwin, on 09/06/2008, -8/+6republicans said "Bush" ONCE. A single time.
John McCain - The Third Bush Term- danielttt, on 09/06/2008, -3/+3Remember, Bush ran the last time. It's McCain / Palin. That's been in most of the papers.
- richirwin, on 09/06/2008, -3/+4Like hell it is.
It's McCain/Bush.
During the Bush administration, Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90% score for "party unity," making him an even more reliable GOP water-carrier than fellow Arizonan John Kyl, the #2 ranking Republican in the Senate. The Washington Post similarly gave him a score of 88.3%, tying him with South Carolina's Lindsey Graham ahead of 29 other Senate Republicans.
According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:
100%? 95% 90%? 88.3%?
Does this sounds like a "maverick" or just another republican?
McCain also says that he will not try to distance himself from Bush - "I will not try to separate myself from him."
So it sounds like he doesn't mind being joined at this hip with George W. Bush. Yet, when referred to as "The Third Bush Term" McCain bristles and attempts to invoke Jimmy Carter (from 30 years ago, much as he tried to invoke William Jennings Bryan from 110 years ago, the days of McCain's youth, no doubt).
Sen. McCain, if you don't want to be "separated" from Bush, why do the comparisons bother you so much?
And if the comparisons bother you so much, why do you vote with Bush and his administration 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007?
Sen. McCain - what you say and what you do are NOT the same thing.
McCain - The Third Bush Term. - Stout, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2You can make statistics look however you want. For example, in 2005 McCain voted with republicans only 67% of the time in 2001, or 70 some percent in 2005. Also, in the short time Obama has been a part of Congress, he's voted along with the democrats 97% of the time.
So, with all that said and done, how is Obama anything more than "just another democrat." McCain shows much more in terms of change and working across party lines than Obama has ever HINTED. Obama's voting record shows that when he says he's going to get away from the Washington politics he's just full of it, as it will be a change, but just a change back to one of the brands of corrupt politics we've seen before.
Personally, I'd rather take a 10% chance on change than a 3%, but then again, I've never been very good at math, so you're probably right.
- richirwin, on 09/06/2008, -3/+4Like hell it is.
- danielttt, on 09/06/2008, -3/+3Remember, Bush ran the last time. It's McCain / Palin. That's been in most of the papers.
- d1a1s1, on 09/06/2008, -5/+3This clearly shows that somebody needs to get a job/girlfriend.
- duggdowncatisad, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3You do realize that since this is the NY Times, this probably IS someone's job, right?
- cuppyCake, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Why? Because somebody ran software to count the occurrences of words in a transcription of the speech? You don't honestly think somebody sat down with a notebook, and counted each word in all four speeches, do you?
- d1a1s1, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2They did sit down and count each word, AND with a notebook. I emailed the NYT and asked...so there!
- bradharrelson, on 09/06/2008, -6/+7This chart is dumb. Buried.
- danielttt, on 09/06/2008, -4/+3The chart's really pretty interesting. I can understand why you find confusing though.
- Evilblobs, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3He didn't say confusing.
Its dumb because there is no context, no statement, just a quantity of words. - richdrogpa, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Absolutely!!! That's the whole problem with this chart. It completely omits the context in which these words were used...
- thealsir, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1Funny how Giuliani was the only one to not mention the word "God" at all
- AbsurdParadox, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Why is that funny?
- jeriaemt, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1I know Giuliani said 9-11 more than once!
- aud24, on 09/06/2008, -4/+2That's right God-fearing, midwestern hockey moms are taking over.
- bearsandbulls, on 09/06/2008, -1/+6Monetary Policy
00000000 - Gloibin, on 09/06/2008, -0/+28I'll admit this is quite interesting and fun to look at, but it does not, by any means "show CLEARLY the difference between Democrats and Republicans." :lol:
- induren, on 09/06/2008, -0/+14This is an intriguing yet useless graphic.
- Soulbow2, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1Republicans only mentioned terrorists 8 times? I find that hard to believe, considering I've seen a total of about 10 mintues of the entire RNC and I've heard terrorists far more than 8 times.
- danielttt, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3You'd have to understand how this sampling was calculated. That's complicated and likely well beyond what you're capable of. Don't worry, the NYT still despises conservatives as much as you do.
- ZenMojo, on 09/06/2008, -0/+18 times PER 25,000 words.
- jbenson2, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1BDS is alive and well in the Democrat party.
- jbenson2, on 09/06/2008, -3/+14Number of words is interesting, but the important figure is the number of views.
McCain pulled in 500,000 more viewers than the Obama theater with fireworks, stadium, and styrofoam Greek columns.- ZenMojo, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3Funny, I don't remember any mention of those on my TV Guide. John McCain could have let loose a line of strippers but it has nothing to do with who watched it.
- 0xABADC0DA, on 09/06/2008, -1/+8Not really a surprise is it? Democrats tend to keep an open mind, they'll watch the Republican convention just to hear what the Right is saying. The Right has to pretend the other side doesn't exist in order to hold their crazy views about black people / taxes / god/abortion.
So you really think the racists out there, the ones that won't vote for any black man under any circumstances, are going to watch one speaking? - voyetra8, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2OH NO! STYROFOAM GREEK COLUMNS!
HOW ABOUT DIGITAL COLUMNS!?!?
http://www.foxnews.com/images/137069/30_24_090204_ ...
- JoeVet, on 09/06/2008, -3/+4The biggest difference was health care. Apparently the GOP is much more comfortable with the 50 million Americans without access.
- dima1109, on 09/06/2008, -2/+3Is it the government's problem?
- Enigmocracy, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2Were 6-day a week 10 cents an hour Sweatshops and crappy meat the government's problem?
Maybe you should go back to the 1870s, since you seem to like them so much.
- Enigmocracy, on 09/06/2008, -1/+2Were 6-day a week 10 cents an hour Sweatshops and crappy meat the government's problem?
- AbsurdParadox, on 09/06/2008, -1/+3www.freemarketcure.com
That 50 million might be a true number, but it is misrepresented. The majority of the 50 million could afford insurance.
- dima1109, on 09/06/2008, -2/+3Is it the government's problem?
- goon5000, on 09/06/2008, -1/+10well as you can plainly see by the bubble diagram you're candidate is a moron, vote for mine.
- DeadBabySoup, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1If you compare the bubble chart to the chart with who said it, you'll find that the numbers aren't adding up to match the both charts.
- ZenMojo, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Because you didn't read the chart. Top chart = mentions/25,000 words, includes all speakers. Bottom chart = actual mentions, includes four speakers from each party.
- honutt, on 09/06/2008, -1/+7Anyone else surprised that Obama mentions 9/11 more than Guiliani?
- omnis, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5No, it's just Digg and sterotypes. Reality means nothing here.
- Suricou, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2But if you add 'terrorism' - which is more or less the same thing for political purposes - they become equal.
Word-counting doesn't really reveal anything, though.
- staffell, on 09/06/2008, -0/+7sorry to say that this is nonsense, because it fails to make note of whether each word was use negatively or positively.
- roijen, on 09/06/2008, -1/+0I don't know if the purpose of the chart was to reveal which candidate was the better one. It seems to me that its purpose was to show what they were talking about, not why.
- aftern9ne, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1It doesn't even reveal that much. All it shows is what words were used the most and that's it.
- roijen, on 09/06/2008, -1/+0I don't know if the purpose of the chart was to reveal which candidate was the better one. It seems to me that its purpose was to show what they were talking about, not why.
- nandop, on 09/06/2008, -0/+6Here's 4 more visualizations of the full speech texts at the 2008 both Rep and Dem National Conventions -- from Barak Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin. I used the fantastic Many Eyes tool from IBM.
Obama: http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S ...
Biden: http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S ...
McCain: http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S ...
Palin: http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S ... - jetstojer, on 09/06/2008, -2/+2Weird, to me it shows just how similar both parties are.
- Spoomeister, on 09/06/2008, -1/+4I love the silouettes of the candidates in this graphic.
Obama looks like the generic "no photo found".
Lieberman looks like Elvis.
Palin looks like she just got up from a nap. - jshooter1377, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3The only thing I could understand is that it clearly looks like the democrats have gotten more words in.
- aftern9ne, on 09/06/2008, -2/+5How can you possibly interpret this chart to mean anything when it obviously neglects context and message? Just because the Republicans mention health care and energy however many times doesn't mean they gave any solutions to fix them. Just because the Democrats mention God and Sep. 11 doesn't mean they were using them to scare up votes.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 
