digg

Join DiggAbout

Clinton to O'Reilly: "Rich people, God bless us." watch!

youtube.com — America's favorite working-class hero reminds us of her $109 million post-White House windfall in this revealing moment on Falafel Bill O'Reilly's teevee show. (Plus a bonus clip!)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bluevillage, on 05/02/2008, -4/+45Pandering to the constituency she lost as early as Iowa? :)
    • alk509, on 05/02/2008, -5/+19Not only that, but pandering to them *on FOX*! How out of touch do you have to be to think that the conservatives who watch O'Reilly and rich conservatives are the same demographic?
      • SteveStone, on 05/02/2008, -6/+12You would have to be as out of touch as the high end car company's who advertise on his show: Cadillac, Lexus, Hummer, and BMW. Advertisers are not stupid, nor do they care about politics, no need to trust me; trust them: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/24/advertisers_on ... there are plenty of affluent Americans who watch the O'reilly program.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -8/+9There were plenty of affluent Germans in the 30's and 40's, too.

          Maybe if they were a tad more cynical, and willing to ask questions and not averse to asking hard questions, well, maybe some bad things wouldn't have happened.

          I'm not saying this is Nazi Germany. I'm just saying that sometimes silent complacency and compliance to the mainstream is due to being happy with what you believe to be going on, without knowing the full story.
        • stealth210, on 05/02/2008, -4/+6SteveStone, it's too bad you are getting dugg down for bringing up facts that people here don't want to here. Thanks for the numbers.
          • stealth210, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4*Hear dammit
          • ICSU, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Some rich people are conservative assholes? I knew that already.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2@PhilLesh69: //There were plenty of affluent Germans in the 30's and 40's, too. // Wow. That's about the most asinine, left-field, whacked-out attempt at slamming wealthy people that I've read on Digg in the last six months. Kudos.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1HoratioHellpop, it's not a slam towards wealthy people. But to say that since there are wealthy people supporting a flawed policy it must be okay is flawed logic.
    • rpgmaker, on 05/02/2008, -6/+33But still Obama is the elitist. I'm sure that the middle class and poor people of America could make a better use of the God blessings.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 05/02/2008, -5/+24Considering some of the things God has blessed throughout history, I'd rather go it without his help.
      • OldJesser, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4As Jon Stewart explained, the job of President of the United States of America is the kind of job you want a so-called 'elitist' to be in. It's an important job.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3I want a president who is qualified but NOT an elitist. It is one thing to be "elite" and another to be elitist. The issue we have NOW is due to people in government who believe themselves to be superior to the constituency. That breeds the divide and allows for factional control over the resources and power of this nation.
          • OldJesser, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4That's why I said so-called 'elitist'. People always tend to call people elitist when they are unfamiliar and intelligent. They also tend to call people which are more qualified for a job 'elitist' when they don't feel approachable. People said they thought Bush seemed more like the kind of guy they could throw back a beer with than Al Gore, and we all know how well that worked out.
          • nocash23, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1haha! a self proclaimed anarchist who wants a president! read much?
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Yes; I do read much. Realize there are different thoughts on anarchy. Utopian Anarchy is an ultimate goal, but humanity is too frail minded to achieve that type of society at the moment. Utopian Anarchy is not so much a lack of rulers as much as a lack of need for all but natural laws. You do not need a restriction on this or that because people would behave in the way that is most beneficial to all instead of self serving. However, I do realize that this is highly unlikely as most people are motivated in not just greed but in getting for themselves at the expense of others for the VERY SAKE of getting for themselves at the expense of others.
            Thanks for playing.....
          • nocash23, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0what? that answer was a bit scattered.... im guessing that you mean to say that anarchy cant be achieved right now so we need a president to help us get there? id like to know where you got an idea like that. i know of NO anarchist faction that believes we need a president. that goes against the whole idea. please list some info on this if you have any as id like a good laugh. also, a couple of points i think you fail on as far as understanding how anarchism could one day be a working reality:
            "Utopian Anarchy is an ultimate goal"
            a good place to start for this would be rudolf rocker. even he says that anarchism is no utopia and that there is no "final goal".
            "humanity is too frail minded to achieve that type of society at the moment"
            its a term called praxis. it will never happen by waiting for society to enter a mind shift... it starts with you. summing people up as "frail minded" isnt a good start.
            as far as the term "utopian anarchist" goes its my understanding that calling someone that is more of a jab. i really dont think any true anarchists call themselves utopian as it aligns them with a seeming belief in fairy- tale societies. being labled utopian is slander.
            "Utopian Anarchy is not so much a lack of rulers as much as a lack of need for all but natural laws."
            so what makes a ruler when there are no laws?
            "most people are motivated in not just greed but in getting for themselves at the expense of others for the VERY SAKE of getting for themselves at the expense of others."
            isnt that a bit redundant? isnt the definition of greed "gain at the expense of others"? sounds like a lot of talk with not much substance.
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2nocash23, Your failed assumptions start with the belief that all anythings believe in one singular paradigm. The thought that calling somebody a "Utopian Anarchist" is insulting is .....frankly, insulting. It stops treating people as individuals with different beliefs, even on the same subjects.
            Anarchy, of the sort where people behave in a way that is beneficial to most, is a Utopian one. The problem with your "Praxis" theory is that you believe that a shift like Utopian Anarchy can be achieved if the few are in favor of it. I recognize that it is highly unlikely to ever come to exist, but it does not change the fact that I believe it to be a better system. I cannot make people adhere to the natural laws of letting people be until such time as they inflict harm on you. That is a core belief system and that is one that only can be achieved through personal beliefs. Rudolf Rocker has his own theories on anarchism, and that is his way; Good for him. I do not have to adhere to anybody else's fragmented belief system for me to find merit in my own. Do you call out Methodists and Episcopalians as being "Not Christian" because they don't believe that the Pope is the ambassador to God, his emissary on Earth? No, they are fragmented sects who believe in Christianity, but in different ways.
            And to answer your earlier statement about believing that I need a President to get us to Anarchy, you are incorrect. I understand that Utopian Anarchy has little chance of being achieved in my lifetime or perhaps ever. I intend to work within the system to make my life better as I see it. As well, you seem to have mistakenly believed that I see myself solely as an anarchist and not as a person. I am in many ways: An Anarchist, a Libertarian, a Citizen, a Husband and a Human Being. None of those fully define me.
            As well, Greed is NOT at the expense of others. Greed is solely focusing upon wealth for the sake of having it, placing the value of wealth above the value of other things. The problem with greed at other's expense is that many people do not just want parity or wealth, but truly want others to be lower than they are. They don't want $1 mil. They want to take $1mil. from people. They don't want a good deal that works for all parties involved, a mutually beneficial one, but rather one that sets the screws to the other party and works only in their interests.
            If you think that this is laughable, go ahead and laugh. All it does is prove you are a douche.
          • nocash23, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0i can tell logic is lost on you. you value the misuse of 2 dollar words over substance. nothing you said has anything to do with anarchy as a philosophy. by your definition it means what ever you want it to mean. if i say its a belief in aliens that doesnt make it so. dont ***** someone who actually has a working understanding of it. save that for metal heads and wannabe punks who throw the anarchy sign around because its fashionable. read a book and get back to me...actually dont get back to me ive wasted enough of my time listening to your half baked ideas about a subject you know nothing about.
          • AnarkeIncarnate, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1You do not get to define a word based on constrained interpretations. My definition still falls well in the middle of the meaning of anarchism.
            You seem content in belief that only repeating ideas from other learned scholars and thinkers is the only way to understand abstract and personal ideas. How do you propose those thinkers formed their base ideas?
            You simply choose to focus on the bits you want to attack, but don't hear the reasoned argument. You read my user name and think you have a good enough understanding about me or my ideals? There is a schism in the ideologies of Anarchism. There are those that believe it is the "True" meaning of the word, and no government and there are those who ascribe its meaning to a "Lack of laws and direction from laws" which is closer to my belief of it. Anarchy, when achieved in that sense is not merely a lack of a social hierarchy of government, which does seem to envelop itself in a self protective and self-serving bubble, but rather a lack of the need of the "laws of men" which seek to limit and impose restrictions on people because they cannot be trusted to keep their words and make good on their promises. They cannot simply do what is right, but do what is self-serving and easy. Anarchism in that vein is simply a return to natural law, where there does not need to be a separate entity to enforce laws through punishment, but rather a facing of repercussions from those you wrong and the reputation that it brings.
            However, that is not who "I" am. That is a tiny facet of my character and I still recognize that the here and now rely upon living in the society in which I exist. I have not chosen to take up the banner of anarchism and, at the expense of current norms and mores, push forth this idea. Maybe you have some soft spot for anarchy (However, it seems the only soft spot is in your head) and you think that "Well, that is not what I learned, I'll show him." You failed miserably. If you don't like my take on it, move on and be a douche elsewhere.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -4/+30"Rich people...God bless us. We deserve ALL the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation"

      Hang on, isn't it the democrat position that says that wealth shouldn't pass to the next generation?? Isn't that why they are always trying to increase the inheritance tax?? (neocons and fox news watchers will know this as the "death tax").

      You know the media will not harp on this like they did the bowling, or the pastor Wright out of context clips (where he was quoting the former US ambassador to Iraq in saying our policies caused 9/11) or the "bitter" remarks (which actually resounded with a number of PA folks who said, and were quoted in numerous newsweeklies and newspapers, "hell yes, we are bitter!"), they will ignore this.

      However, this should prove to anyone capable of forming their own opinion that Hillary is the elitist. She is the establishment. She blesses god that she can pass on the wealth she has attained through her husband's presidency and her terms in the senate on to Chelsea. She is thankful that she can give her daughter even more of a leg up in the world than she had, so that her daughter can have even more power and more wealth.

      Not that I'm against the passing of wealth from parent to children. That is the American dream, so long as the goal isn't to consolidate wealth and power among a few, and to exclude others and make it impossible for anyone else to pass on whatever wealth they have to their offspring so as not to threaten things for THEIR offspring.

      But, God BLESS that Chelsea will get a nice trust fund!!!!
      • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -1/+13"Hang on, isn't it the democrat position that says that wealth shouldn't pass to the next generation?? Isn't that why they are always trying to increase the inheritance tax??"

        Yes, unless THEY are the rich ones...
      • VcTrMASO, on 05/02/2008, -8/+5Watch the whole interview. Even though I'm not a Hillery supporter, she did however fight Orilly that the rich should get more taxes and the middle class less. In fact the sentence she said before this small clip was about raising taxes 6% on the rich (200,000+ a year earners) to lower taxes for the middle/lower class.
        • pontiac, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Yeah I think the person posting this video was just cherry picking comments to try and make a point. While I don't support H-Dog either I don't think this clip actually supports the Hillary as elitist idea. But of course people will digg you down for pointing that out. Jerks.
      • nocash23, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1"Hang on, isn't it the democrat position that says that wealth shouldn't pass to the next generation?? "

        actually its a socialist stand point... everyone knows democrats change the rules to fit the situation so no its not "their" position unless it benefits them. thus the term "spineless".
    • jbenson2, on 05/02/2008, -7/+10She got her views across to a huge viewing audience. They might be Republicans, but at least they can vote.

      Unlike the teens who watch MSNBC and cannot vote.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/02/2008, -5/+4Or the idiots that watch CNN
        • jbenson2, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Good point.
          Larry King's "I'm Still Alive" show.
  • thejoshuablog, on 05/02/2008, -8/+34Will your Obama sources be making this a commercial, Jed?! ;-)
    • dayalsoap, on 05/02/2008, -5/+9You far lefties are out of control.

      This is taken way out of context. I don't like Clinton, at all, but I saw nothing wrong with anything she said when watching this telecast. I thought she defended LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW pretty well against O'Reilly's criticisms.

      Again, why are you mad about her saying that rich people should give more to help out society?
      If you watch the ENTIRE interview, other than this BIASED clip, you will see that's EXACTLY what she said (rich should help out the less fortunate).
      • aliengoods, on 05/02/2008, -3/+11I agree with you in principle. This was taken out context. But then I think back to all the ***** she has pulled in the last 5 months, and I think, "***** her".
      • dt3k, on 05/02/2008, -4/+4Liberals do the RIGHT thing? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      • dafragsta, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3You far righties need to stop categorizing everyone else as far left. That's why you are so polarized and think everyone is trying to destroy the world in the name of communism. I ***** hate humanity and all its myopic selfishness. I see myself as a uniter, but I'm voting for Obama when I would've voted for Ron Paul.
      • happyseamonster, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2It seems to me that the train of thought she had when she said, "God bless us" was different when she followed through. She spoke without thinking, then turned it into a "so we can serve others" *****. Oh - and there's no way she's a believer.
    • cinematiks, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3omg please please please make this into an attack ad, hillary deserves nothing less then to have her own words defeat her
  • Obama4Change, on 05/02/2008, -18/+224Really?! Now who is elitist!!!!
    • aburd, on 05/02/2008, -32/+13I really don't like her (seriously, she's shrill and purely self-serving), but she was clearly being sarcastic.
      • SuperMoses, on 05/02/2008, -3/+14Ya.. clearly /sarcasm
      • ckhw2, on 05/02/2008, -4/+9I doubt it. She goes on to say that "...we pass on these blessings to our next generation." She sounded pretty serious to me.
        • KibibyteBrain, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4She was saying that rich people should have to contribute more to periods of financial need. Still elitist considering she lumps herself in so strongly with the upper class, but the view is consistent with her party platform. She was trying to use hyperbole but did a very bad job of it.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -4/+12KibibyteBrain, she wasn't talking about using her wealth to help everyone else. She was talking about passing her wealth on to "the" next generation, meaning her children (or child, in her case).

          She was going completely against her party's platform. Not to mention she was fishing for votes on a neocon news channel owned by an Australian globalist who owns tabloids, on a show hosted by a guy whose previous job was on Entertainment Weekly.
      • estvir, on 05/02/2008, -3/+8There is no way in hell she was being sarcastic.
      • borneo66, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5You are correct, and I don't understand why people are digging you down for it.

        PS - Hillary, please drop out already.
    • anonymousleaf, on 05/02/2008, -15/+5Don't feed the troll. Too much punctuation to not be sarcastic. Good trollin though.
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -2/+16Alll of them, as it has always been.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/02/2008, -5/+7Both
    • Tralobyte, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2*****
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/02/2008, -7/+3i cant tell which one is elitist, they are both the same person. but i CAN tell you that Obama's supporters certainly act like a bunch of damn elitists compared to Hillary's. How bout you get off your high horses and stop hurtin the cause.
      • Noureddin, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Which cause? The Save American cause- Ron Paul cause
        or
        The False Hope and screw America in the ass cause- obama cause
      • dexter411, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2I'd say it's the "Change you can believe in... but can't really explain to anyone" cause.
        • colomboj, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I would say read the blueprint for America it explains it all cause... all you "can't explain it" folks can read that on the Obama website. And AFTER you read that you might not post meaningless crap like this.
    • Noureddin, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2Both Obama and Hillary are elitists. Its not surprising that both of them are. Mostly everyone that runs for president and has a chance to win is elitists. Mostly... cause Ron paul isn't one. But, He barely has a chance to win now. Mainly cause people aren't waking up and are ignorant, Like Obama supporters, Bury Brigade. LOTS of Digg Users, etc.

      Well, I'm sure a BB(Bury Brigade)will come cause I mentioned Ron Paul or something. =|
    • jordanau, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4I want my president to be one of the elite. Does it not make sense to have a successful person as president?
      • funkyloki, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Especially when the lied, bribed and swindled their way to top. Then we know they are ready for politics.
      • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Success yes. but these people are out to manipulate for themselves. Usually they've had little 'success' that isn't stolen from other people. They have no inherent talents to create wealth just destroy it.
  • marxfriedrice, on 05/02/2008, -5/+140To her credit, those coffee makers sure are hard to operate. There's no one to slap if it comes out too hot.
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -16/+11According to her former staff when she was First Lady, she'd just find the first black person in an officer's uniform and make him pour her the coffee.

      In a story I read years ago, Hillary was going to Marine One from the house at Camp David. There was a line of enlisted white guys standing ready to take her luggage, but she veered over to the black Captain standing off to the side and said "Here's my bags. Make sure they get on the helicopter. I need these at our next stop!". The Captain looked at her and said, "Maam, I am an officer in the US Marines. We have enlisted people right over there who are waiting to take your bags". And Hillary couldn't comprehend that. White guys handling bags, black guys commanding those white guys???? Unfathomable.
      • consonance, on 05/02/2008, -2/+17[Citation Needed]
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+8Sources?
      • darnit, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Sauce?
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -11/+1When I don't want to believe something, when I just want to dismiss it because it makes me uncomfortable, I say "Sources??"

        Because obviously if I can add a comment on digg.com, I must also have access to http://www.google.com or any number of other search engines.

        Dudes, consonance, inbred, darnit, we have this series of tubes, it's not like trucks, it's a series of tubes. You can get information through them.
        • patpl22391, on 05/02/2008, -1/+22The burden of proof is on you, not us.
          • Cimlite, on 05/02/2008, -9/+1"Burden of proof"? This is not a courtroom... this... is... digg . com.

            It's not even a story, it's a bloody comment. it just goes to show that you really should not believe everything you read... something which has never been more true until the internet come to be.
          • MadKennyP, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5It's not a comment. It's an alleged statement of fact.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7Nice as that is, and as much as I would like to believe another story about Hillary being a bitch, it is up to the person presenting the story to support it with some kind of evidence, not to say "google it". This is the time honored method of presenting information in a credible way.

          Or, as you would put it, when I don't have any ***** proof for the line of ***** I'm trying to push on people on the internet, when I don't want to confront the fact I'm ***** because it exposes my dishonesty, I say "use google" to the naysayers.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -8/+1not really. I already know that I read an article by a former aide.
        • flip2trip, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Fiction writer?
        • Futurejunior, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5Please link us to the aforementioned "article" so we may too read it and become all knowledgeable like yourself
        • flashback99, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I would have believed you until you wrote this.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0So, if we google something and it backs up what you spew, it must therefore be true. Because, after all, it's on the Internets.
        • SuicideMouse, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3I googled it, because I thought you were ***** about "googling it", and found no such comment. Snopes.com has some nasty comments and their sources, but as far as I've seen, yours isn't one of 'em.
          So now I hold a really high doubt your story is true.
          If you do post a source, make sure it's credible.
      • brettmurf, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Neat 'story'.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1No but you can throw the cup at it can't you?
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2She'd throw it at the nearest servant looking dude, and yell, "God Dammit! Why did we hire you if you can't get me coffee???"

        And the black guy would say, "Uh, I don't work for you, I just stopped in here to buy a cup of coffee on my way to my job where I manage retirement accounts for the public school system in this town", and then Hillary would look at him all confused.
    • KibibyteBrain, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Well, with the financial problems her campaign is having now, she apparently can't just ask the Starbucks Barista to whip her something up anymore.
    • colomboj, on 05/02/2008, -0/+10Step 1: Place cup under nozzle
      Step 2: Hold Button until cup is full
      Step 3: Drink crappy gas station coffee
      • CCB0x45, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Step 4. ???
        Step 5. PROFIT!

        Sorry, digg me down, but after all these years on digg and slashdot I have OCD and can not see steps without writing this comment.
      • finaldarkone, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Done and done.
  • shortyzgotpop, on 05/02/2008, -61/+151No Clinton supporter here, but this clip is obviously taken out of context.
    • wes00mertes, on 05/02/2008, -5/+35I just saw the context.
    • OlivierNO, on 05/02/2008, -4/+20Hmm... clip taken out of context, maybe. But at least SHE is the one talking!!!!
    • lansuggs, on 05/02/2008, -10/+65Totally agree. Definitely not a fan of hers, but there seems to be a lot of people who missed the obvious sarcasm. She was the one talking about raising taxes for high income earners while supporting the middle class.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -9/+4I don't know, when she said that it was a good thing that the rich could pass on their wealth to their offspring, in order to make this country better, all I heard was that she believes that middle class people shouldn't be passing any wealth to their offspring, because that would be bad for the country, but so long as it is the rich that do so, that would ensure that rich people's children have the wealth and power to continue running this country the way the wealthy have been doing for over a 100 years.

        I know I'm reading a bit more into it than just what she said. But too often, people read too much into things they shouldn't, and do not read enough into things when they should.

        Maybe this is one of those times we should.
        • flip2trip, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2You get NOTHING! If you had watched the whole interview she wants to return to previous tax brackets--another liberal redistribution of wealth through taxes--she wasn't talking about offspring.
    • morninglorii, on 05/02/2008, -9/+24Agreed. This is stupid. This would be like pulling out the part of Obama's denunciation of Wright's comments and just showing him saying "The American government is responsible for AIDS" and acting like he meant it.
      • p0s3r, on 05/02/2008, -11/+3But don't you understand? Only the Obamessiah (pbuh) can be taken out of context!
        • boombye, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4Whatever you communist, go spew more of your communist ideas some more.
      • darnit, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Whats good for the goose....
      • dexter411, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I'd love to hear a context that would make "The American government created AIDS" even remotely okay...
        • morninglorii, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1He was quoting Reverend Wright. I believe it was along the lines of "When he says that 'The American government is responsible for AIDS'..." (he was denouncing the comment)
    • treelovinhippie, on 05/02/2008, -6/+14It doesn't look like she's being sarcastic when you watch the full clip. There's only a slight grin and a nod.
    • TantrooM, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6Well, elitist inclinations or not, this shows that she is a follower, not a leader... Clinton is now only talking to Fox News people because Obama did it first.
    • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -4/+4Heck, if the Clinton camp and the media can pull things out of context on Obama, why not pull things out of context for Hillary in kind?
    • thephosphorbox, on 05/02/2008, -1/+11I got the sarcasm alright.. but I found it interesting that she said "God bless US" instead of "God bless YOU", thus including herself in the group she was mocking.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6She is in that group, you would rather she act like she is poor?
    • londubh, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1You mean like 'Goddamn America'?
    • matthew2398, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3I completely agree I don't like her but this is just plain stupid
    • TaintedBlu, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3No its not. I watched the interview when it aired. There is no context to be out of because there was no context at all.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4And how many Barack Obama (and Rev. Wright) and John McCain clips have been taken out of context? It's about damn time that she has a few of her many ill uttered comments taken out of context and thrown in her smug face.
    • renski13, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4If you watched the interview it really wasn't taken out of context. They were talking about tax reform and she made that haughty comment.
  • bernos, on 05/02/2008, -18/+12what a b word!
    • anarchyinthekr, on 05/02/2008, -1/+14that reminds me of high school when the mormons would get angry and say "oh f-word", quite humorous
      • choopie911, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1I remember in highschool a biblethumper went off and started pouting/ kicking a heater because someone laughed at "tasticle" (no, not testicle)
    • Dylson, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1SHES A BITCH!
    • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3I don't think she's a babe...
  • diggeradoo, on 05/02/2008, -10/+130Said Clinton: "Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue until the next generation."

    Asked about it in a conference call this morning, Wolfson insisted that Clinton had actually said "God blessed us." The next sentence, he said, was just her talking about how all Americans -- rich and poor -- deserve good things. Except, of course, that's not what she said. http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_Aide_Wol ...
    • marabout40, on 05/02/2008, -1/+22She "misspoke."
      • lastoftheidiots, on 05/02/2008, -1/+21Because she was "exhausted from the campaign trail" I'm sure.
        • Matri, on 05/02/2008, -0/+20No, it's because there were snipers!
        • synaesthesia, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7Maybe she should drink a red bull.
          • heliox, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2I'd vote for her if she DID a red bull...
          • DarkShroud, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2heliox, she isn't your mother.
      • girlflesh, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Exactly! I hate this excuse. If you can't handle campaigning, you can't handle being the president of this country. There's going to be way more critical situations where you can't afford to "misspeak".

        Proof: Bush's entire presidency.
    • eschompthis, on 05/02/2008, -6/+8thats how i first herd it, she actually did a good job in the interview. But this is digg so........ ***** hilary
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -5/+4then maybe you should second hear it, or third hear it.

        Because she definitely feels that god should bless the rich, and that the rich can pass their wealth and power onto their offspring so that they, the more enlightened, can ensure that America is run the right way.

        You have to understand that Democrats do not like the idea of middle class families passing on anything to their children. They want to increase inheritance taxes to the point that anyone who attains moderate wealth will not create wealthy heirs. Now it turns out, it is because they only want the extremely wealthy to do so, they want only people in the 50, 100 million or over a billion dollar range to be able to pass anything of power on to their children.

        They don't seem to mind when a farmer dies, and his family has to sell off the farm in order to pay the inheritance taxes. If they truly were "liberal" they would have added a provision where taxes on property inheritances could be paid off in installments which allow heirs to continue to work the land rather then being forced to sell it to pay the one time tax bill.

        Seriously, you have to stop thinking along ANY political party line. Think about your life as a citizen who has your own needs and goals and desires.
        • phrenzy, on 05/02/2008, -6/+2She was being fesetious - But don't let any chance to throw more rocks at everybody's favorite target pass you by...

          Stop think along party lines? You should take your own advice.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3facetious.

          I don't think along party lines. I learned long ago that the parties are a duopoloy
        • phrenzy, on 05/02/2008, -2/+0goddamn it - I googled Facetious as "fesetious" and saw other people use it and just went ahead. Dumb. Anyway, she definitely DOESN'T feel that god should "bless" the rich. Universal Health care and raising taxes on people who make over 200k doesn't sound like a blessing for the rich at all.
        • Futurejunior, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5You're both retarded
          • phrenzy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0But I never got tarded in the first place!
    • wendelgee2, on 05/02/2008, -4/+13It's funny. I'm an Obama guy and definitely thought she was being sarcastic here. Nothing to see, move along. BUT...this Wolfson obviously thinks that this might be misconstrued, so what is his first instinct? Not to clarify or expand, but to lie and distort and spin. So, you know what. I'm digging this up. They deserve all the heat they get, deserved or undeserved.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -5/+3How can you deserve all the heat you get, deserved or undeserved?

        Really, you can't deserve undeserved heat. You can deserve deserved heat, though.
        • synaesthesia, on 05/02/2008, -0/+9DId you...Did you just divide by zero?
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2No, I pointed out that wendelgee2 is trying to divide by zero.

        • wtfpwned98, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Hillary Clinton deserves to get the heat that other people don't deserve to be getting. Therefore, she deserves undeserved heat.
        • wendelgee2, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I totally baked Phil Lesh's noodle.
    • third_eye, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2Listen closely, there's no ***** D sound. This rich, greedy B word just took herself out of the race in my book.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3This is why we cant have nice things, there are plenty of things that you can make a valid criticism on in her policies, but people are still trying to focus on the most trivial BS in the entire interview. Think about the policy she is presenting? nah, not when I can just find a dirty name to call her. I hate people so much...
    • jarklejam, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3After watching it a few times, I don't believe that is what she said. On the other hand, I read this whole response as sarcasm, like, "God bless us, rich people, we really need some help!" Am I the only one that hears it that way? After all, they were talking about helping out the middle class and O'Reilly is essentially saying "What about me?"

      That said, I'm not even remotely a Clinton supporter. But keep it real!
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/02/2008, -6/+103Does she not understand how cameras work?
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5She apparently doesn't understand how memories work, either. I didn't need to be shown any clips of her landing in Bosnia to laugh immediately when I heard her claim, live, that she dodged sniper bullets upon landing in Bosnia. I just remembered seeing her get off a plane and meet and greet people on the tarmac.

      I realize many people are not that great with that whole gay ***** mental ***** stuff, they just know they like sex and money, so they rely on the media to tell them what to think, but I also know that there are lots of people who are not part of the idiocracy, and they don't need to see a soundbite to be reminded of something they already experienced.
  • rebotfc, on 05/02/2008, -11/+167Watching Hillary slime up to O'Reilly just makes me sick.
    • obeythefist, on 05/02/2008, -5/+6Watching anybody legitimize his egotistical attempts at being as relevant as his faithful listeners believe he is makes me lock myself in the bathroom and weep.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/02/2008, -7/+4The number one cable news show for more than seven years can not be "irrelevant".
        • obeythefist, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2Ah, very good, grasshopper. Take a statement about master not being as "relevant as [they] believe him to be" and reconfiguring it so you can argue against a fully made-up argument about him being, quote, "irrelevant".

          As super-master Rove would say, "misstate the argument, then stay on message."
        • masterm1nd, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3"Watching anybody legitimize his egotistical attempts at being as relevant as his faithful listeners believe he is"

          You implied it two ways in one sentence. I boggles my mind why you would now try to say that it's not what you meant, even though you couldn't have been clearer, and it's right ***** there for everyone to see you're full of *****!
        • obeythefist, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Stray from message! No cookie!
          • masterm1nd, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Do you have any idea how you come across from my point of view?
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1you mean The Daily Show?
          • DarkShroud, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Comedy Central wishes. But no there are these things called ratings and Bill has a lot of them.
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3He's definitely got a much better audience in pandering to war-mongering, SUV driving, nascar fans than in his previous job at Entertainment Weekly.

        I guess it must be an easy transition from reporting about celebrities to 13 year old moody, gossipy girls, to reporting about how great the neocons are for going to war against brown people to moody, gossipy drywallers and plumbers who believe they will get rich some day if they just support the rich people running for or holding office.
      • flip2trip, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Now, the sleeping pills are in the medicine cabinet--be sure to take the whole bottle....
        • obeythefist, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Just don't remind me about the spiders under the sink.
    • quomen, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3I agree, he didn't point one finger towards her. I hope hoping to see something resembling his mini-debate with Paul Krugman a few years back. There were so many softballs thrown one would think that they're doing the interview in a field.
      • DarkShroud, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Did you even watch the whole interview?
      • hcl40u, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1The only softball Bill gave to Hillary was the "Are you suprised that Fox News is the fairest news organization to your campaign?". The rest of the interview was the usual Bill O'Reilly routine.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/02/2008, -3/+12The bit that I saw wasn't an interview but more like political 69 and it was sickening on both counts. Not that O'Reilly would dare offend the queen because she's going to be running in 2012 and he wants to be able to interview her again, and FOX *so* desperately wants Obama to lose because they're afraid he could beat McCain. Hell the Mayor McCheese could probably beat McCain at this point.

      And after that "interview" he should really be calling his show the ass kissing zone.
      • djpants428, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2I'd vote for Mayor McCheese if he had a decent burger subsidy program.
      • Barbarino, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Are you serious?

        Keep drinking the Kool Aid...
        • PopcornDave, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Sorry haven't had Kool Aid since I was 12, although I do miss the sugar rush. Nice try though.
    • ligyron, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I like how O'Reilly fell back in his seat lilke WTF after she said that. He probably wanted to say something but never
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Why are lefties such pussies? Do you really think somebody can be elected president if they are scared to go on news organization that don't slant to the left? Guess it is true - all Democrat males pee sitting down.
  • GoodKharma, on 05/02/2008, -15/+59oh for ***** sake - digg this up and get this biatch out
    • HoratioHellpop, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Right, because what Diggers dig has a HUGE impact on the upcoming election.
    • natchiketa, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul! ....jesus did I say that... or just think it? was i talking? DID THEY HEAR ME??
  • gwayo, on 05/02/2008, -3/+44And then Bill Clinton goes and panders to working-class voters, accusing Obama supporters of being elitists...and then ironically dissing himself and Hillary: "The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules. We know that when we see it." Um, okay, Bill. That was our line.
  • FukUrCouch, on 05/02/2008, -16/+44WTF! what context do you need for her to say God Bless Us rich folk. It's pretty simple that she thinks she's rich and we are all a bunch of dumb poor people that need her to be president. Well ***** you Hillary!
    • dagnome1984, on 05/02/2008, -10/+4Your bigotry towards rich people is showing. It's neat to see you can deduce so much information from a 1.2 second comment. Please inform us on your methodology.
      • Tralobyte, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2While the parent comment is tactless, it does have a point. You can't deduce more than what she said from that clip.
    • Futurejunior, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3No, ***** your couch!
    • dexter411, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1"It's pretty simple that she thinks she's rich and we are all a bunch of dumb poor people that need her to be president."

      The first part of your sentence is right; she's definitely right.

      Non sequitur on the second part, though...
  • Rapter09, on 05/02/2008, -9/+40Hey, I hate Hillary as much as the next Obama supporter, but that clip was just too short. We spend day in and day out defending our favorite person from that snarky sound bite they got caught in, but let's take the same discretion with our opponents. Though... to be honest it didn't sound like the discussion was veering into sarcasm territory by the sounds of the continuing dialog before the fadeout.
    • synaesthesia, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8Fair enough, but when Obama says something stupid/wrong ("bitter"), he immediately apologizes for it and says "It was a poor choice of words/I butchered what I was trying to say". Strange as it may seem, he is a politician who actually takes responsibility for his mistakes.

      Hillary says something stupid (or often, a bold-faced lie), what does she do? With Bosnia/Snipergate, she lies, spins and squirms her way out of trouble and only eventually apologized (indirectly at that) 3 weeks later. With this, instead of accepting responsiblity ("It was a joke/It was a silly thing to say/It came out wrong"), she lies and tells us that she didnt say what we're listening to her say RIGHT NOW on youtube. The soundbite isn't the story, the reaction to it from her campaign is.
    • wtfpwned98, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2"Hey, I hate Hillary as much as the next Obama supporter..."
      You don't hate her as much as I do, so if I'm the next Obama supporter then I'm sorry but you are wrong.
    • dreesemonkey, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3I thought it was going to be the same thing before I watched the clip, but it looked genuine to me. That's a pretty ***** thing to say, though probably a significant portion of Fox News viewers/supporters are indeed somewhat wealthy so it's just preaching to the choir (though F if any republicans would ever vote for Hilary).

      Random tangent - How freaking wealthy do these people need to be? Bo-hoo if my estate is worth over $2M when I die it's taxed. Oh woe is me! I have no problems with passing on wealth to your family, but that money should be a blessing and not a necessity. I feel like I'm not explaining myself well, but the people inheriting huge wealth should be responsible enough and financially stable themselves in a perfect world, that way when you receive $4M instead of $6M you don't give a flying eff that you were taxed, though I do admit it's pretty ***** to be taxed on the money while you're alive and earning it, and then taxed when you're dead and giving it away.

      I guess I just don't understand because I'm not wealthy.
  • lordenlil, on 05/02/2008, -12/+28I *really* hope this gets the media coverage that it deserves. That statement is tenfold more "elitist" than what Obama said about small town Americans.
    • jbenson2, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3Big difference - what the O-man said was an insult and he is so naive he did not realize it.
  • MadMax3000, on 05/02/2008, -11/+26If it was Obama who said that, Clinton, McCain, the media would be jumping on it and make a big deal out of it. They would twist it so bad that Obama had to have a conference call on it. Everything that she does is OK, let's move on. But once it's out Obama let's all beat up the black guy.

    Obama 08!
    • Onetrack, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6Maybe, but why would Obama be on the o'reilly super fun neocon factoid hour show'n stuff.?
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1He wouldn't because he hasn't the stones.
    • poxonyou, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Exactly. Has one leading candidate ever faced so much constant opposition as Obama? I know Hillary faced a bit here and there when the campaign first started, but the brutal attacks on Obama have been non-stop for months. There are 2 television networks blatantly siding with Clinton (CNN and ABC), and of course one that constantly beats up whichever Democrat is in the lead (Fox) and conservative commentators aplenty on every network doing the same. Clinton, her surrogates, campaign, etc. attack him, and McCain attacks him. It's incredible he's surviving all of this.
  • Railz, on 05/02/2008, -8/+19Warren Buffet says there should be an estate tax. So, lets make rich people bless us! >_O
    • aukxsona, on 05/02/2008, -6/+10Warren Buffet is awesome though. He thinks he should have to pay more taxes. He also thinks working stiffs should get a break. I think Warren Buffet should be president. I would vote for him. ***** I would slave day and night to make him president. If he can make billions on his own imagine what he can do for the economy, our image world wide, etc...
      • petrodollar, on 05/02/2008, -5/+4Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch are the real deal. They are the only reason I'm skeptical of efficient markets hypotheses.
        • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Do you know anything about EMH? have u looked at the portfolio of companies that his company owns? yeah he says that he believes in concentration but the companies he buys are as diverse as any, This is all political ***** aside cause that stuff doesnt apply this is pure finance right here. (my major)
      • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -2/+9He says he should pay more taxes after the fact that he benefited from lower taxes. Thats like saying after you made the cut off for college admissions that they should raise the standards.

        Also if you look at HPR's over the more recent term, buffet isn't that impressive
      • icepick602, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Warren Buffet is wrong
    • matador3, on 05/02/2008, -1/+8The estate tax is tyrannical and destructive and Buffet is no egalitarian. He and his elite faux-leftist buddies counts on useful idiots like you to help protect their fortunes and empires through force of government. A few relevant comments.

      "Carney suggests that there may be more to the Gates/Buffett stance than meets the eye. For one thing, the estate tax will never hit Microsoft, since, as a publicly held corporation, its owner will never die. Moreover, if repeal of the estate tax is made revenue-neutral, additional taxes to make up the shortfall will very likely fall on corporations.

      A family-owned business is liable to be devastated by the estate tax. A son inheriting the family business – whose plant and equipment are worth, say, $2 million – from his father and who has been running the business for five years could be hit with a tax bill of $500,000, an amount he couldn’t possibly pay out of the company’s annual profits. He has to sell, and fast.

      It so happens that an avid buyer of businesses desperate to sell in the face of a massive estate-tax bill is – surprise! – Warren Buffett. In addition to the Buffalo News, Carney tells us, “other motivated sellers facing the estate tax who have found a willing buyer in Warren Buffett [include] Dairy Queen, a Utah furniture store, and a Nebraska jeweler." http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods71.html

      "...the super-rich are not giving their real reasons for opposing the repeal of estate taxes. It may at first look like these men are going against their self-interest to favor estate taxes. In fact, the super-rich have a personal interest in preventing others from joining their ranks. With estate taxes they can afford, they still stay at the top of the heap. Without them, their social and economic position will be continually threatened by upstart dynasties.

      Buffett and Soros are very gifted men. They have the special talent to create vast sums of wealth in their own lifetimes. But not everyone has such talent. Others need the extra help that family money provides. Far from increasing opportunity, then, estate taxes block opportunity for people who have less entrepreneurial talent than these one-generation wonders. By advocating such taxes, these men are trying to establish a monopoly of wealth at other people’s expense." http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/super-rich.htm ...
  • Berkana, on 05/02/2008, -11/+14Screw both of them! O'Reily can go hump yaks! Hillary can go huff their crotch dander!
    • PopcornDave, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7Hillary *would* go huff crotch dander if she thought it would help.
  • briz_dad, on 05/02/2008, -8/+12please - if you didn't know by now that politics at the presidential level is a rich person's game - then you just plain STUPID!
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/02/2008, -16/+7God bless the New World Order neocons who want to start wars all over the world.

    Who cares if they want to biochip us, and totally enslave everyone?
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/02/2008, -1/+8Everyone of your friends is an idiot.
    • dagnome1984, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7What friends?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Idiot
      As if the term neocon was not already meaningless - now you are calling Hillary a neocon
  • lilbugleboy09, on 05/02/2008, -6/+15Hillary pulls off the Fox look well.
  • Ryan166, on 05/02/2008, -11/+16She's going to tax rich people up the A-hole, so whats the issue?
    • Elihj, on 05/02/2008, -6/+6hey there's a platform i'd vote for
      • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -2/+8why? because u deserve money other people make?
        • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4He's not going to get it. It's going to go to gov't programs which is gov't contractors which is rich people.
          I love how people are trying to divine difference between these idiots (politicians).
        • velikiaca, on 05/02/2008, -4/+1I don't think they make it. They just take it. Since they have all the power necessary to do so.
          • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5So they don't render the goods and services equal to their fair market value? thats making money not taking money.... taking money is what happens when you walk into a ***** neighborhood(mine) and get held up at gunpoint(what happened to me)

            No, I don't consider money that pizza hut gets when I purchase a pizza or the laptop I bought from HP rich people "taking" my money.
          • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2@pyronik
            That's capitalism, colleges and digg have decided it's evil. You see man the evil corporations ... but if the gov't just makes things fair ... take another hit, it'll help you understand better.
    • queenbee93, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5No...That is just what she TOLD you that she will do. Never forget the Bosnia snipers, the NAFTA schedule and the fake question plants in Iowa. Put any promise she makes right up there with the signed pledge to the DNC on seating the candidates: to be reneged or recanted at any time for her own convenience.

      HRC only needs to keep her promises until she gets in office--then , the true day of the DAWG begins.
  • UltramegaOK, on 05/02/2008, -16/+69I hate Hillary as much as anyone. But I can't stand when people take clips out of context. When it happens to Obama or Ron Paul people raise hell. Watch the entire segment and then form a conclusion.

    Don't make assumptions from clips. Dig deeper for the bias in all media. Ignorance is bliss.

    (Parts 1 and 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SEewNss5sg&feature ...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISXvuqQr1k&feature ...


    • Ryan166, on 05/02/2008, -3/+19Ya really. So many diggers cry about a Fox News bias, or any other media bias, but the users on digg are constantly posting out of context clips, and purposely misleading titles.
    • tabion, on 05/02/2008, -14/+3Borrrrrrrrring.
    • bdav87, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5I agree. You people are just as bad them for jumping on the sound bites.
    • circa1015, on 05/02/2008, -5/+17I watched the whole thing earlier, and this clip does leave out the entire segment where she states that she is going to tax the rich more (to the chagrin of Papa Bear) in order to lift the financial burden on the middle class. But, having said that, the "God bless us" quote is not sarcastic. It is an arrogant slap in the face to pretty much everybody in this country who wasn't born into "opportunity".
    • Jb611, on 05/02/2008, -3/+11I watched both of those and even in complete context it still had the same meaning. There was no sarcasm.
    • Bologner, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3You take your logic and reason and leave Digg!
    • synaesthesia, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9As I said before to a similar post, the story isn't (or shouldn't be) that she said 'God bless us'. Its that when confronted about it, her campaign's first response was to reply "No, thats not what you heard her say. She said God blessED us. B-l-e-s-s-e-d'. Confronted with a problem, they lie and spin until it fades from memory- this is just another example of that. The reaction is the real story here, the soundbite is only a small part of it.
    • saady87, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2ugh...im sorry, I cant watch bill o'reily , I can watch 6-8 minutes of this and see that his is not out of context...
    • sleepysteve, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Click the second link that UltramegaOK posted and skip to about 1:30 to get a good idea of the statement's context.

      Let me make it clear that I HATE Hillary Clinton. I think she reeks of insincerity and is a classless individual. That being said, I do honestly believe she was being sarcastic when she said that. Please watch the 30 seconds or so leading up to it before you disagree or agree with me. Don't be like the people that are demonizing Obama with clips of Wright taken out of context. Show more class than they do.
    • dswinscoe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3watched it - nauseated - no context difference whatsoever - can't decide which of these tools is more despicable after that sad, hand-wringing excuse for an interview. How do people watch this blow-hard regularly? I'm ashamed to share the title, "American" with this ape.
  • CaptJack83, on 05/02/2008, -11/+11Hillary makes me sick
  • nastronomical, on 05/02/2008, -20/+15Ahhh yess the lazy ignorant masses. Gimmie gimmie $$$ even though i havent done ***** to earn it.
    • Drogoganor, on 05/02/2008, -5/+3How the ***** is that even relevant?
      • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3its relevant to any comment about a democratic candidate... i mean.. thats their platform.. "We'll take from the rich, give to the poor" I am not even ***** middle class yet and i know how much bs that is
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1Okay, well, once you get your head far enough out of your ass to realize that liberal economics are more complicated than Robin Hood (a ***** FAIRY TALE) maybe you should ask someone to explain what things are actually about on the left.
          • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1its not complicated, I understand it completely.. take a "greedy" company like exon mobile... do you understand liberal arguments about deferred taxes or even why they get those tax deferments in the first place... or the fiscal conservative counter arguments about their reversals? Or take their "Record Profits" and compare that to their operating margin... can you explain how they can have a moderate operating margin yet have record profits?

            Yes it is complicated, but when u listen to populist socialist rhetoric of the democratic candidates they break it down to the "rich taking advantage of the poor", if that is coshire then I don't know why describing socialism as robin hood is any less accurate. If you want to hear more about the things I talked about I can explain them in full. But they aren't so dense that you just accept socialism at Obama or Clinton's admonishments face value
    • velikiaca, on 05/02/2008, -4/+4How does someone "earn" $100,000,000.00 dollars? They can't possibly have worked for it. They used their wealth and power to extract that money from society. It's a matter of power and wealth. It's a dog eat dog world in capitalism, but you have to abide by the laws. So why not change the laws in favor of the people who can exercise their power and take some of that wealth for themselves. Why should the rules of capitalism be defined by the rich?
      • icepick602, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1Once you finish the Marx book you are obviously not grasping, study some economics
      • pyronik, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2because to earn that $100,000,000 they had to risk the $30,000,000 they put in, which they earned by risking the $10,000,000 under their first investment. They take what they have add time and risk, and you get profit. You people act like just because someones rich that someone comes and hands over a bunch of poor peoples money.... besides real crime, they provide services to other people who freely enter in contracts and trade agreements. Your ideology of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the exact opposite of freedom......... its economic slavery of the entrepreneurial spirit.
    • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3I dare say that the average fireman, coal miner or sweatshop worker has worked far harder than you ever have or Hillary Clinton either. Idiot
    • Nanite, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4What we are witnessing is the great republican delusion. Where people vote repub and follow their idiotic race to get all the money to the top 1% of Americans, because they foolishly think that they will be rich enough to benefit from it someday. What they don't realize is what a pyramid scheme it all is, when you support this crap and you are not a MULTIMILLIONAIRE, you lose. Period. And one day you will see that unless you already are a multimillionaire, the chances of you becoming one are slim. Like impossible slim. The dirty little secret that top republicans would never confess to the likes of you is as follows: They do all they can to keep the little guys like you out of their club. They work with big business to shut the little guy out, they shift the tax burden down to the middle class, and they make bankruptcy and getting out of debt harder than ever before. Is it becoming clearer now? They are using you as a mule to get this message out, getting you drunk on the American dream and telling you stories about how you may be as rich as us someday. Meanwhile you are hurting yourself and 99% of America by perpetuating a failed philosophy of pure greed and power madness. Stop working for 1% and help the other 99 for once in your life.
  • gapingass, on 05/02/2008, -11/+15I think she was being sarcastic
    • haterofps3, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1clearly it was sarcasm the entire interview was sarcastic, on both parts. It seemed to be taken a little to light on both parts and Clinton even stated that this was going to be a return to her husbands policy which simply means that we get Clinton version 2.0.
    • awtripp, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1then she should have known to end her speech with the "/sarcasm" or it'll just go right over the heads of most people.

      /sarcasm? i'm really not even sure.
    • queenbee93, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Uhmmm yep. That's why Wolfson defended her NOT by saying she was sarcastic, but by saying she meant to say "God blesses us" Too bad the "sarcastic excuse" slipped by him. Hillary did exactly what she meant to do with this comment, with her remarks on Iran and with her schmoozing on Fox and with the "vast right wing conspiracy" --that is try to capture and appeal to the Republican voter.
  • 3tents, on 05/02/2008, -9/+8Hopefully this will be Clinton's "Reverend Wright" debacle...
    • dreesemonkey, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1I'll admit that I don't follow politics all that much but it seems like the media jumps on Obama more than Hilary for these campaign slip-ups. Perhaps the general bias of "oh no we'll be taking orders from a black man"? So I doubt this will go very far, but one can hope.
      The only reason I prefer Obama over the other candidates (though, digg me down, I'd much rather see Ron Paul be elected) is he is the only one talking about changing the government. Does everyone else in the country not realize that government as it is DOES NOT WORK? This bi-partisanship is unbelievably counterproductive to the un-***** of the nation that we need to do. Politics is a joke. While it can be argued that even with Obama in the white house not much will change, it's the willingness to change that is at least a good start. Freaking american politics :(
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 05/02/2008, -8/+6Hillary sucks, but now the Fox Fake News Network is going for the GOP push, so don't buy in.
    Remember, if they succesfully kill off Obama's candidacy, all we have left is *gasp* Hillary unless we want four (if McCain's ticker holds out that long) more years of Bushian filth.
  • Elihj, on 05/02/2008, -10/+10Really people? Really ?Do digg readers really need a sarcasm detecting device? I guess it would be a useful invention, Professor Frink
    • dagnome1984, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Also a ***** meter could come in handy.
  • anonymousleaf, on 05/02/2008, -9/+16Bias is great. If a clip was taken out of context that showed Obama in a bad light, Digg would be up in arms and black faxing the news station. However they fail to use the same suspicion when it suits their needs.
    • Jerryskid02, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1...well yeah. Don't you like it, and completely agree when the team you're playing (in any sport) gets a foul. But then hate it and completely disagree when your tam gets one? Same thing.
  • tcardone05, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5Why do you hate america?
  • parkhead, on 05/02/2008, -27/+3i make 200k+ a year and i support hillary clinton
    make us proud girl!
    HC08
    • fredmv, on 05/02/2008, -2/+8You're an 18-year-old Canuck virgin geek that posts on Digg. I doubt you're even cracking 10k at this point.
      • parkhead, on 05/02/2008, -5/+0its called investments
        now stfu you poor piece of *****
        • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2my ass, if you even have that money, its because you invested daddys money
        • Digger1218, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Yeah, to make 200k a year off of any standard investments you pretty much have to have at least a million invested (assuming a 20% rate of return). What are you invested in? Me thinks that you're a lying douche.
          • parkhead, on 05/02/2008, -4/+0ok lets see
            we invested ALOT of money into gold and silver in the 80s
            do you know how much the price of that has gone up?
            now shut the ***** up
          • Digger1218, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Ok lets see, in the 80's you weren't born yet and that means that either your daddy did it, or you're full of *****. So kindly shut the ***** up yourself you lying douche/spoiled assbag.
          • parkhead, on 05/02/2008, -2/+0how the ***** do you know that my real age is in my profile
            ***** off *****
          • jellygraph, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3parkhead: Well, you certainly act your age...
        • Digger1218, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4After reading your past comments, it would appear that you are a ***** troll. Congrats you trolled me, have fun in your fail of a life.
    • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3parkhead is one of the hillary bots, fake profiles planted by the campaign
      • Digger1218, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1Jellygraph is one of the Obama bots, fake profiles planted by the campaign
        • jellygraph, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Nope... I'm the real deal, and I never go around posting comments to the effect of

          "i'm awesome and rich and i support barack obama
          make us proud obama!
          Obama 08 yaaaaaaay weeeeeeeeee"
    • DrunkenMick, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4If i see ONE more ***** post "You go Girl!" ***** i'm moving to Canada. Seriously. This election *isn't* about male/female or white/black. All the women seem to be making it out to be like Hillary is the ***** messiah for women.
      • Digger1218, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1You go Girl!
        *Hands DrunkenMick his bags*
    • Nanite, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2You are a poor urchin to these people. They would consider you no higher than a bathroom attendant with that kind of money. I don't think people realize just how rich our political masters really are.
  • trixterIreland, on 05/02/2008, -5/+8wow, for a politician to say that this close to the end of the game ... wow.
  • briz_dad, on 05/02/2008, -12/+5by the way - has anyone taken time to look at Obama's voting record? I think the pharmaceutical companies are very appreciative of his votes...
    • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2suddenly decided to return to digg to troll again, eh?
  • angrynorwegian, on 05/02/2008, -14/+11Awesome. Wasn't there just an article on digg about how short clips are supposedly now irrelevant? Oh, wait..that was from Obama supporters..I guess they are OK as long as they're against someone other than Obama, right? Pathetic.. and no, I don't support Clinton either. Or McCain.

    *Facepalm*
    • jellygraph, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Huh, kinda candid for a guy who makes comments like:
      "funny how theres all this support for obama UNTIL you find out what he actually believes in"
      and, rather unsurprising, does not go on to state what obama _supposedly_ actually believes and some proof to back that.

      why would you expect anything other than to be dugg down?

      troll
      • utahnkid, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You're the worst kind of person.. Too stupid to actually know what you're talking about, but very outspoken about it. Just out of curiosity I read the comment you brought up written by our friendly angrynorwegian and he was responding to another comment that said this:
        "And I was sure I was going to vote for Obama... So who're the third party candidates this year? Anybody who'd believe that croc of ***** that Gore spews is a drone."
        So OBVIOUSLY he was making a comment about how this guy supported Obama THEN started finding out about him and it turned out he strongly disagrees with many viewpoints. Whether or not you agree with it, it still makes sense. Knowing what you're talking about can be fun, huh?
        • jellygraph, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If I'm the worst kind of person, then you belong to my club as well.

          I never made any reference to whether or not he had/is/will be voting for Obama, did I? My point was, and I paraphrase:
          "kinda candid for a guy who... does not go on to state what obama _supposedly_ actually believes and some proof to back that."
          and, incredibly, another comment of his you quoted does exactly the same thing:
          "Anybody who'd believe that croc of ***** that Gore spews is a drone."
          An accusation against Al Gore without any facts and proof to demonstrate that things Al Gore says are a 'croc of *****'.

          If this guy actually _knows_ what Obama actually believes in (and is claiming that Obama is lying about his publicly stated beliefs), then we need to hear it. Otherwise, it's a comment without any value; a waste of time.

          So don't go calling me 'the worst kind of person' when you can't even coherently argue your reasoning.
  • rinote, on 05/02/2008, -6/+4/sarcasm
  • republikdh, on 05/02/2008, -10/+16Completely taken out of context. Ill be happy when the elections are over and Digg finds something new to be flooded with. The pro Obama, ANTI everyone else posts every 2 seconds is becoming annoying-
  • ptFoe, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5I thought we all hated poor people on digg.
    Why the change?
  • rybeckishere, on 05/02/2008, -2/+5Congratulation, Mz. Clinton... you just made another step to get out of the game. By the way, are you sleeping enough these days, in order to prevent being 'misspoken' ?
  • modernangel76, on 05/02/2008, -5/+7I would like to see Obama in office, but this clearly was sarcasm. O'Reilly is an A-hole and I appreciate her trying to stick it to him.
  • Noodleson, on 05/02/2008, -5/+6Would you PLEASE stop posting every god damn word this women says on the front page of digg? Seriously, I am a huge nerd and all, but get a ***** life.
  • zhangaoji, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9Let them eat cake
    • noseeme, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1Not even close.
      • SteveStone, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0lol, yeah... wayyy off. Nice try though zhangaoji.
        • zhangaoji, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Just trying to be a little lighthearted. I thought the discussion needed it.
    • wildbillhick, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3er, let them drink coffee.
      • zhangaoji, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0hahaha good one wildbill. Seriously though, I don't really mind hillary. Hope she doesn't mind a bit of teasing. I tend to believe that she was sarcastic.
  • CraigReed, on 05/02/2008, -4/+6Can't even operate a coffee machine, hilarious!
    • wildbillhick, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2how is she supposed to operate the country?
  • DiscoLando, on 05/02/2008, -4/+8You'd think being rich is a crime... get rich with them or get over it.
    • PALMARY, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0You think going hungry is bad, go hungry with them or get over it.
  • HeyaBILL, on 05/02/2008, -4/+7As an Obama supporter...SO WHAT? What is she supposed to say? "Rich people, god bless YOU?"

    I can see the front page now: "HILLARY DENIES SHES RICH." Grow up. She made a good point, America is (arguably) about opportunity and prosperity. That was her point.
    • velikiaca, on 05/02/2008, -2/+0Opportunity my ASS!!! I hear that they have plenty of $$$millionaires and even $$$billionaires in Russia, maybe that's also the land of opportunity? People who have wealth have POWER. Power guarantees wealth. Don't kid yourself, you will never be rich, you have no opportunity.
      • Futurejunior, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Russia is actually a democratic society now, has been for well over 20 years. So yea, it is a country of opportunity. You might want to stop thinking American, as great as it is, is the only place in the world. Any one can be rich, and pretty much anywhere, good old capitalism guarantees that. You just got to have a brain.
        • utahnkid, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Its a waste of time. People with that mentality feel more comfortable thinking that where they are in life is product of everyone else's short comings, not their own. It's the mentality of the perpetual failure and it's that very thinking that keeps them from ever becoming anything.
    • PALMARY, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0You might deny being rich because it might not square capitalist culture with notions of FAIRNESS, if you implied it was OK for so few to have so much and SO MANY TO HAVE SO LITTLE!
  • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6Hillary just farted ... it's important tell your friends.
    • krusade, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2It has been taken out of context.
      • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Indeed.
        She has to eat what she can on the road, a few hours before she had a few too many chimmy chungas.
  • ThatsPopetastic, on 05/02/2008, -13/+8She was being sarcastic people.
    • jaydoj, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4no, she's not, did you hear how she finished that, some ***** line about how 'god bless rich people we can spread our values to future generations, blah blah blah' shes shoving it right in our faces
    • Bunmei, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1There is a bit of sarcasm in there. I don't think that is the issue here though. I think the problem is that this video is a clear example of what many have done here on digg to support a particular candidate, and that is to essentially take something out of context and make someone seem no less evil than a baby-eater. I remember when we'd link videos of entire interviews and news articles that had diggers figure the flaws in logic and character themselves, not completely opinionated blogs and cropped video. However, now people with agendas simply want to spoon feed us what they want us to think. There is such a flurry of these article on digg, that I've basically become desensitized and simply ignore anything that contains the keywords of: Obama, Clinton, McCain; because they hold as much truth as the drivel that comes out of the President's mouth. It's this type of candidate bashing that's going to put, McCain in office. Do any of you seriously want that to happen? I don't favor either candidate more than the other, but allow me to ability to evaluate this for myself.
  • AWBoy666, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4Huh? What the hell was she talking about?
  • RRJackson, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1I wonder how Digg will react when she gets the nomination.
  • shoopdawoop, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Bush on changing presidential term limits:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=5dzW7ZivJnY
  • SteveStone, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4I HATE that I have been reduced to defending Hillary Clinton BUT... It seems fairly obvious to me that someone picked through this interview with a fine tooth comb to try to come up with something (anything) to make Hill look bad. If this is the best they could do then she must have handled herself very well.
    I really can't believe how many comments there are from people who think this dumb ass clip will matter at all. I know that digg generally leans pretty far left, and that's cool, but I guess I just way underestimated the amount of functionally retarded diggers there are.
    • krusade, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Have you noticed every comment here trying to defend the undefendable starts with "I'm not a Clinton supporter" or "I'm not a Hillary fan"? And after that everyone starts spinning.
      I like this one. It's not sarcasm, it's not out of context, it just doesn't matter. Really, it's just words...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


© 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.