Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Daily Kos Diary: I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
dailykos.com — Daily Kos user "Grassroots Mom" does extensive research comparing the various bills and senate activity of both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. This is a good look at what the two has done during their time in the Senate and a representation of what they stand for and care about.
dynatos- 5409 diggs
- digg it
- bradc158, on 02/21/2008, -44/+676Excellent article. Her conclusion after ALL of the research she did:
"Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton. I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed something.
In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton introduced not a single bill last year."
I urge anyone who still thinks Obama is all talk and no substance to go read this article. The author of this article did a LOT of research on the US Senate activity of both Senators Obama and Clinton.- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -10/+159i'm a kucinich supporter and didn't see much difference between hillary and obama at first. then i found out he voted for banning the use of cluster bombs while she did. she voted for the kyle/lieberman bill which he didn't. i also researched their foreign policy:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
obama is clearly better than hillary.- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -4/+44typo: i meant to say she voted against banning cluster bomb use. more about that here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-o ...- oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -38/+10Who cares about weapons bans... Just stop war and bombing, anything short of that is a ridiculous waste of energy.
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -5/+10http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34 ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/s ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm
i think they care. - oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -20/+9Did you even read my comment? So the children being shot with bullets don't care? The children that have had conventional bombs dropped on them don't care?
- futureb, on 02/21/2008, -7/+19don't be an idiot. the use of cluster bombs in populated areas should be a war crime. there is a significant percentage of bomblets that don't explode on impact, and then sit around for weeks/months/years for children and others to pick up. they are a weapon basically designed to inflict collateral damage on a civilian population.
- oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -15/+11@futureb - My point is that war kills people. The idea of war crimes is as ridiculous as hate crimes. War is a crime. The point of war is to kill more of them than they kill of you. Its all wrong. The idea that we can make war nicer, safer, and better is idiotic. Civilians have always died in wars and always will. So instead of wasting my time on making wars better, I'd rather us work towards NOT going to war.
- chrissandvick, on 02/21/2008, -12/+6***** futureb: Cluster munitions are valued, by the West at least, because they extremely lethal killers of combat troops, not due to unintended civilian casualties they cause. If the goal was collateral damage against civilians we could easily use the artillery or air-dropped mines that are already in the inventory.
- wolferz, on 02/21/2008, -3/+16@oldhick
Unfortunately your point is moot, since war isn't going away... ever. Even if every one was to disarm, which in and of itself is an unachievable goal when loons like Kim Jong-il are in charge of a military of any kind, there will eventualy come a point when strife results in the redevelopement and deployment of weapons.
In essence, you are advocating torture, mass murder, genocide, biowarfare, and other connotations of "total war" by claiming that we should just do whatever unless we stop war altogether (which is impossible). Quite the opposite of what you say, trying to end war altogether is a pointless waste of time because it will NEVER happen. War is a crime, yes. It is horrible, yes. It is also inevitable. We might as well make an effort to be as civilized about it as is possible... even though the other guy likely won't even go that far. - Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -1/+9@chrissandvick
No one said the INTENTION was to kill civilians, it was only said that it happens as a consequence, and that that consequence should be avoided. - OwdenBowden, on 02/21/2008, -3/+6To all
The problem with the current military action (or War) is that it is being conducted, more so, as a PR war and not a real war.
Personally - I would prefer the US conducted a proper war and simulated they style of combat used during WWI and WWII which is broken into the following steps;
STEP 1: Bomb the Hell out of everything and all - turning the entire country in to rubble.
STEP 2: Rebuild
STEP 3: Pull all troops out.
Had we followed these steps (especially 1 and 2 would would have had our troops out at least 1 and 1/2 years ago. Nonetheless, we continue to have a conflict in Iraq in order to keep a military presence near to our oil interests. Further, the "war on Terror" is another fallacy's but that is another issue... - chrissandvick, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1taik: go back and re-read what futureb wrote. And what about the consequence to the lives our soliders? And their ability to accomplish their mission while being shelled to death? I'm getting dugg down, predictably, but no one is addressing my argument except by non-sequitur.
- oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -5/+3@wolferz, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't logically see how war can be civilized. I admire the world you live in where you think that it is possible, but reality shows that you are wrong.
While we've adopted things such as the Geneva convention and other agreements, they're not followed by anyone other than a few. From Darfur to Iraq/Iran to Israel to Korea to Vietnam, no countries have obeyed these regulations. Its a pipe dream that allows people in power to feel better about themselves and their conquests. The reality is that people ARE doing whatever it takes around the world and ARE NOT following rules.
You can convene war tribunal after war tribunal and convict as many people as you want after the fact for war crimes. War will always be war and it will never be civilized. When people have a weapon it will be used.
But heck, I'm all for it then. Cheers to civilized war peoples, bottoms up!!! - neko6, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2I agree with oldhick. We've reached the absurd situation in which the UK killed millions Germans and it was perfectly OK with their courts, but then they issued a warrent to arrest an Israeli general for allegedly destroying 59 terrorists' houses in Gaza.
How ***** up of a world is it if destruction of property, even if it was unlawful, is considered a war crime, while killing millions is "inevitable"?! - Digger1123, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Just because we stop the war on our side doesn't mean they will stop the war on their side.
- Garbagio, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Are you going to cut off people's hands to keep them from using fists? They'll just try to bite the enemy's jugular. You can't get rid of weapons or war. Conflict is another part of life that you have to accept and understand how to control to minimize the need for physical force. Getting rid of weapons with a remarkably high level of collateral damage is great place to start.
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -5/+10http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34 ...
- oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -38/+10Who cares about weapons bans... Just stop war and bombing, anything short of that is a ridiculous waste of energy.
- chrissandvick, on 02/21/2008, -37/+6A bill that could be known as the "The only good American Soldier Is a Dead American Soldier" vote. ICM is extremely lethal and by far the best tool for counter-battery suppression, killing enemy infantry even while dug in and destroying armored assaults. Banning it would mean US artillery would be far less lethal than an enemy using cluster rounds.
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -4/+34As many as 98 per cent of victims of cluster bombs over the past three decades have been civilians, a third of them children, a report has disclosed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/s ...- chrissandvick, on 02/21/2008, -19/+5War sucks. Especially for civilians in a combat zone. US troops need to have the weapons that kill the enemy better and saves their lives. You take away cluster munitions the result is dead US troops. You want to save children from mutilation and death from war? Oppose dictatorship and tyranny. Attack the root cause, not the technologies that keep our guys alive and they need.
- amirman, on 02/21/2008, -3/+13if our country opposed disctaorship and tyranny we wouldn't have sold saddam hussein weapons, and helicopters, and poison gas, which he used on the kurds. we also wouldn't have passed the patriot act.
- Mejari, on 02/21/2008, -2/+11@ chrissandvick:
You do know that before that place was a 'combat zone' it was their home, right?
- neognostic, on 02/21/2008, -3/+22People like to convince themselves that we are the policeman of the world, we are not. We are the bully in the world. We use superior size, strength and money to bully other countries kill their people, and the only people who benefit are the members of the American military and industrial complex.
- aliengoods, on 02/21/2008, -3/+15A bill that could be known as the "The only good American Soldier Is a Dead American Soldier"....
It's good to see you're not using facts to support your argument and instead resort to cheap rhetoric. For a minute I was worried digg introduced a flamebait filter.- chrissandvick, on 02/21/2008, -17/+3ICM is extremely lethal and by far the best tool for counter-battery suppression, killing enemy infantry even while dug in and destroying armored assaults. Banning it would mean US artillery would be far less lethal than an enemy using cluster rounds.
- quaxon, on 02/21/2008, -21/+7i completely agree, the only good soldier IS a dead one!
- artisresistance, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4@chrissandvick and oldhick
By your rationale, why not just drop a ***** 4,700 pound bomb on the target since war is messy and it's one of our best tools against the enemy. Ridiculous.- neko6, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3If you're gonna bomb a target, why use a small bomb if you can use a big one? To give the enemy a chance to escape?
Everyone here agrees having no war is the best option, but you can't expect to have a "clean" war with no casualties. So if its gonna be a war, u better fight hard - or you will lose. - chrissandvick, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1Sometimes you do drop a big bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the ultimate examples of that. It ended the war and saved the lives of up to a million US soldiers and several millions of Japanese. And there's no chance of going to war with Japan in the foreseeable future. The one that's being ridiculous here is you and the rest of the lefty's.
- neko6, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3If you're gonna bomb a target, why use a small bomb if you can use a big one? To give the enemy a chance to escape?
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -4/+34As many as 98 per cent of victims of cluster bombs over the past three decades have been civilians, a third of them children, a report has disclosed.
- yohnstoppable, on 02/21/2008, -9/+1Cluster bombs! Cluster Bombs!
- lostarchitect, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2that thing will morph! that thing will morph!
- FierceGrape, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1I think what you are meaning to say is- Clusta bombs clusta bombs, I could showah in dis *****.
- bpacana, on 02/21/2008, -7/+3The new much improved cluster bomb is 99.9% more like likley to explode. Making it less likely for a child to come accross it and pick it up. Thus, I say, cluster bombs are ***** tight! Have you seen video of these things going off? ultimate destruction!
- FatLoser, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Great, so only 1/1000 as many children will be mangled or killed. You sure are a glass half full kind of guy.
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -4/+44typo: i meant to say she voted against banning cluster bomb use. more about that here:
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -4/+87I came to the same conclusion after examining both their voting records and bill introduction.
When I first read this article I thought it was going to be anti-Obama but it turned out to be very well researched.
Basically, in a nutshell: Hillary submits more bills to congress, but almost none of them pass, and they're mostly focused on mothers and healthcare... but Obama gets more bills actually passed, and his have to do with everything under the sun.
Being able to actually do what it takes to get your bills passed is, well, kinda important.- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -19/+4Oh, I thought it was where you actually stand on the issues.
- foolonthehill, on 02/21/2008, -0/+14It's possible for more than one thing to be important.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -14/+1I'm making a statement underscoring the fact that getting your authored legislation passed is actually a minor detail.
- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -1/+9Minor detail? How the ***** is that a minor detail?
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -10/+2It's a minor detail because the vast majority of voters don't give a damn. They just know that you're against amnesty or for socialized medicine etc. - just because a majority in the senate votes you down doesn't mean most others would not.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -0/+14To be honest, it doesn't matter where you stand if you can't get people to agree and vote along with you. Failure to get bills passed indicates an inability to get people to knit together and agree on a topic. A president can have all sorts of crazy, amazing ideas, but if he can't get congress to agree with him (or her), their entire presidency will be spent getting nothing done. Remember - president does not write laws, he signs them or vetoes them. So a president thats unable to build realistic support for their plans is a useless president.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Which is why, though I kind of wish it wasn't true, Ron Paul would have been the most ineffective president in history. Very few members of Congress would support his ideas, as is proven by the fact that NONE of the major policy initiatives he has introduced in the House have passed.
- Memitim, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7I believe that everyone should have free health care, pay no taxes, drive Ferraris, and be sexual dynamos! That must make me the greatest politician ever, eh? Even though I can't deliver on any of them?
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2It's both. Direction * Magnitude = movement. Clinton's got no magnitude, but a definite direction. Obama's got a more varied direction, but LOTS of magnitude.
Basically, you need someone you agree with, but also someone who's capable of making those things you agree with happen.
- foolonthehill, on 02/21/2008, -0/+14It's possible for more than one thing to be important.
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -19/+3Clinton: a bill providing "enhanced regulation" in lending, an accurate description
Obama: a bill to "stop mortgage [...] fraud", an unrealistic goal and therefore misleading (bordering on a lie)- jdotter, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8Cherry pick much? If you want to get something done, maybe taking a tough, hard, stand on the issue could be more effective, how do you negotiate from a soft position? You don't, you compromise your positions, like voting for a bankruptcy bill you hoped wouldn't pass or you authorize a war that should never have been waged.
Don't Get Your Hopes Up! - Hillary '08
Ugh...- streak, on 02/21/2008, -8/+1ooh, call mom and dad to let them know how tough you are. frankly, for the first time in my adult life, I'm really ashamed of my country, and not just because of Barack's success... but actually mostly because of it.
- krebcycle, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1@streak
why are all the republicans on Digg such assholes? they immediately resort to 'call your mom' crap. how ridiculous. no substance, all idiocy.
- jdotter, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8Cherry pick much? If you want to get something done, maybe taking a tough, hard, stand on the issue could be more effective, how do you negotiate from a soft position? You don't, you compromise your positions, like voting for a bankruptcy bill you hoped wouldn't pass or you authorize a war that should never have been waged.
- Kautylia, on 02/21/2008, -3/+13"When I first read this article I thought it was going to be anti-Obama but it turned out to be very well researched."
Do you really think those things are mutually exclusive?- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -2/+9They usualy are.
Well researched articles don't tend to be anti-Obama. The more the person researches into it, the more they see the same things this person did. So yeah, a well-researched anti-Obama article would be pretty rare. - Memitim, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2After reviewing the research, yes.
- Kautylia, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Research can support any side. For my part, I've looked at both sides and found the senate records, although in favor of Obama, not enough to place his over Hillary. My mind was made up from the debates.
So I guess I worded what I said wrong. I think it's stupid to imply that someone who knows the facts would always support Obama and Hillary. I'm not saying now that's what he meant, but I see that a lot.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -2/+9They usualy are.
- Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Where you stand on issues doesn't matter much if you don't have the ability to get legislation passed for those positions.
- MixMastaKooz, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4Many, many DailyKos diaries use misdirection in the titles to get people to read then recommend them. It works!
- scubasteve377, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -19/+4Oh, I thought it was where you actually stand on the issues.
- edwartica, on 02/21/2008, -5/+48Nod, I too am a Kucinich Supporter, and really think that Obama would indeed be the best of the remaining candidates. The more I read about him, the more I like him.
- scubasteve377, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Go Barack! Patriot Acts for everyone!
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006s ... - Garbagio, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1If only you people understood your rights and how they're manipulated, you'd understand that who you vote into office is no where near as important as WHO YOU ARE in the legal system. Is income tax as sure as death to you? Isn't that slavery? Forget people's voting records, forget what minute issues they are for or against. Learn about WHO you are as a 'Natural Person' by definition of law and then discuss whether the leaders you elect will actually make a lick of difference. Heck, then you should discuss whether the 'leaders' are even relevant in your case as a natural person.
This is why I was supporting Ron Paul/Kucinich because Paul isn''t changing government for his benefit or as a way to 'fight the evil entities". It's so that you can take control of your life and empower yourself to not just feel free again but to BE free. And this isn't free in the watered down, overused cliche of the term. Look into it. So you can get rid of that knot in your stomach that tells you that even if you vote Obama who is the greatest candidate in your mind, that you feel there will still be disadvantages that you cannot control.
Know your Absolute Rights. Know the Law and its wordplay. THEN decide whether you want to be a part of the system and who matters most to you in the election of your country.
- scubasteve377, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Go Barack! Patriot Acts for everyone!
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -40/+5lol lets take a look at the obama legislature, shall we?
"A concurrent resolution honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of organic chemistry and the first and only African-American chemist to be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences."
"A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society."
"A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring Rosa Louise McCauley Parks."
"A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson."
"A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day"."
"A resolution honoring and recognizing the achievements of Carl Stokes, the first African-American mayor of a major American city, in the 40th year since his election as Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio."
WTF is all this crap....- astx813, on 02/21/2008, -2/+32Exactly what they say they are: resolutions. Not everything is bills & big important healthcare, war, budget, etc stuff.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -18/+5My point is that sheer number of Senate actions, though, aren't necessarily good qualifications......
I just read another - Obama introduced this as a bill:
"A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections."
Read it - it makes it illegal for ANYONE to give false or misleading information in regard to federal elections. You can then be put in prison for 5 years.... Nice direction for this country.- streak, on 02/21/2008, -17/+3Obama's bills are over-the-top, claiming goals that are unattainable. Just ridiculous.
- davidrools, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5no one is claiming that the number of bills or resolutions submitted is evidence of a good or effective leader. it's those bills that cause major change and are passed with bipartisan support that reflect a candidate's ability to bring about positive change.
and yes if you're intentionally misleading voters (not just expressing your opinions or thoughts, of course) then you should have to answer to a judge. - Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5*****, did you actually read the bill yourself?...
It makes it illegal for anyone to give false or misleading information in regard to federal elections if they both know this information to be false, and are attempting to prevent others from exercising the right to vote... Those two requirements are rather important...
Knowingly lying to keep others from voting should be illegal, that particular bill is a good idea. - MalenfantX, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0Sounds like a good way to jail most politicians. This is a problem?
- GreyICE, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2So, he wants to put people in prison for falsifying information regarding other people in an attempt to disenfranchise voters?
That's straight up nasty and immoral, and making it illegal is a good thing. No more phone calls telling people the polling is somewhere else, or on a different day, etc. Remember those phone calls, and how we were essentially legally powerless to stop the Republican rats from doing them?
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -18/+5My point is that sheer number of Senate actions, though, aren't necessarily good qualifications......
- mrsteveman1, on 02/21/2008, -3/+19You're a moron
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -15/+1afraid to try and prove me wrong?
- RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -0/+11Prove what wrong? All you did was list Senate resolutions. Your babbling as if you have something to say, but aren't actually making any type of statement whatsoever. People in Congress introduce resolutions like this constantly. Look at McCain, he's been in Congress long enough to fill a whole room full of documents like this. It's what they do, you can't take on healthcare policy everyday. The majority of the Senate time is taken up by stuffy procedures and formalities.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -17/+1Key word: "crap"
That's what Obama's touted experience amounts to - he introduced a large number of these resolutions recognizing African Americans just because of their race. It's obvious what's on his mind on a daily basis. It's racism, and by today's standards, he's a racist. - RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2OK, buddy...I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the reverse-discrimination allegations start flying. BTW, if race is such a non-issue, as we all know it is in this country, why is that at the forefront of everything your digging through his record for?
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1thomas.loc.gov select obama and click GO. I mentioned the first hand full of articles that showed up!
- archiesteel, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5"he introduced a large number of these resolutions recognizing African Americans just because of their race"
No, not because of their race, because of their contribution to society - or don't you think citizens that contribute to society should be recognized when they happen to be African-American.
Before accusing Obama of being a racist, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. - Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1"No, not because of their race, because of their contribution to society - or don't you think citizens that contribute to society should be recognized when they happen to be African-American."
I think Rosa Parks, MLK, etc. should be recognized. I don't think that someone should be recognized just because they accomplished something AND THEY'RE RACE "A", RACE "B", OR RACE "C". - RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Just got that idea, considering that out of the hundreds of bills and resolutions he's introduced the handful you mentioned all dealt with race. While you were checking his record, on any site, maybe you should have scrolled down to check out the other couple 100 dealing in no way, shape, or form with race. I guess all the stuff dealing with Iraq, Iran, increased funding for veterans, increased educational spending, that must all be racially motivated fluff also?
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -8/+1"Just got that idea, considering that out of the hundreds of bills and resolutions he's introduced the handful you mentioned all dealt with race."
You didn't go there, did you? I know you didn't because there are 113 total items. I grabbed the top 6 or 7, and I couldn't and didn't want to continue.
There are, I hope, other items that do deal with Iraq, Iran, etc. - RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Man, I'm not going to change anything you've already got running through your head. You've already made clear that you think Obama's a racist. Hopefully your opinions will get some traction around here :) BTW, when your from Alabama and your throwing around allegations of racism, against black people, you're probably not going to get taken that seriously.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1Racism is worse in Chicago....
I'm 1/4 black btw. - Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1If an entity has the properties of OBJECT A then it must be of or related to OBJECT A.
Let's cut the crap and be honest here. - EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2I haven't looked, but recent records could be influenced by the fact it's Black History Month.
- archiesteel, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Tyvon2000, who among those listed do you figure is not deserving of a resolution to recognize their contribution to society?
In any case, this is irrelevant, because he has introduced many pieces of significant legislature in *addition* to these resolutions. So you did in fact cherry-pick items in his record to make him seem like a lightweight - and I don't care if you're 1/4 black. That is completely irrelevant. - RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Even Strom Thurmond had children that were part black. Sorry, bad taste, just couldn't resist.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -17/+1Key word: "crap"
- acroyear2, on 02/21/2008, -1/+10Percy Lavon Julian was an amazing chemist.
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -15/+3Carbon sequestration is already a sad joke and Obama wanted to spend $200 million more on it?
"S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, ..."
Oh, yeah, as if Bush wouldn't veto that bill. And even if his veto was overridden by Congress, Bush would do little. The US is a major driving economic force in the world and could afford to do little anyway. This bill merely demonstrates how wacky Obama is.
Obama failed with his legislation to withdraw our troops in 18 months. If this had been taken seriously by his colleagues, we'd be out of Iraq next month. right.
Frankly, Obama's legislation looks INSANE. And as a topper, we'll have Michelle "deer caught in headlights" Obama and friends.- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -0/+11One failed bill = Insane Senator
I see your logic.- streak, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2You apparently didn't RTFA or you have little to no sense. Obama introduced multiple insane bills.
- EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6"Carbon sequestration is already a sad joke "
Proof? I work with some pretty brilliant scientists and they still think there's potential in the technology.
- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -0/+11One failed bill = Insane Senator
- crweaks23, on 02/21/2008, -2/+12Tyvon, the only racist person here would be you. Obama has plenty of serious accomplishments (cited right here in this article, actually), that have nothing to do with race, gender, or religion while we're at it. You have selected only pro-African American resolutions, put them together, and expected all us white people to be angry about it? Then you call HIM racist??? Where do you get off?
How about you post ALL of Obama's record, and let people filter through it on their own. Oh wait, then you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2thomas.loc.gov
Select obama and click GO.
I did as the article suggested BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE GUY.
I posted the first ones that came up....
I am not racist, sir. I am, in fact, pointing out the tough, controversial issues. - babar77, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4It's only tough and controversial if you're a racist.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2thomas.loc.gov
- rpebble, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4There's nothing tough or controversial about honoring amazing chemists and condemning violence. I'm not sure I get your angle here.
- astx813, on 02/21/2008, -2/+32Exactly what they say they are: resolutions. Not everything is bills & big important healthcare, war, budget, etc stuff.
- TherealObadiah, on 02/21/2008, -41/+5"He cares more..." Oh, brother. That is the hallmark of the goofy American liberal. Feelings, emotions...and no substance. Face it, Barrak Hussein Obama is the Jerry Seinfeld candidate.
- acroyear2, on 02/21/2008, -0/+13"Jerry Seinfeld candidate" - Explain?
Also, McCain doesn't give a *****? Is that the comparison you're making?- TherealObadiah, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2Obama, just like the Seinfeld show, is about nothing.
- nynety, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I thought Gerald Ford was the politician about nothing.
http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/002513.ph ...
- nynety, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I thought Gerald Ford was the politician about nothing.
- TherealObadiah, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2Obama, just like the Seinfeld show, is about nothing.
- Yca18, on 02/21/2008, -0/+10Let me just start by saying its Barack not Barrak. And let me ask... When selecting a candidate do you select a candidate who "doesn't care more"?
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -9/+3Don't let "caring" override your sense of what's realistic to accomplish.
- Mejari, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6And don't let the fact that people are actually enthusiastic about the future of our country override your sense that he's the best candidate to get the job done. Lets just say that is we had a president that cared we wouldn't go to war for no reason and get Americans killed.
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -5/+1You are confused. Why do you generalize over GW Bush? Bush was an anomaly, for his stupidity and personal vendetta against Saddam for his trying to assassinate Bush senior. JFK cared. He began the Peace Corps and escalated the war in space with the man-on-the-moon program. He also launched the Bay of Pigs Invasion and furthered the Vietnam war.
Elect Obama and prepare to be supremely disappointed in him and yourself. You have no hope of achieving your aspirations as vocalized by him. Remember, he says you're taking a chance not on him but on your own aspirations. In the end, he'll blame you for the failure. The world is far bigger and more complex than you give it credit.
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -9/+3Don't let "caring" override your sense of what's realistic to accomplish.
- OUberLord, on 02/21/2008, -1/+22Anyone who feels the need to type out the full "Barack Hussein Obama" of his name is either A) trying to convey that he is somehow similiar / related to Saddam, B) trying to make a point by reinforcing his full name, or C) an idiot that actually *does* believe A. Anyone want to wager where TherealObadiah stands?
- 11b1p, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Damn those people that say hillary rodham clinton
- cranium, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5 - Feelings, emotions...and no substance. -
Sounds more like the intelligent design crowd than liberals. - MalenfantX, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2That's some excellent stupid!
- acroyear2, on 02/21/2008, -0/+13"Jerry Seinfeld candidate" - Explain?
- RealHyperX, on 02/21/2008, -41/+6Yeah she is a stupid bitch! Obama did diddly squat. He is a perfect candidate for dumbass liberals. All glamor and no action.
- salinemist, on 02/21/2008, -18/+3S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -1/+10Seeing that you could only list 2 of the 20 or so there shows how "little" he has done. Right.
- salinemist, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2Unlike the auther of the article I know the difference between a resolution and an amendment.
- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -1/+10Seeing that you could only list 2 of the 20 or so there shows how "little" he has done. Right.
- acroyear2, on 02/21/2008, -2/+22Did you read the article? No action? Are you illiterate? Oh wait, close. You're neo-conservative.
- RealHyperX, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1neo-conservative? I just hate liberals. ***** morons. You guys are gonna elect a guy with absolutely no experience. Let it roll. You guys are gonna be happy. More handouts for you lazy bastards.
- krebcycle, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1you're an idiot, you post flames that mean nothing. if you want to have a discussion, try discussing. conservatives in this country are not even conservative anymore; they are big government spenders who care only about themselves, wave the flag and pretend to care about the country while they elect officials who rape it. america should be about honor and freedom, not greed and violence. way to turn it all on its head, asshat.
- RealHyperX, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1You can't argue with a liberal. Facts are dugg down. So I am using your tactics. Which is emotional responses to complex problems. The only language liberals understand.
- chapstick, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2No experience? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Try again.
- RealHyperX, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1neo-conservative? I just hate liberals. ***** morons. You guys are gonna elect a guy with absolutely no experience. Let it roll. You guys are gonna be happy. More handouts for you lazy bastards.
- RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5Well said...you really let your intelligence shine through.
- MalenfantX, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6dumbass liberals? Have you not noticed that the dumbest, craziest people are social conservatives?
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -2/+3Relax. It's ok if he's a hater. He, like most of his ilk, have been manipulated into, basically, irrational thought. He is not the majority, and he will, eventually, learn better.
I would like to point out this important piece of brilliant art: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -2/+3Relax. It's ok if he's a hater. He, like most of his ilk, have been manipulated into, basically, irrational thought. He is not the majority, and he will, eventually, learn better.
- salinemist, on 02/21/2008, -18/+3S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
- wendelgee2, on 02/21/2008, -4/+16Wow. That's some serious cherry picking, buddy.
- greatgran1, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0BEN & JERRY'S Cherries for Change.
- wicketr, on 02/21/2008, -28/+7The DailyKos is worse than Fox News. They are extremely biased and i wouldn't trust anything that came out of it.
- Logicexe, on 02/21/2008, -6/+24wicketr5 is worse than DailyKos. He is extremely biased and I wouldn't trust anything that came out of his mouth.
Does this mean I win? No of course not! I'm just making an ad hominem attack, but wait a second, that means that you're making an ad hominem attack too! Aren't logical fallacies fun! - Vet4Peace, on 02/21/2008, -4/+15The article is mainly a straight-up listing of the legislation sponsored by Clinton and Obama. Where's the bias in this article?
Or are you just reflexively twitching as you've been conditioned to do?- Malevolant, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2It's called spin and the entire article as a bait and switch piece or did you not get the title?
If you didn't bother to read below, the user ThinkAwake listed other, more important things missing. Here is what he/she said...
"I looked at the article. I pressed CTRL+F (to search the article for certain key words)
No results for the following:
Patriot Act
Iraq War
Real I.D.
Federal Reserve
Recession
... go ahead... give it a shot. The list goes on, and it's scary that so many things could be overlooked."- RealHyperX, on 02/21/2008, -7/+2My 2 year old kid doesn't have any such search words in her resume either.
liberals make me laugh!! You guys are so ***** dumb, no wonder you never become anyone of importance - ever. - EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2The article deals with legislation they authored or sponsored. Are you aware of legislation from either of them that deals iwth any of those topics? What is missing?
- Blondenough, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2The article was only about bills they authored and introduced, not voted on. (and she does mention in the article that she disagreed with Hilary's votes for the Iraq War) Voting history or public statements (found on their websites, interviews, whatever) were not included.
On a side note, the recession is very closely tied to the mortgage foreclosure crisis, which both of them did introduce bills for.
I noticed the bait and switch as well but it was still a fairly informative article on one aspect of the candidates' political careers. - Malevolant, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1What is missing? Did you read my last post in this thread? It's all there and this article is only looking at a year's work. That in itself is misleading and why do I have to tell you these things? Thinking on your own would help you out in these situations. So many of you keep asking the obvious but can't come to a non-biased conclusion on your own. I am not biased because I support none of the candidates because they're all the same. I'm not voting for the lesser 3-4 of evils, unlike most of you. I realize so many of you are very desperate for change, but electing people for personality is the worst position to take. You should be researching their views, history and challenging them to take a stand on the issues instead of sitting on the fence, to placate both sides for more votes. I think if you look at Obama on this issue it proves he is just another candidate, although one with a great marketing machine.
- RealHyperX, on 02/21/2008, -7/+2My 2 year old kid doesn't have any such search words in her resume either.
- Malevolant, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2It's called spin and the entire article as a bait and switch piece or did you not get the title?
- Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5DailyKOS is a community, they are biased for the Democratic party, but not particularly biased as a whole towards specific candidates. This is a case where listening to them makes sense, kind of like how I'd listen to a redstate blogger for once if they were trying to tell me Romney was a better leader than Huckabee a month ago.
- Logicexe, on 02/21/2008, -6/+24wicketr5 is worse than DailyKos. He is extremely biased and I wouldn't trust anything that came out of his mouth.
- Malevolant, on 02/21/2008, -35/+6The funniest thing here is that, once again, nothing is questioned about the article, and it's bought, hook, line, and sinker. If anything these are some talking points for Obama's mindless zombies. If he gets the nomination the Republicans are going to own his ass. Obama has no idea about that he is about to be steam rolled, along with his hollow candidacy.
- jer2eydevil88, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2Talk about pessimism.
- Malevolant, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2Why is dealing in reality referred to as being pessimistic? The truth is, if he is nominated, the Republicans will go after him so hard that he won't know what hit him. That is just the truth. He's had pretty much 100% positive press and if you expect that to continue, you're in for a surprise. I predict it will be the worst, most harsh contest in recent history. All fairy tales have endings, and not necessarily happy ones.
- lostarchitect, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7dude, they will go after whoever is nominated hard. what's your point?
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Wait... they've not gone after him hard already?
- Malevolant, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1The point is no one has gone after him at all or certainly not like the Republicans will. The gloves will come off and it will not be civil. On point again, Obama has received almost 100% positive press everywhere and you cannot debate that. That being said, if he wins the nomination, no more idolatry, no more "coronations", no more meaningless, hollow rhetoric. He is going to have to run on issues and not the word "change" and emotional speeches. Most of you fall for that b.s., but I think the masses will start to see through the smokescreen in the many months leading up to election.
FTR - none of them have my vote, both sides, nor does any of them deserve to win anything other than a senate seat. - centerblack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Hey Malevolant, do you ever end up with a post over 0?
Maybe you should take a look at the complete garbage you keep posting.
rofl.
- Malevolant, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2Why is dealing in reality referred to as being pessimistic? The truth is, if he is nominated, the Republicans will go after him so hard that he won't know what hit him. That is just the truth. He's had pretty much 100% positive press and if you expect that to continue, you're in for a surprise. I predict it will be the worst, most harsh contest in recent history. All fairy tales have endings, and not necessarily happy ones.
- Misanthrope, on 02/21/2008, -1/+8What a well thought out post. You even list reasons to support your completely reasonable point of view.
Well done!
/Yeah, I'm never actually serious am I - Mejari, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6Well, that's... nice of you to say. It's wrong though. It's really not that hard to verify every piece in the article. She even helps you to do it. Just go to the library of congress and do what she did, look up their records. Oh, wait, libraries have a liberal bias cause they promote *gasp* reading!!! Good thing your here to steer us straight past reality and into blind-baseless-attack-land.
- Chronicgaming, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6"If he gets the nomination the Republicans are going to own his ass"
Unlikely. McCain has a lot of work to do if he wants to unite the conservative Republican base and have any chance against Obama or Hillary.- robbielaney, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1you are right about that. I am a conservative republican and I would rather not vote than place a vote for McCain.
- babar77, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Its kind of hard to question cold hard facts. Yes, the interpretation can be debated, but this article is 80% undeniable FACT. It's a listing of bills, what they were about, who co-sponsored, if it succeeded, and finally some interesting thoughts on what it means. This is a shining example of how journalism SHOULD be done. You need to stop watching so much Bill OReily.
- jellygraph, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Hillary, is it you?
- jer2eydevil88, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2Talk about pessimism.
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -19/+2If you read her article, you will realize that she sees ulterior motives behind Hillary's legislation ( such as healthcare for children ) and great vision in Obama's legislation ( "lead" in toys legislation ). If Obama's lead legislation shows he "thinks big", then this country is some real trouble. The logic of this woman is laughable. Also, she only compared 2007 record when both were campaigning.
- Mejari, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4you know what, fine. if you truly see bias everywhere, just strip out all of her analysis and look at the actual bills they both introduced. analyze it yourself. Oh wait, that would take more than typing out ***** on a digg-post, that would require using your brain! And yes, it does say something about hillary that that is the fluff crap she spews out while campaigning, while Obama is still managing to get things done.
- babar77, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Which do you think will have a bigger impact, giving tax incentives for people to remove lead paint in old buildings, or restricting lead in children's toys? You have to be an idiot to think the former. So yes, I would say she has sound logic is stating this comparison shows evidence to Obama thinking bigger.
- jellygraph, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Lol, the way the article started made me think, ok, so i'm going to have to be open minded about hillary and who knows, maybe I can think differently about her, if there is good evidence...
i think its humourous that the article actually is in favour of obama. there title had me fooled...
go obama! :D :D - robbielaney, on 02/22/2008, -9/+3Please tell me why global warming is so important to you? Have you researched this as much as you did this article? Please provide proof of global warming over a long period of time from data sources (not your poster boy Al Gore). I will give you a total of .6 C increase over the past 100 years (most of which was in the first part of the century when cars were just entering the scene). Given that rate (and assuming we don't evolve which almost all global warming advocates agree with) I need long term proof. Anybody please!!! You jokers will look back on this in 10 years like you do MC Hammer pants and slap bracelets and realize what complete idiots you were to buy into something like this!
- robbielaney, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2don't just digg me down. If you know what you are talking about then give me some data!
- Vigilo, on 02/22/2008, -7/+4Obama voted for the patriot act. Bad news. They are both new world order globalist scum. There is no Democrat and republican there is either globalist or nationalist.unfortunately both parties have been infiltrated and compromised long ago and now we watch elections that are staged and where the outcome is predetermined.
I'm sorry if this is difficult for mainstream sheep to understand but its all staged folks. I just told you that Santa doesn't exist sorry bout that:(- elipabst, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6That's pretty impressive considering that the PATRIOT act was passed in October of 2001 and he didn't become a US senator until 2004. Maybe you mean the renewal of the PATRIOT act that eliminated some of the more egregious provisions of the initial version and added more judicial and congressional oversight?
- wojtyk, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0>> Maybe you mean the renewal of the PATRIOT act that eliminated some of the more egregious provisions of the initial version and added more judicial and congressional oversight?
What are you talking about? The renewal did no such thing. The Patriot Act was _expiring_. So the choice was to either let it go, or vote for a slightly modified version of the same damn thing. Obama did the latter. If you think the "compromised version" of the Patriot act isn't still egregious, read it again. When it comes down to it, either there's SOMETHING in that bill that Obama supports, or he voted Aye in "political trade". Either way, I consider that a fair strike against him. Personally, I think the entire bill is trash and things were working perfectly fine before the government went all "big brother".
- wojtyk, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0>> Maybe you mean the renewal of the PATRIOT act that eliminated some of the more egregious provisions of the initial version and added more judicial and congressional oversight?
- cronian, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3He didn't have enough votes to get rid of all the bad parts of the patriot act, so he voted for a compromise revison.
- 11b1p, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Yeah man you are forgetting that he was against it before he voted for it.
- elipabst, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6That's pretty impressive considering that the PATRIOT act was passed in October of 2001 and he didn't become a US senator until 2004. Maybe you mean the renewal of the PATRIOT act that eliminated some of the more egregious provisions of the initial version and added more judicial and congressional oversight?
- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -10/+159i'm a kucinich supporter and didn't see much difference between hillary and obama at first. then i found out he voted for banning the use of cluster bombs while she did. she voted for the kyle/lieberman bill which he didn't. i also researched their foreign policy:
- aaroh, on 02/21/2008, -22/+275damn that was a lot of research, well done to the author
- edwartica, on 02/21/2008, -2/+95She not only did the research herself, but she also gave us direct links to her research so the reader doesn't have to take her word for it. A lot of journalists could really learn a few things from this woman.
- unjustend, on 02/21/2008, -1/+15This poster speaks truth.
- Luminoth, on 02/21/2008, -2/+15It's a sad day when going to the Library of Congress, something every one of us should be aware of from grade school, and doing a search is an amazing amount of research.
- Solis, on 02/21/2008, -7/+1Boring and a waste of time.
- edwartica, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3That's the exact type of thinking that got W into office to begin with.
- gyver, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3the LoC has an absolutely horrible search engine. I probably spent 40 minutes looking for specifics on a certain bill which I already knew the year and number for. It seemed to not want to let me pick view bills that were made from the previous year.
- Solis, on 02/21/2008, -7/+1Boring and a waste of time.
- aliengoods, on 02/21/2008, -4/+11LIES, LIES I TELL YOU. FACTS HAVE NO PLACE IN POLITICS OR REPORTING!
- dildoolielly, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8Actually thats not a lot of research at all. Its just that Americans have been so dumbed down by consumer, celebrity, and political sensationism that you just think thats alot of research. The flock is being dumbed down by "Talking Points" by corporate advertisers. Most Americans don't even know who/what they are voting for.
I think there should be a law where a voter has to take a test about the history of our country and if you don't pass, you don't vote, that simple.
As is, most Americans are morons and just vote forever sounds like the best guy to have a beer with. These are the Assholes that are ruining our country- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2>_> I don't know about that test... who decides its content? How could it be used to manipulate the vote?
It's more important to fix the educational system, in my opinion, so that future generations don't get washed with the rhetorical ***** that pours out of politicians' mouths.
Oh, and Lessig '08. I don't know that he could get anything done, but his direction is better than anyone else's.
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2>_> I don't know about that test... who decides its content? How could it be used to manipulate the vote?
- 2bees, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1They didn't digg deep enough IMO http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20 ...
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2008/01/0 ...- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4"Atlas Shrugged" sucked, and Ayn Rand was a terrible writer. Also, those sites are the worst possible source material you could have posted. Partisan hit pieces, all.
- dreamflows, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Well-researched, and articulate. Obama is full of substance.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Clinton_Hi ... - FutureGuy, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2NOTE TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN: If you want to put this "lack of experience" label behind for good launch a site which details Obama's legislative accomplishments and advertise it, like what this lady has done. Grassroot is great but campaign itself is not doing enough to put the word out there, lauch a site like www.barakobama.com/legislation and list all the bills he has sponsords and his voting history
- edwartica, on 02/21/2008, -2/+95She not only did the research herself, but she also gave us direct links to her research so the reader doesn't have to take her word for it. A lot of journalists could really learn a few things from this woman.
- vishcool1, on 02/21/2008, -29/+160Damn this needs to get to the front page! There aren't enough front-page articles detailing Obama's experience. Digg and spread it around!!!
- sockpuppets, on 02/21/2008, -2/+57You're using three exclamation points in a two exclamation point zone. Please use caution.
- ipodman715, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1!!! is a great band.
- cambob76, on 02/21/2008, -16/+2Hillareez on da nets, diggin Obama down!
- Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Tape it to a cat, then I'll consider digging.
- FutureGuy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5your wish granted.
- philman467, on 02/21/2008, -6/+4O ya...there are definitely not enough front-page Obama articles.
- rwmacdonald, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1So basically, if Obama and Clinton were Digg users, Hillary would find herself submitting her own blog entries linking to Fox News clips and Obama would make the front page every time, linking directly to Lifehacker articles and Top 10 Lists (the stories that *count*).
- sockpuppets, on 02/21/2008, -2/+57You're using three exclamation points in a two exclamation point zone. Please use caution.
- dvntrsnsltd, on 02/21/2008, -25/+115This article was going to be my first submission to Digg because I think more people should read it. Dugg for getting it in earlier than I did!
- freepizza48, on 02/21/2008, -4/+27Even though the title was a bit misleading.
- ligyron, on 02/21/2008, -1/+9I'm used to emotional roller coasters on Digg. I bet you're more interested in the article after the title gives you an opposite impression
- PDAIsAOk, on 02/21/2008, -0/+20thumbs up for not resubmitting it like most people do
- 2bees, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1If people want the REAL truth then they better look at ALL of Obama's history. NOT just the good. Don't be sheep People. Do your OWN research. This person is part of the media spin machine and you're all buying into it. DON'T be SHEEP.
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20 ...
http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2008/01/0 ...- Telexen, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Oh my god are you dumb enough to believe content from websites like those!? Talk about extreme right wing...I suppose you have an article from Americans for Tax Reform too, don't you?
- DinosWillDie13, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1took the words right out of my mouth. Also doesn't help when the first link is a Fox News video. Miiiiiiiiiistake
- EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8LMAO. I didn't even have to read past the first sentence of your first link to know you're full of crap.
"Barack Hussein Obama is an African-American who has not shared the black American experience and was, by birth and blood, a Muslim for at least 27 years."
Being Muslim was only in his blood for 27 years? Did he have a transfusion? I think I understand now... Obama is TOO Muslim because it's "in his blood" despite never being a practicing Muslim, yet he's not black enough (despite having been black his entire life) because... I take it back. I don't understand at all. What a bunch of BS.
- Telexen, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Oh my god are you dumb enough to believe content from websites like those!? Talk about extreme right wing...I suppose you have an article from Americans for Tax Reform too, don't you?
- codered1322, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Are you literate? Those are the dumbest websites ever.
- freepizza48, on 02/21/2008, -4/+27Even though the title was a bit misleading.
- VelvetoneFusion, on 02/21/2008, -79/+15I've seen The Omen III, that's all the research I need to do.
- aliengoods, on 02/21/2008, -0/+17I don't remember a black president who brought the country together in that movie, but I could be wrong.
- ronaldinho, on 02/21/2008, -2/+7WTF?
- wakananda, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Them that have ears, let them hear.
- dougintexas, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"Them's got eyes, let them see"....thanks waka, (assuming you're referencing Wilco here, you rock)
- dreamflows, on 02/21/2008, -57/+10This cartoon explain it best:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Clinton_Hi ...- noseeme, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3So you're saying Obama is going to buy out all of Clinton's supporters to win?
- DreKor, on 02/21/2008, -3/+16This explain nothing.
- Miche1987, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3What you say!
- theaceoffire, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Some one set us up the bomb!
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6Not to mention that it's spam. It's his own submission.
Buried for tangential self-promotion.
- Miche1987, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3What you say!
- acroyear2, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2No, Hillary is General Electric. Obama is Google.
- ICSU, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Obama is gonna bend to China? You wanna rethink that?
- Tiak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1No, Hillary is Disney, Obama is Home Depot!
- acroyear2, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1?
- Synova, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5Don't spam your own unrelated articles.
- EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Trust me, nobody wants to see Hillary Clinton in high-def.
- StrykeBlade, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Why the hell are people digging this down, this our right funny! Guess you need to be a tech head to understand!
- g0dfather, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1whore [for attention, that is]
- ahvi, on 02/21/2008, -18/+158I think what amazed me most about this article is how many bills of senator Clinton's lacked a co-sponsor.
- blackinthmiddle, on 02/21/2008, -1/+14Which makes you wonder under what pretenses she was submitting them.
- ahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1no not really, she's not heartless you know?
- SuperCow1127, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2She was submitting them so she could later say "Look! I care about mothers and children!" She is pure politics; every action a calculated effort towards her next race. The only things she genuinely cared about getting passed were million dollar earmarks to benefit major campaign contributors.
- codyr, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Exactly!
- slightlygifted, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2shes certainly not the antichrist/communist digg has been making her out to be. a bill for fresh veggies for public schools.........SHE WILL DESTROY AMERICA I TELL YOU!
- ronaldinho, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7With respect to Hillary, it does show she cares and is a hard worker, but as the author showed (and many of us knew already if we did our research), Obama is just as hard-working, and some of his bills are actually effective enough to be passed. Don't say that Obama lacks experience!
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -13/+1If Obama had suitable experience, he wouldn't be writing legislation with unattainable, overachieving goals. They sound good to the naive, but they haven't a chance in hell of working as advertised. If passed and funded, though, we'd get bigger government. If you're President, that automatically makes you more important and powerful. If you're out of work and looking for a cushy government job, it sounds really good. If you're a government contractor, it sounds great. If you're already a taxpayer working in the private sector, it's for sh!t.
- EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Will you anti-Obama people get together and work out a strategy? Half of you are criticizing Obama for having "overachieving goals" and the other half are criticizing Obama for sponsoring meaningless fluff. You'll be much more effective if you determine what your strategy will be and stick to it.
- 11b1p, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Uhh thats the point half is fluff and the other half is too lofty.
- streak, on 02/21/2008, -13/+1If Obama had suitable experience, he wouldn't be writing legislation with unattainable, overachieving goals. They sound good to the naive, but they haven't a chance in hell of working as advertised. If passed and funded, though, we'd get bigger government. If you're President, that automatically makes you more important and powerful. If you're out of work and looking for a cushy government job, it sounds really good. If you're a government contractor, it sounds great. If you're already a taxpayer working in the private sector, it's for sh!t.
- TheKorn2, on 02/21/2008, -8/+1Who wants to sign their name to a bill written by a self obsessed bitch? I mean, *seriously*!
- mbraynard, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2You might be inclined to think that she got no co-sponsors because they were introduced just for show wheras B. Hussein Obama was more interested in actually getting legislation passed.
However, the truth is that because Obama has been this sessions rockstar, a lot of his colleagues have been eager to get on his coat-tails (including Republicans) and co-sponsor legislations with him. A Republican who wants to look like he can get something done will go ahead and lend his name to Obama's legislation.
Alternatively, no one wants to brag about working with Hillary. She HAD star power when she first got there in 2000, but the luster has worn off.
- blackinthmiddle, on 02/21/2008, -1/+14Which makes you wonder under what pretenses she was submitting them.
- arajan, on 02/21/2008, -29/+238Please dig this excellent piece of research and get it to the front page. The headline is really misleading. It should be " Obama - More Substance Than Hype"
- didiman, on 02/21/2008, -46/+5dailykos is garbage and always buried
- Coven, on 02/21/2008, -4/+25What a coincidence! So are YOU!
- stonewaljacksn, on 02/21/2008, -0/+25The headline should be an unbiased comparison of the the two candidates, but that would never get to the front page. Regardless, it's good to finally see a political article on digg that isnt about some superficial anti-hillary *****.
- Singulariter, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4This definitely needs to make it to the front, and be renamed
- ePuck, on 02/21/2008, -2/+5A title like that wouldn't get dugg as much
- ronaldinho, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Well actually the title should stay what it is. Perhaps it can convince those who are planning to vote for Hillary to vote for Obama instead! Great article for all those still undecided on Hillary or Obama......
- Icelightning, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3I like how it's purposefully misleading, actually. The author makes effective use of the title/approach to turn the tables later in the article. It's a good way to get Clinton supporters to read it and then evaluate the information for themselves.
- HellDonut, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2The title is accurate. No one should buy into the hype, no matter who the candidate is. They should look at his/her record and what he/she is trying to accomplish. Refusing to buy into the hype doesn't mean refusing to vote for a candidate; just that when you do it, you do because you believe in him/her and not what everybody else is saying.
- didiman, on 02/21/2008, -46/+5dailykos is garbage and always buried
- jhuckabee, on 02/21/2008, -12/+59Ok, Mrs. HRC, now tell me who's REALLY about solutions!
- RavagesOfTime, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3The most far left candidate of them all, that's who.
Or whoever's the most far right, whichever side she leans on. - salinemist, on 02/21/2008, -5/+6S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
I was really worried about National Summer Learning Day.- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3omg YES WE CAN!!11!1!
- bitspace, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3It's a good thing you weren't worried about any of the other 17 bills.
- Tyvon2000, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3omg YES WE CAN!!11!1!
- RavagesOfTime, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3The most far left candidate of them all, that's who.
- turkings, on 02/21/2008, -12/+30This was going to be my first article submission to Digg as well. I really think the media has focused so much on the candidates personalities and not enough on substance, what have they actually accomplished. This article is a must read, great research!
- ronaldinho, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2The media always prefer style over substance. That gets them ratings, not boring analysis of policies, rather unfortunately.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 02/21/2008, -42/+7How many of you read or post at Daily Kos alongside Digg? I do as well... and I'm also doing an ethnographic survey of the site, detailing how it's users utilize communications technology. I'm curious about the cross-over of the audience/participation between the two sites. Anyone interested in helping either reply to this post, or head over here to track me down/see some evidence I'm legit:
http://cecinestpasleblog.dailykos.com/- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -4/+3You forgot another option on your poll - propoganda
- cecinestpasvrai, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I'll include it in the next one. Thanks.
- Opiate, on 02/21/2008, -13/+3It's no secret, both sites are heavily socialist leaning. You don't need a survey to figure that one out.
- Acewrap, on 02/21/2008, -3/+11Just like Freerepublic and LGF are heavily fascist leaning?
- Opiate, on 02/21/2008, -11/+1Yeah cause limited government is fascist .. besides the only one I read is lewrockwell.com, but that doesn't change my statement why hate on the truth? shouldn't you guys be proud that it's a socialist site?
- p0s3r, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2Facism is at its roots, socialism. Moussilini was a socialist before he was a fascist. It's completely untrue that facism is right-wing. It's roots are left-wing.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Poser-Mussolini* was a Tyrant, and his various governments were all authoritarian in nature and flexible on their social causes. Your revisionist history was corrected a couple weeks back by Jon Stewart:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...- p0s3r, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1Jon Stewart the historian or Jon Steward the comedian? Let me know the source so I can judge correctly.
- archiesteel, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4p0s3r: nonsense. Fascism is extreme right-wing. Mussolini himself declared himself a right-winger:
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/G ... (about halfway through)- schnikies79, on 02/21/2008, -3/+1I don't care what Mussolini said. Just because he said doesn't mean it is so. I can say I am the King of England, but it doesn't mean that I am.
I want less government control and less government regulation. I want people AND business to have more freedom to do as they see fit. I also want the freedom to not participate in government social programs unless I want to. - archiesteel, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I don't care what *you* say. Every political historian *as well as* every major figure in fascism has never contested the fact that fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology, just like stalinism is an extreme left-wing ideology.
PS the more you give freedom to businesses, the more power you give them, and the less power you leave for individuals. You're also going against the freedom of those who want to organize into efficient, capable societies to counterbalance the power of corporations - you know, what people know as government.
Ah, who cares anyway: you right-wing libertarians will always be a fringe group, without any real power or influence. Enjoy your misguided irrelevance.
- schnikies79, on 02/21/2008, -3/+1I don't care what Mussolini said. Just because he said doesn't mean it is so. I can say I am the King of England, but it doesn't mean that I am.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -1/+10You should probably look up the definition of "socialist" before using it in another sentence. Just a suggestion.
- Opiate, on 02/21/2008, -11/+1Keep telling yourself that, whatever it takes to convince you otherwise.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3*Holds up mirror to Opiate*
- schnikies79, on 02/21/2008, -7/+4Fascism is not the opposite of socialism.
Freedom is the opposite of both.- archiesteel, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
- insurgente, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Fascism is capitalism's last defense.
Freedom is the opposite of both.- schnikies79, on 02/21/2008, -3/+1Freedom without the option to conduct business as I see fit is not freedom at all.
- Lewie, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1@Schnikies79
The only time you are totally free is in the State of Nature. We enter society to give up some of those rights (like murder) to be free from things that harm us. I do not want people conducting business in any way they choose, because some of those ways harm others (pollution, human trafficking, etc). It's a delicate balance.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Well, Since I did in actuality take a survey of the site, I'll just post what I found out. In a random sampling of over 150 people on the site, 45 identified as libertarian, 65 as progressive, 12 as conservative, and the rest choose not to reply or identify. So I guess in order to figure out what you're talking about, you DO in fact need a survey. Assumptions, as in your case, are often false.
- Acewrap, on 02/21/2008, -3/+11Just like Freerepublic and LGF are heavily fascist leaning?
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -4/+3You forgot another option on your poll - propoganda
- steelersfan7roe, on 02/21/2008, -22/+93EDUCATE YOURSELF. READ THIS ARTICLE.
- Amadeus2490, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT.
- BeyondDGrave, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2All it looks like is more spending...nothing more...
Explain to me why throwing more money at our problems is a good thing?
http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/- Smuikas, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2With a choice between "Lower spending by bringing our troops home while throwing some money at environmental, healthcare, and education concerns" (obama) and "Let's spend another hundred years in iraq and maybe iran too while I ***** lobbyists"... the choice is pretty ***** clear!
- bunki8, on 02/21/2008, -15/+39Would digg this article twice if I could. People need to read this.
- missingnoh4x, on 02/21/2008, -28/+379What a damn misleading headline.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -6/+89I thought it was kinda cool. And has a double meaning.
Don't buy into the hype - makes you think its an anti-obama article. It turns out that instead, its a pro-obama article thats based on research, which shows that you don't have to rely on hype. You can rely on facts instead. The author did all the footwork, and even showed sources where the information came from. - pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -4/+43the fact that it made the front page indicates people actually RTFA sometimes.
- vanimal, on 02/21/2008, -9/+5...or that the title contains the word Obama.
- bjs3171, on 02/21/2008, -2/+5my only wish is that she was just a bit cooler, and said "doesn't believe the hype"
- Aidje, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6You think the headline should be "I doesn't believe the hype"?
- PhillyVu, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8I agree, title was perfect. It makes Obama supports read why someone would make an argument, but in the end giving us more knowledge about him. It allows a Hilary support to jump and read to find more dirt, but in the end find out why Obama would be a better candidate.
Title is perfect. Just enough catch to make anyone read it. - MixMastaKooz, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2As I've said upthread, this is common in DailyKos diaries (the misdirection/double meaning) to get people to RTFA...er...RTFD.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -6/+89I thought it was kinda cool. And has a double meaning.
- nmessick, on 02/21/2008, -85/+26If Obama had even an elementy knowledge of economics I think he maybe an option... sadly all these people know how to do is make more and more promises that are going to bankrupt his country.
- Opiate, on 02/21/2008, -37/+6Dugg down for truth, shame on you.
- userperson, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2But Obama's for 'change'!/SARCASM
actually not completely sarcasm... Obama supposedly is for 'change', the nature and actual results of that change remain to be seen. I'm skeptical and frightened, but that goes for all of them. - MalenfantX, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1Keep in mind that based on your posts, what may seem like the truth to you is probably insane ramblings. Try to not be a right-wing asshat.
- helster83, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1So if you disagree with Obama, you must be a right-winged troll? Is it not possible to have differing opinions or do you generalize everything?
- userperson, on 02/21/2008, -8/+2But Obama's for 'change'!/SARCASM
- deanjarvis, on 02/21/2008, -9/+5Right... just like the people who can use the English language. Buried for stupidity.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -3/+16As opposed to McCain who, in his own words, "doesn't really understand economics". At least Obama has been a basic education in economic theory, unlike the other two main candidates in the race.
- skipdog172, on 02/21/2008, -4/+14I might not agree with all the details of Obama's stances on economic policy, but claiming that he doesn't even have "elementary knowledge of economics" is just talking out your ass.
- pinstripewizard, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1no dude, he said "elementy knowledge"...its totaly differnt
- natersleev, on 02/21/2008, -2/+24right, because the $400 billion deficit every year by our current president is fiscally responsible.
- vanimal, on 02/21/2008, -14/+2Congress is responsible for the deficit. The President doesn't set the budget.
- userperson, on 02/21/2008, -10/+4Yes, if Bush's economic policies are a disaster, this obviously means Obama ideas are the answer! (and won't make things even worse)./SARCASM
- mtjohnson, on 02/21/2008, -6/+2BARACK OBAMA THOUGHT YOU COULD USE COME CHOCOLATE
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -2/+3Uh... the other options will also destroy the economy, more quickly, and for more basic reasons. I'd say Ron Paul, but he's decidedly out of the game at this point.
- Opiate, on 02/21/2008, -37/+6Dugg down for truth, shame on you.
- SavageBlackCat, on 02/21/2008, -148/+16And yet Obama is openly racist, belongs to an all black church, and preaches a black only agenda.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -6/+70This is not actually true. But also not surprising that someone would say it. They're getting desperate.
- SavageBlackCat, on 02/21/2008, -49/+5Disprove me.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm- pintomp3, on 02/21/2008, -6/+54you are the one making the allegations. the burden of proof is on you.
- pyronik, on 02/21/2008, -8/+1ughh he did
- armoreddillo, on 02/21/2008, -0/+11 " 1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY."
Sounds awfully racist huh...
did you even go to the link you posted?? - davidrools, on 02/21/2008, -0/+11just because they share a lot in their black identity doesn't make them racist. wow, if anyone, you're the racist for assuming a bunch of blacks getting together makes them racist. and all the black churches i've visited are more than happy to welcome anyone who wants to join them, regardless of race. and the "black only agenda" is as absurd a statement as you could make.
- SavageBlackCat, on 02/21/2008, -49/+5Disprove me.
- yohnstoppable, on 02/21/2008, -3/+17What is wrong with being in an all black church? You want some kind of religious affirmative action or something?
- pyronik, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6all white church?
- RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -3/+4They're called anglicans...
- pyronik, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6all white church?
- The_Wallbanger, on 02/21/2008, -2/+10Yet your screen name contains the word "black". Very interesting.
- slearwig, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8That is what we call Freedom of Religion.
- JavanSClark, on 02/21/2008, -2/+14Where was the All-Black agenda...? Oh I get it. You mean, the agenda that isn't pro-white, but pro multiculturalism.. I get it. QQ more nub, it must feel pretty terrible to be a White NAtionalist Facist scumbag in America. I don't feel sorry for you and take great satisfaction in watching your ilk squirm at the notion of an ENTIRE country that rejects you, your political philosophy, and your hate. Goodbye and good riddance.
- dxgg, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4http://my.barackobama.com/churchfacts
- SavageBlackCat, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Inaccurate. Try the direct link to the church itself.
- Gazthrak, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8And he eats babies!
- dubauthentic, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0Black agenda? You're just about as racist as calling someone else a racist without more evidence than "going to an all black church". If you read a little you would understand that the reason we have "black" churches is because "white" churches segregated blacks from open worship and congregating during slavery. The essence of the church is not black and white. It's the life of Christ. Read al little before you spew out anymore of your "intelligence". Read "This Far by Faith" by Juan Williams and discover more of this county's history.
- vanitea, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1There are no white or racially mixed churches on the southeast side of chicago, ok, maybe two - maybe. Barack and Michelle reside in a mixed community, but there are NO mixed or white churches to choose from. Since I've lived there too, I am 100% sure of this. Pass it on Obama supporters.
The racial mix of his church is largely due to its location.
- Vektuz, on 02/21/2008, -6/+70This is not actually true. But also not surprising that someone would say it. They're getting desperate.
- fuhcough, on 02/21/2008, -55/+17Yes we will (lose the DNC nomination)! Yes we will (lose the DNC nomination)!
- jonr, on 02/21/2008, -28/+4Misleading headline. Buried. (just kidding)
- Shiftgood, on 02/21/2008, -32/+18Obama FTW
/that felt good - Evolutuon, on 02/21/2008, -16/+141Was the title misleading to attract Obama doubters? Smart tactic.
- Cloned, on 02/21/2008, -2/+13The author decided to research Obama rather than like him just because he's popular. Instead of buying into the hype, she looked him up and made her own decision to like him.
- Evolutuon, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Oh is that what you thought when you saw the title?
- tsunamisteve, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6There's a fine line between creative and manipulative. :)
- smotpoker, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2At least it is technically accurate (unlike the "Obama thinks gamers are underachievers" blatant lie yesterday, haha)
Nothing wrong with showing a new perspective or how your own bias can make an ambiguous title/info mislead you
- smotpoker, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2At least it is technically accurate (unlike the "Obama thinks gamers are underachievers" blatant lie yesterday, haha)
- Cloned, on 02/21/2008, -2/+13The author decided to research Obama rather than like him just because he's popular. Instead of buying into the hype, she looked him up and made her own decision to like him.
- L3on, on 02/21/2008, -20/+13Daily KOS needs to learn how to properly format their text. This is very annoying to read.
- ronsii, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1Hey, they wanted it to look as though a 'REGULAR' person put up the article not a fifty person team of political strategists!
- cleric04, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Worked fine on iphone in landscape.
- ronsii, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1Hey, they wanted it to look as though a 'REGULAR' person put up the article not a fifty person team of political strategists!
- bardamu, on 02/21/2008, -25/+12GObama!
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/21/2008, -19/+6NObamaSPAMA!
- EtherGnat, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1How is people digging stuff they like spam? ::waits::
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/21/2008, -19/+6NObamaSPAMA!
- SOhp101, on 02/21/2008, -12/+43Damn, I was hoping to read a pro-Clinton news bit since I thought I might have been favoring him over her too much.
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -18/+7Don't you know this is digg? No chance in hell a positive Clinton piece or a negative Obama piece will see the light of day here. Also Daily Kos Diary like code for Obama central. A Obama hi pit piece masquerading as a Hillary article.
- KingGorilla, on 02/21/2008, -3/+14"Don't you know this is Digg?" I was never fond of comments that begin that way
- pyronik, on 02/21/2008, -11/+1i am it goes to the heart of the liberal socialistic dogma the majority of the clowns on here adhere to
- RonJon715, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8I find it funny how these idiots masquerading as conservatives try to pigeonhole democrats as socialists. You do realize that George Bush has expanded presidential powers into the Imperial range, right? Remember Medicare, Medicade, Prescription Drug Benefits, illegal wiretapping, torture, and the most heinous crime of all, presidential signing statements. Where are all the small government Republicans up in arms over this *****. Also, why is the word socialist some kind of dirty word? People use it as a derogatory statement as if they were talking about Stalinism. Almost every industrialized nation in the world employs some type of free-market driven, socialist state. Are we just the only ones who REALLY have everything figured out?
- MalenfantX, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2It always makes me wonder why the poster is here. Especially when they're just here to make asses of themselves.
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Sooooo...what? Daily Kos, basically the go-to source for liberal news, thinks Obama is a better candidate than Clinton?
- KingGorilla, on 02/21/2008, -3/+14"Don't you know this is Digg?" I was never fond of comments that begin that way
- neognostic, on 02/21/2008, -2/+14Why don't you find an article about HRC that is positive and submit it instead of whining about all of the Obama articles?
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4They don't exist. There is nothing positive about that woman.
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -18/+7Don't you know this is digg? No chance in hell a positive Clinton piece or a negative Obama piece will see the light of day here. Also Daily Kos Diary like code for Obama central. A Obama hi pit piece masquerading as a Hillary article.
- theelectricafro, on 02/21/2008, -52/+16Ron Paul or Bust....the economy that is.
- emmeron, on 02/21/2008, -5/+4psst, even though many agree (myself included), you're in socialist territory here. I'll join you in getting dugg down for daring to call Hillary and Obama what they are... SOCIALISTS. :D
- lostarchitect, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2i ***** wish! they're nearly conservatives from where i'm standing.
- Fordi, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Not for nothing, but even the most socialist-leaning democrat is a conservative compared to politicians in, say, the UK. This is a strongly conservative nation.
- smotpoker, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1..unfortunately
Hence the violence, discrimination, stupidity, greed, failing relationships....
Unfortunately, liberal beliefs (such as equality between races/sexes and belief people should care for each other by default) have a hard time successfully taking root in a society where an overwhelming number of people refuse to consider compromise and not only refuse to promote liberal agendas, but actively try to sabotage them- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I think it has something to do with how provincial and insulary we get individually and in small communities. The previous generation is not terribly worldly.
It doesn't help that we're constantly in wars; to those who support them, being a dick and holding a grudge towards any other country that criticizes us seems like their civic duty.
- Fordi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I think it has something to do with how provincial and insulary we get individually and in small communities. The previous generation is not terribly worldly.
- smotpoker, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1..unfortunately
- emmeron, on 02/21/2008, -5/+4psst, even though many agree (myself included), you're in socialist territory here. I'll join you in getting dugg down for daring to call Hillary and Obama what they are... SOCIALISTS. :D
- Senturion, on 02/21/2008, -13/+72Holy misleading headlines Batman!
- nbcaffeine, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8what, its not that misleading... he didnt buy into it and did his own research
- Aidje, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6Try reading the article next time. At least as far as the byline. (hint: she)
- nbcaffeine, on 02/21/2008, -2/+8what, its not that misleading... he didnt buy into it and did his own research
- noseeme, on 02/21/2008, -10/+29I've been looking for an article with comparisons like this. It helped further justify my support for Obama. I do like to steer away from blind bias though, so I'd like to see an article written by someone in a similar position who is supporting Clinton.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -5/+11The author of this article WAS supporting Clinton prior to doing this research. That's about as unbiased as you're going to get these days. Did you read the article?
- dreicher, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7FTA "I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt."
That is what passes for support in your eyes? Did you read the article?- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7Hmm, I think you are right. I read "I started with Hillary" as she started out as a Hillary supporter. Upon re-reading, it looks like she just meant she did the research on her first. My bad.
- dreicher, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8Dugg up for, I believe, the first every mea culpa on Digg.
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -7/+0That is why you are an obamabot. One day you will snap out of it.
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7Hmm, I think you are right. I read "I started with Hillary" as she started out as a Hillary supporter. Upon re-reading, it looks like she just meant she did the research on her first. My bad.
- vanimal, on 02/21/2008, -2/+5She wasn't originally a Clinton supporter.
Did you read the article?
"I started with Sen. Clinton.
I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either." - d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -9/+0Obamabots FTW!
- StarlessKnight, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4Broken records FTL!
- dreicher, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7FTA "I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt."
- MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -5/+11The author of this article WAS supporting Clinton prior to doing this research. That's about as unbiased as you're going to get these days. Did you read the article?
- magsman, on 02/21/2008, -18/+47Thorough research. Read the last paragraph.
"Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.
It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.
Yes, We Can!"- pyronik, on 02/21/2008, -14/+3no you wont
- catachip, on 02/21/2008, -54/+4Man, I'd usually never post this, but, too long, did not read. All politicians are hype - you're really just picking someone you like that sits on the end of the spectrum you most identify with. The rest is nuance. That being said, vote Obama!
- theaceoffire, on 02/21/2008, -1/+12Yeah, reading is hard. Big words. Me like pictures. Woo.
Seriously, read the damn article before you post about being too lazy to READ THE DAMN ARTICLE.
- theaceoffire, on 02/21/2008, -1/+12Yeah, reading is hard. Big words. Me like pictures. Woo.
- bunk, on 02/21/2008, -10/+25Bottom line is Hillary had the chance to prove she was a leader by going against the grain and doing what's right by not voting for the war in Iraq. She failed her country in what is the defining moment for this country this decade. Now she pays.
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -11/+1Considering 99% of the country though Hussein had WMD, I think she made the right call THEN. Remember Colin Powell and the CIA said Hussein had WMD. What would you have done back then?
- neognostic, on 02/21/2008, -1/+799%? Cite sources.
- bustachops, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6are you ***** kidding me bro?! 99%!! i guess i was in
- d3mag0gu3, on 02/21/2008, -11/+1Considering 99% of the country though Hussein had WMD, I think she made the right call THEN. Remember Colin Powell and the CIA said Hussein had WMD. What would you have done back then?
