digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Hillary Campaign Felony Caught On Tape

video.google.com — Hillary Clinton deceives biggest campaign contributor Peter Paul, steals business partner, destroys company, plants false media stories, corrupts judiciary. Hillary's voice caught on tape amazing proof of purgery, obstruction of justice, corruption, direct involvement in felony fundraising. Crime on tape. Largest fraud in election history.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 11/07/2007, -155/+630Time for Hillary to be arrested, not elected.
    • whymanwhy, on 11/01/2007, -37/+110I am pissed about this, but you and I know that nothing will ever happen to Hilliary
      • diggingaround, on 10/17/2007, -1/+17As long as people think like you - corruption in politics and the government will go on ...
        turn your anger into action... share this video with your friends and relatives who will eventually go and vote for the next US president!

      • DemiRonin, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7what digginaround said
      • freshgrease, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Of course. If something does happen, the Furher of Feminazi's will call you sexist and refuse to sleep with you.
      • Zenex, on 10/29/2007, -6/+6Look, I don't particularly like Hillary (I'm for Obama, myself). But this video is horribly biased, and honestly, without some independent and reasonably balanced reporting on the issue, I'm not inclined to believe any of it.

        Lets look at what this is: It's put together by the person most hurt by the situation and what looks like his attorney. It's stating facts and opinion purely in favor of Mr. Paul and ignoring or glossing over anything he might have done wrong that would affect the situation. It sounds like an attorney arguing his case to the public instead of to a jury. That is, you're only seeing ONE SIDE of this issue, and since he's a lawyer, he's good at making it seem like its the only side.

        Please people, I'm not saying Hillary is totally in the clear, but this video doesn't prove or disprove anything.
        • TypeEE, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Well, bottom line, Hilary lied to media, took his money. period.
    • CountBrass, on 11/01/2007, -105/+35Sounds like ***** to me.
      I wondered whether it was Bush or Ron Paul's team that was the source of this smear and then I remembered that this is Digg: the home of Ron Paul spam.
      • nowherekido3, on 10/17/2007, -13/+46this smear? how about looking at the facts before you comment.
      • mattsw84, on 10/23/2007, -24/+9Ron Paul isn't this clever and whats in it for Bush?
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/20/2007, -4/+18lol. Ron Paul's team? Who needs Ron Paul to tell them what Hillary is?
    • Schrodinger, on 10/24/2007, -47/+151Bush first.
      • fourcorners, on 10/29/2007, -26/+17Glad I'm not the only one that was reminded of Bush's ties to Enron by this. I'm no Hillary fan but com up with a better smear that this *****.
        • fourcorners, on 10/29/2007, -10/+3Bah! I was sure I corrected my stupid spelling mistakes with an edit. Digg please keep working on improving the usability and ease of use of the comment system.
        • cashman57, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Why would anyone, after viewing that video, still believe she isn't a fraud?
          It was more than a million dollars in illegal campaign donations and it is time she's made to pay for that.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/21/2007, -30/+17I refuse to get excited about anything a Democrat does until Bush is impeached. When Hilary uses faked evidence and lies to start a war that has killed thousands of people, illegally spies on the citizens of this nation, and bilks taxpayers out of billions of dollars, then she will be in the same category as Bush. Until then, everyone else is pretty much looking like an angel compared to the villain in the White House.
        • duffahtolla, on 10/17/2007, -5/+7She hasn't got the presidency yet. Be patient and give her some time.
        • texxmexx, on 10/17/2007, -4/+27It's cute how you think there's a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats...
          • Infidelephant, on 10/17/2007, -5/+1.
          • Infidelephant, on 10/17/2007, -4/+1Yes, and because of this, I have titled myself as a "Concientious Dissenter." I have voted in every election since I turned 18 (I am 36 now). So for half of my life, I have been politically motivated.

            No more.

            I am TIRED of voting for the "lesser of two evils." Until then, they do NOT have my vote. I will NOT condone it anymore. And anyone with a conscious would be good to consider the same.
          • Infidelephant, on 10/17/2007, -4/+1I am unsure what is going wrong with the comment system tonight. A conspiracy maybe???
            But before the spelling Nazis get me - the correct spelling is "conscientious."
            Carry on.
          • k3ano, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1conscience*
        • cphoover, on 10/17/2007, -4/+8Hillary wants troops to stay in iraq so yea she is supporting this illegal war. if ron paul had a more fair view on social policy id give him a shot but his ideals arent going to help the people that need it most in this country. ron paul is all about going by the constitution and about what the founders would want, but would the founders really want the class divide his platform would promote? doubtfull
        • Xondar, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1You mean as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? Or everyone in the country taxed to destitution?
      • jgreene777, on 10/20/2007, -8/+21I'm guessing that you mean Bush should be arrested/held accountable/imprisoned first? I agree, but it needs to happen to all the crooks that run our country, not just a couple of them. I think they should all be held accountable for murdering every one of the soldiers that have died in Iraq.
      • Ireland, on 10/20/2007, -7/+9No, Bush as well.
      • mmortal03, on 10/20/2007, -3/+9I agree that we should get Bush dealt with legally ASAP, but he is on his way out anyway. Wouldn't it be better to deal with those now who possibly have the chance to BEGIN their presidency and will have at least 4 years there? You know, stop them before they even get the chance to do anything stupid?
        • epsilona01, on 10/21/2007, -3/+1better?? no. First remove the one -currently- killing our brave young men and women. Then fry the next one in line.
    • Spytap, on 11/01/2007, -56/+77I find it interesting that people have such a strong visceral reaction to her, but when asked, none of them can provide any reason. "She's a bitch" or "evil" or any number of other things are tossed around, but there never seems to be any basis behind them. And before someone mentions it, yes, similar reactions are given for Bush, but at least people can back it up with events and reasons (i.e. the war, reaction to 9/11, PNAC, etc.). With Hillary it's little more than "I dislike her because she's her and I'm used to hating her."
      • samdu, on 10/29/2007, -35/+79I can think of several reasons people would and should react viscerally to Hillary. Socialized medicine being the primary one. Then there's the fact that she's a political shark that'll say whatever she thinks she should say to whatever audience she's addressing, whether she actually believes it or not. Feminists should be adamantly against her given her putting up with that rat bastard of a husband. Any self respecting woman would have left him decades ago. Then there's the fact that scandal seems to have followed her everywhere she's been (Whitewater, Vince Foster, THIS thing). I'm no fan of Bush - didn't vote for him, nor would I, but Hillary is bad, bad news.
        • TheRemoteViewer, on 10/29/2007, -42/+26Oh no, not socialized medicine! Hillary smells like a rose compared to any of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul, who voted against trying to use diplomacy to end slavery in Sudan and who has been photographed shaking hands with white supremacist leaders. Maybe you prefer Fred Thompson, who was feeding information about the Watergate investigation to Nixon? Or Romney, who wants to double the size of Guantanamo? Or 9/11 Rudy 9/11 Giuliani 9/11 who has maybe...oh, 911 skeletons in his closet?
          • WiseWeasel, on 10/20/2007, -10/+35Nice smears. Hillary is one of the most deceitful candidates in this election. Just because she says things you like to hear doesn't mean her actions reflect her pandering. She just came out as saying the executive branch has too much power now, but never mentioned that as a senator, she VOTED TO GIVE HIM THAT POWER, with the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping bills. Hillary is an enemy of our free society, and no amount of pretty words at campaign times can erase her hostile track record of malicious actions.

            Seriously, the best you could dig up on Paul is refusing to invade Sudan and shaking hands with someone you disagree with? I won't make a distinction of character based purely on political party, but to me, Hillary is just as unelectable as Rudy, Mitt or Fred seems to be to you...
          • thepotatoman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5You know I have yet to meet a Hilary supporter that doesn't have "but the republicans" as the reason and really I have meet quite a few. Also please site a source for that white supremacist, I read just about every comment in just about every ron paul digg story and no one has brought that up yet and I am sure if it was true at least one person would mention it.
        • Calcularius, on 10/17/2007, -24/+9You still haven't actually said anything.
        • Caffeinate, on 10/29/2007, -15/+18Feminists should be adamantly against a woman who chose to remain married to her husband even though she was more than capable of being on her own without him?

          You have no business telling feminists what they should be adamantly for or against. A woman who makes her own choices despite what I, you,or the rest of the country thinks is definitely strong enough for me. You are a clearly a male chauvinist that pulls his hair out trying to understand why women supposedly "all vote that way" (women are as varied as men in their reasons for voting for one person or another). You don't understand it because one woman isn't all women in the same way that a black man does not speak for all black men, and a gay person doesn't speak for all gay people.

          You hung yourself with your own short-sighted prejudices.
        • Bamborzled, on 10/29/2007, -7/+4Calcularius: You still haven't actually said anything.
        • ddcrandall, on 10/29/2007, -4/+2You would vote for someone based on whether or not they left their spouse following infidelity? The American political system is ***** UP. It's her marriage, not yours. Mind your own business.
          • wpjmurray, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Rudy Giuliani's first two wives for President!
      • rdoger6424, on 10/17/2007, -6/+11America doesn't know why, but the ballots don't ask.
      • ryangoff, on 10/24/2007, -23/+12Not that I support her, but it's almost a proven fact that cut-throat, evasive, quick thinking men in leadership positions are generally regarded as "great" or "good for the job" or whatever else you want to say. Cut-throat, evasive, quick thinking women in the same position are usually referred to as "bitches" and whatnot. I would assume that people who hate Hillary just for the fact of hating Hillary do so solely because she's a woman.
      • kaelyiesta, on 10/20/2007, -12/+17Want others to do research for you? No thanks. I'll give you this though: do a search on google for hillary clinton and jack thompson. You'll find that she either believes in a lot of nanny state *****, or she pretends to in order to get approval among such people. Either way, I'd smack her senseless for trying some of the ***** she pulled in legislature. Sure, these things pale to what the bush administration has done, but I can still hate what she stands for too cant I?
      • zarex, on 10/24/2007, -22/+69Are you kidding?

        1) Socialized health care
        2) Irrational gun control
        3) $5000 for each baby (?!)

        She really has some horrible ideas, most of which unjustly interfere with my own earned money and rights. THAT makes her evil.
        • techmaster, on 10/17/2007, -17/+4What's wrong with #3? I know some people would be millionaires if they inacted such a law.
          • brycelb, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10The problem is she spouts this ***** off and the soundbites appeal to her base and then someone crunches the numbers and we find out that this is completely unrealistic and could never work. Not to mention the fact that this is not a socialist country. She can take those ideas to another part of the world.
          • wpjmurray, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0I'd rather borrow to pay for healthcare than borrow for a useless war.
        • zydeco, on 10/20/2007, -18/+29It's funny how people criticize democrats for "spending their money", but have no problem with watching billions disappear monthly in an unconstitutional war.
          • CoolWind, on 10/20/2007, -18/+9the repugs give tax breaks to the rich people who don't need any breaks and bankrupt our country with an un-winnable war, and support the creation of monster corporations like AT&T that willfully rape our freedoms, but they can't stand the idea of using money in a constructive way to benefit the common man.
          • citizenerased42, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7I guess im republican, and i'm against the war. Please stop categorizing everyone who is a republican, or a conservative, as war mongering, bush supporter. It doesn't make you seem more intelligent, it just makes you seem angry.
          • citizenerased42, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1my post was directed at coolwind.
          • zarex, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Generalize much? Who says I agree with the war expenses either?

            Though the war expenses are MUCH smaller than the entitlements that we dole out.
          • chijim70, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The war cost WAY more than ANYTHING else including entitlements. If we spent half the war budget on entitlements there wouldn't be a poor uninsured person in all of the US. Stop talking out of your ass and back things up with facts preferably a cited source.
            The war thus far is costing us about 450 BILLION dollars... you're insane if you think we spent a 5th of that on entitlements in the course of this administrations entire presidency.

            This is a link to a site that is kind of neat in that it shows you what else we could buy for that amount of money. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/050207_T ...
        • Caffeinate, on 10/17/2007, -9/+7Bush looting the treasury to spend money on contractors in Iraq and illegal spying. I hope you are screaming even more loudly that Bush is evil since he IS in office and DID do those things.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 10/17/2007, -2/+9Um... I'm pretty sure that the Senate (which Clinton is a member of) has to authorize any spending by the government.
        • Terr01, on 10/17/2007, -6/+10Let's see... so assume 300 millon Americans, with a birth rate of 14.16 per thousand for 4.248 million babies per year. Current annual cost of war in Iraq, at least $100b per year.

          We're spending enough to give each baby a $23,540 bond instead!

          As for unjustly interfering with rights... Look up "Jose Padilla" for starters. Your gun won't help you much when they kidnap you into the back of the black van.
          • Terr01, on 10/17/2007, -4/+11P.S.: That does not include the costs for care and rehabiitation for wounded soldiers, or the opportunity costs of outright deaths: Just operations and it's on top of the usual pentagon budget.
          • GroundhogBoy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2And how much has our debt increased? I'm not saying Iraq is good, but both are amounts of spending that shouldn't be tolerated (at least unless we're willing to pay for it now).
          • Terr01, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Bleh. Dang comment system still sucks.

            @Groundhogboy: Yeah, but it's an investment. $5,000 in some variety of government bonds is significantly better than $5,000 out of pocket. If that money means less spent later...

            Sure, you can argue the invastion and occupation of Iraq is also a kind of investment... just not a very good one.
          • CosmicJustice, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The problem with war cost estimates is that they include fixed overhead that we were incurring before the war and that don't go away when the war ends. Soldier salaries, modernizing equipment, training.
        • rgodfrey, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1Okay, so you don't like Democratic policies. Do you have the same visceral hatred for all the other Democratic candidates? The only thing that differentiates her on your rather short list is the savings bond thing, and I'm guessing you didn't just start hating Clinton two weeks ago.

          There has to be something else going on with her, and I don't get it. Her Senate voting record isn't much different from Republicans like Olympia Snow or Susan Collins. She's the most establishment, centrist Democrat running for president. Seriously.

          /I hope she doesn't win the primary, but I'll vote for her if she does.
      • gossipninja, on 10/17/2007, -10/+22she is on the walmart board of directors. So those of you who hate walmart but support Hillary are morons.
        • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/24/2007, -8/+17Well, walmart has done more to improve quality of life for low income families than Hillary ever will.
          • WiseWeasel, on 10/17/2007, -3/+8As long as they don't need jobs from them...
          • rgodfrey, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Care to back that up? Seems like giving low-income families access to healthcare that they cannot currently afford would be pretty huge in the quality-of-life department.
        • GroundhogBoy, on 10/17/2007, -2/+7She WAS on the Wal-Mart board from 1986-92. I'm far from a Hillary supporter, but I am a stickler for facts.
          • vuke69, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.
          • JamaicaJames, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1....stupid facts....
      • DeathMarcher, on 10/17/2007, -2/+10She's on Jack Thompson's side... that's my reason.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/23/2007, -22/+29Obama, for birdie, and the win...
    • neoform, on 10/21/2007, -25/+18And how do we know this guy isn't full of *****? It's basically his word versus hers..
      • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/21/2007, -4/+22Maybe watch the video?
        • neoform, on 10/17/2007, -9/+5Dude, I didn't hear here say a single thing in that video that actually confirms what they were saying.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7You need to listen harder. They had her on the phone organizing the event that she claimed no knowledge of when her campaign manager went to jail for it.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5In addition, this is an extended trailer for a larger documentary. They didn't put everything in it.
      • jjesusfreak01, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4Or the video of her violating election law in the video...that particular accusation, although definitely true, is more of a "whoops, I didnt know better thing", but if she has broken that law, what is to say that she wasnt involved in everything else the video claims.
        • ChildeRoland420, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
        • maz2331, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4Tell that to the people doing 20 years in Federal prisons on far less evidence.
        • cashman57, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1She's a lawyer.
          To pretend she is unaware of the law is to engage in pure fantasy.
    • Calcularius, on 10/21/2007, -36/+52Compared to Bush/Cheney, she still looks like the Virgin Mary.
      • bilbus, on 10/17/2007, -19/+12What did bush do? Going to war? That is not a crime, and it was supported by congress.
      • unjustend, on 10/17/2007, -3/+29I disagree. The first two piles of dung may be bigger, but they are all piles of dung.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/17/2007, -4/+8Good thing the primaries allow us to vote for who we think is BEST, not the least worst of some fictional "front-runners"...
      • maz2331, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6More like Typhoid Mary.
        • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1i isn't votin for nun of em next time. bush is good enuff cuz hes like me. suthern and prowd.

          until anuther fella like bush is up, i aint votin
      • Observant1, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1the bush's and clintons are the same tag team destroying this nation, there is no comparison or contrast of what is exactly identical
    • seedofc, on 10/24/2007, -42/+36She's a socialist. That's enough reason for me.
      • ninjasteeve, on 10/17/2007, -25/+12She is not a socialist. A socialist would never get elected into office in America. Sir or madame, please find your brain before you comment again.
        • SiliconRain, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Jesus, why did you get buried so hard for that?
        • darkcooger, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1@SiliconRain: Because he's wrong? Socialists have been elected and will continue to be elected.
        • seedofc, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the insult. Why not offer a good argument instead? :-)
      • fishbert, on 10/17/2007, -11/+10And socialism is defined as 'evil', eh?

        Christianity is a largely socialist construct -- one main leader, all others equal and working toward the betterment of the whole rather than the self.
        If you have two coats, give one to your neighbor who doesn't have any.
        It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
        ... these ideas/teachings aren't exactly ringing endorsements of capitalism.
        • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -3/+8Participation in a socialist Christian community is voluntary. When residing in the US one cannot opt out of the rules and conditions set by the government (see tacit consent).
        • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1in reply to 3tcp:
          sarcasm -
          Participation in a Fascist Christian government is involuntary because we the people have been subjected to it for the made-up rules for the past 7 years.
          sarcasm/

          When residing in the US one can not disobey the laws that are ordained by the Constitution of the United States of America WITHOUT PENALTY.

          If people that inhale natural plants get crucified, surely CORRUPT GOVERNMENTs should - or does your Constitution read differently than the Actual Document?
          • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Uhh, maybe you missed that it was a reply to someone who was talking about christianity having a socialist doctrine. Please find a more appropriate location to vent your anger because doing so here just makes you look ignorant.
      • mirunit, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10@fishbert Who is talking about Christianity?

        I, for instance, do not like socialism because I like to think for myself. The point of socialism is for the government to think and do so the citizens won't have to - and ill be damned if I become some sort of government aid junkie. Be it right or left, militarism or socialism - both give great amounts of power to their leaders, what I as a citizen would consider undue power. Also, please get off the idea that if you hate socialism then you are automatically some sort of a religious zealot and strict conservative - some people actually think and in that thought disagree with the socialist principles.
        • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I hate to break it to you but socialism is working very well in countries that are much more advanced than the USA these days.

          Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc. Their currency is more valuable than the US Dollar, so unless you have something POSITIVE to say about America's progress, you need to STFU.

          We as American's need to realize that the very internet that we created, helped level the playing field with the world. Our capitalistic greed helped enable Megacorporations to send our jobs overseas easier.

          Either work harder or STFU, complaining is worthless. I don't think the US should be 'labeled' as cheaply as if they were products.
        • terrordome, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3"I, for instance, do not like socialism because I like to think for myself."

          I'm a libertarian Communist, and I like to think for myself, too. If I wasn't thinking for myself I wouldn't have to come the realization that a libertarian/anarchist Socialist/Communist society is the most equal, just and free society.

          "The point of socialism is for the government to think and do so the citizens won't have to - and ill be damned if I become some sort of government aid junkie. "

          Wrong. The point of Socialism is economic justice and equality. Government has nothing to do with Socialism. A Socialist society can be totalitarian, democratic, libertarian, anarchist and so on. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

          "Be it right or left, militarism or socialism - both give great amounts of power to their leaders, what I as a citizen would consider undue power."

          Wrong again. First of all Militarism and Socialism are not opposites (as you seem to be implying because of the "right or left"). Socialism can be very non-Militarist (as in Scandinavia for example), or very Militarist (like the Soviet Union, Communist China and so on). Second, Socialism aims to empower the people through economic and social justice and equality, and not give power to any leaders.
      • scottc, on 10/24/2007, -3/+5Hillary isn't even a liberal, much less a socialist. And if you think she's a liberal then you are too young to know what the word means.
        • mirunit, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2In the terms you are talking about, I honestly do not believe there can be a ideal socialist leader of a diverse nation such as the US. Socialist leaders in the US - any 1st world nation for that matter - will always have some sort of lust for power. Socialism and its right wing counterpart are only different in the way they obtain and hold power.
        • seedofc, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Scottc, thanks for your input. However I fail to understand your criticism. What does this have to do with my age? Can you explain how her proposed policies and ideologies are not socialistic? Does liberalism lead to socialism? Is one lesser than the other? Does one need to accomplish the status of "liberal" to then head towards "socialist"?
      • dukeochutney, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1doesn't really matter what should be done. and bury me if you like but diggers need to get their heads out of their asses and realize its either her or its Giuliani. Clinton is still the lesser of two evils even if this is true. im sure Giuliani has done plenty of evil things
        • seedofc, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I personally believe that they are equally evil and useless. Neither of them are fit to run this country (IMHO).
    • norman619, on 10/21/2007, -18/+13Yeah she should be arrested right after her hubby.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mena,_Arkansas

      Plenty of shenanigans went on there too and still he became the president. His wife is only following in his shoes.
      • Iconoclast25, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2"Plenty of shenanigans went on there too and still he became the president. His wife is only following in his shoes." The klintoons have lying down to an exact science; it is first nature to them - and as long as they are breathing, they are lying. If either the cackling hag or ankle-pants were to go on record that the sun would rise in the morning, I'd expect The Apocalypse! Both of them should have been arrested, tried and convicted for a variety of felonies - probably including murder, certainly including rape - long before this.
    • hipnerd, on 10/21/2007, -20/+40This is all based on the word of Peter Paul, who was represented at the time by Judicial Watch, an arm of the Scaife Foundation. Paul was convicted of defrauding the Cuban government and fraud charges in 1979. They caught him trying to sneak into Canada using forged documents.

      After getting out he worked as an entertainment lawyer for more than a decade and organized a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, borrowing money fraudulently from Merrill Lynch to fund the event. After the gala, the Washington Post uncovered Paul's 20-year-old felony convictions, and the Clinton campaign gave back the money he donated. The fraud against Merrill Lynch was discovered much later.

      Paul then got in trouble with his business partner Stan Lee, running Stan Lee Media into bankruptcy while attempting to artificially inflate the stock with an illegal sceme. Again funded by Scaife, Paul claimed that Bill Clinton sabotaged his business. A more realistic view of what happen can be found by reading Paul's guilty plea to federal securities fraud charges for his actions while running SLM. He fled to Brazil to avoid prosecution, fought extradition and was returned to the U.S. to face charges.

      To the far right, Paul's claims of a vast Clinton conspiracy are well founded. To the sane, they are the desperate lies of a con man who was getting his bills paid by a nutjob conservative billionaire with a hard-on for the Clintons.
      • duffahtolla, on 10/17/2007, -6/+21Basically your saying Peter Paul is a bad man, who is upset with Hillary so don't believe him. On one part I agree with you. The man has a checkered past and I wouldn't want him for a neighbor. But from what I've seen, political circles and criminal circles tend to intersect more often than not and Hillary and Paul are definitely connected.

        From what I gather, the charge against Hillary is that she personally violated the law with regards to how she handled and did not report campaign funds. Eventually her finance director David Rosen was at indicted and they attempted to fix the damage by stating that Hillary had no idea that money had come from Peter Paul and that Hillary was not directly involved with the campaign drive.

        Don't believe him. Fine. But it's not just his word against hers. The video and audio is damning enough on its own and nothing you brought up about Peter Pauls motivations changes that. If you want to refute his charges against Hillary, you should attack the message and not the messenger.

        For the record, I consider myself sane even though I don't think you are correct. and I don't consider myself a far right republican either. Nothing would make me happier than a RonPaul/Kucinich '08 ticket.
      • darkciti2, on 10/22/2007, -7/+2Buried for trying to confuse people by slandering a different "Paul" name just before the elections.
        Typical mainstream media: Paul will get the Republican't nomination.
        • stupidverizon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Yeah because after watching a video that has to do with Peter Paul and Hillary Clinton, and despite him saying Peter Paul, someone will confuse Paul for Ron Paul...idiot.
    • tbom, on 10/21/2007, -6/+2plenty of time for the arrest part to happen...what are we now, under 13 months until the elections?
    • FutureGuy, on 10/17/2007, -6/+5Based on what. Its moron's like the once who believe in propaganda like this that are driving the country to the ground. I am no fan of Hillary but be-living in a propaganda by a con artist??? I am amazed that some crap like this would get these many diggs.
    • Insightful, on 10/23/2007, -9/+6Smear campaign. Case in point: calling John Armor a constituional law an expert.

      Really?

      He is a failed polician. He says on his own web site: "Most people describe their backgrounds by accounting their impressive degrees, impressive work, and impressive awards. Such as, "I attended Harvard, became an astro-physicist, and have won the Nobel Prize -- twice." I'm not going to do that, and here's why:"

      Here's why: he has 0 degrees, work, or awards to speak of and cannot provide proof of any. Nice.
      • 3tcp, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4You didn't read down far enough, he has plenty of credibility.

        "These people and these events made me who I am today. Here some details of my career up to now: Yale University, 1964; Maryland Law School, 1970; American University, 1988 - dissertation left to go for a Ph.D. in Public Policy."

        7th paragraph from the bottom.
        http://www.armorforcongress.com/index.php
        • BAFrayd, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4Don't bother to point out details. This person's hero is on the line, and his/her mind is already made up.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1And Insightful is a failed political parrot who clearly can't read an entire article - strange world we live in. Hey LastDumbInsightful (or whatever fake Digg account your have created lately) - life is way too short to spend as much time as you do hating.....btw: what is 100-24?
    • Iconoclast25, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0Removed comment
    • mrbeagle, on 10/21/2007, -7/+6I don't trust Peter Paul. His documentary is pretty inflammatory, and his loose allegations make his case very flimsy. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, in 1978 Peter Paul pled guilty to $8 mil fraud and posession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He served 3 years, tried to illegally flee into Canada, was arrested and went back to prison. Peter Paul later borrowed money fraudulently, ran a large company into the ground, and fled to Brazil to avoid trial. And somewhere along the line he donated money to the then-unaware Hillary Clinton. Whoop-dee-doo.

      REMEMBER, Peter Paul is a convicted drug dealer and white-collar thief. He is a self-admitted repeat felon who has very recently filed for bankrupcy. Is he trying to fill his pockets by smearing a major political candidate? If someone was paying him to do it, ask yourself: who would it be?
      • Observant1, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1and the clintons are unconvicted drug dealers, you trust them?
    • Makaras, on 10/17/2007, -5/+2Hmmm interesting if true, but this is obviously several news reports taken out of context to make what actually happen appear much worse than what was shown to the "viewer" in this fake documentary.

      Additionally: this "News" cited in this "documentary" was over 60% FoxNews (need i really say more) and the other 30ish% were little snippets taken from the early 2007 controversy. Remember folks this supposed violation takes place in 2000 but it takes clear until 2007 for it to be taken out of proportion and pasted together just in time for the 2007 issues. Is it just me guys, or is Fox and their conservative patrons getting really lazy>?
    • Frozenpython, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2This might be old news and not get her in trouble but I think it's important to share with people who might be considering giving this crook a vote. Of course this is election slander but hey, we know there are some people who are worth voting for in the Primary's and let make sure they get there not some corporate thief.
    • Observant1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1bill clinton hands a ton of technology to china and in a clinton bush baton pass they rammed NAFTA through (Not Allowed Freedom To Approve!) trade and border issues that should have been put to a vote. Corporate welfare handouts so companies can leave the country making millions of workers unemployed, hillary on the board of directors to WALMART 6 years importing Chinese slave made consumer goods bankrupting American manufacturers unemploying millions more, WALMART building a superport in Mexico for Chinese super-cargo ships to unemploy US longshoremen and truckers also bringing in more and faster. RUDY GIULIANI's lawfirm making millions representing CINTRA from Spain building the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY for transporting these slave made goods. (notice he's ex mayor of NYC and hillary the rep for NY state). RICK PERRY governor of Texas is land grabbing for this NAFTA superhighway. BUSH tries and fails 3-4 times to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants then hands the keys to US highways over to 100 Mexican trucking companies out of spite.
      people need to understand they are all business partners in TREASON !!
  • perbertt, on 11/01/2007, -114/+109Hitllery needs to be jailed immediately.
    • pr0phet491, on 10/17/2007, -20/+20Needs to happen..but won't happen.
    • hipnerd, on 10/22/2007, -26/+50"Hitllery"? Wow, how far do you have to be to Godwin yourself with a single invented word? Scarier still is that as I post, at least two people read your witticism and Dugg you up.

      You, sir, are to political discourse what explosive diarrhea is to clean underwear.
    • rex84, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Jack Blood coined the name "Hitlery".
    • Iamironman, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1too bad we need a president who functions the ENTIRE month, think about it... yeah
  • Jeffmr1, on 11/01/2007, -28/+33Cant do google video at work, anyone obliged to help me out?...what happened?
    • Witchboy, on 10/23/2007, -93/+95Nothing. Another stupid smear attack.
      • kuragami, on 10/17/2007, -18/+5Shill #1
      • obxjdt, on 10/25/2007, -6/+14If it said Bush instead of Hillary, you'd be all about another smear attack. Buried you for being lame!
        You know good and well the Clinton's have a very shady past when it comes to money.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/22/2007, -47/+58I'm not even wasting my time with this one. Google video + "Banned by the media" = Stupid, baseless propaganda. I strongly dislike Hillary, but this is lame.
      • kuragami, on 10/17/2007, -19/+5Shill #2
      • hobbitaussie, on 10/20/2007, -12/+26Lame? Its got Hillary ON TAPE. Sure its got a lot of commentary, but just take the actual unedited footage of Hillary at face value. That should get her arrested immediately.
        • Me1000, on 10/19/2007, -4/+5If Bush doesnt get arrested for war crimes and mass genocide then I fail to see how hillary can get arrested for taking money!
      • peligro18, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4THERES STAN ***** LEE ON THAT VIDEO!!!! that makes it NOTpropaganda!
    • samdu, on 10/22/2007, -29/+85How is airing someone's own statements IN CONTEXT, no less, "propaganda" or a "smear campaign?"
    • digalphabeta, on 10/25/2007, -18/+2tu eres burro
      • norman619, on 10/25/2007, -3/+6You could at least have the balls to reply in the language of the person you are trying to insult.

        In that spirit I say to you:
        ¡Tu eres un baboso amargado que no tiene idea de nada!

        Enjoy the rest of your evening or afternoon. :-)
        • natchiketa, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2FYI, it basically says: You are a cynical dumbass who has no clue about nothing!
        • digalphabeta, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1You are a donkey. Enjoy your afternoon also.
    • perbertt, on 10/18/2007, -20/+17Video just shows the real side of the Clintons and how they lie cheat and steal and commit election fraud and then slander the guy who gave them money to cover up. Typical Clinton tactics. It's why they should be in jail. Only Ron Paul can defeat this criminal.
      • darkciti2, on 10/25/2007, -4/+3You're starting to make Ron Paul look like a Republican Shill. Clinton hasn't been in office in over 7 years. He must have been pretty effective since you Republicans are still hating on him. That must be why you Republicant's still attack everyone. Bush hasn't had any accomplishments. At least Bill Clinton reformed Welfare and put more money back into the pockets of the working man.

        The current Democrat Congress is also increasing The Minimum Wage for our students. Are you going to blame Clinton for that too?
        Why not post something that your Republican President, Republican Congress have done in the past 7 years?
        • DaSuHouSe, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1No one's arguing that Bush has done a better job than Clinton. But don't act like Clinton didn't have his share of horrible moments. Being the lesser of two evils doesn't make one good.
    • worldsbestgamer, on 10/17/2007, -9/+3Kill politicians.
    • dngermouse, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1SUPPORT http://onthefence.wordpress.com/
    • thepotatoman, on 10/31/2007, -2/+30Here I'll actually sum it up. Basically some con-man throws Hilary a fundraiser; the washing times writes an article about Hilary taking money from a felon; Hilary lies about it to save face and says she wont take money from him anymore; Hilary doesn't report the fundraiser to lie about her relations with a felon; ends up having to go to court over it; video says Judge said that its not true and calls the con man a con man and there isn't enough evidence that shows Hilary knew about or took part in the fundraiser; video shows supposedly evidence that Hilary did take part in and knew about the fundraiser.

      That's it in a nutshell. Also the wikipedia article about peter paul said "The Clinton campaign was ultimately asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the gala." so apparently she didn't get away with it entirely. All it really shows is she is deceitful and dealt with people she probably shouldn't be dealing with. There is some stuff in the video about Hilary asking for money after the Washington Times article and about one of the singers at the fundraiser surpassing the donation limit by singing, because her singing is valued at more then the limit, but I don't see enough supporting evidence to be sure of that.

      I notice from reading all the replies from you're question as with the rest of the comments that people are either completely dismissing the video, or calling for jail time. I find digg members to have a tendency to treat things as either black or white.
      • Hennell, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Thanks, I also can't see the video, and you've actually answered the question. +1
      • Jeffmr1, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yah, thank you very much.
    • GuyeNoir, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3thepotatoman:"I find digg members to have a tendency to treat things as either black or white."

      Most people do that.
  • maz2331, on 11/01/2007, -55/+56Instead of the White House, send her to the Big House.
  • dunderballer, on 11/05/2007, -22/+136Title got me me to click through but lost patience. Go straight to the muckraking rather than showing freaking Cher. Good hell.
    • DiggzDE, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11When I clicked to watched this thing, there were only 19 comments on here. When I finished (after taking a few breaks in between), there were over 140 comments.. Damn.
    • digalphabeta, on 10/18/2007, -9/+4how did this piece of ***** get 48 diggs...
    • mirunit, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2On that, I will agree.
    • MEGAMERICAN, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1I sometimes wonder why America is going down the toilet. When people complain about 1 minute of film about something very serious and important, it boggles my mind. Especially when you can skip ahead!
  • toxicityj, on 10/23/2007, -34/+60i just lost a ton of respect for stan lee.
    • Hermitwise, on 10/17/2007, -4/+47I actually feel bad for Stan Lee after seeing this.
      • Damian91, on 10/22/2007, -5/+8lol, yea that's all I focused on throughout the thing. I already knew Hillary is an evil two-faced whore so nothing in this documentary shocked me about her.
        But poor Stan Lee :
    • ShadwDrgn, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13why would you lose respect for stan lee? He's the one who got screwed, remember?
      • chimona, on 10/17/2007, -5/+3Yeah, that's why we feel sorry for him, moron.
      • toxicityj, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4because he was affiliated with and supported Hillary.
    • Observant1, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2people in the know of the comics world understand stan lee is as despicable to the artists as the music industry is to their artists.. no sympathy HERE
  • mpn401, on 10/23/2007, -59/+37vote for ron paul in 2008
    • ozanweb, on 11/02/2007, -6/+35"Who'd you vote for?"
      "Ron Paul"
      "Why?"
      "Some random guy told me to do so when I was checking out a story on Hillary Clinton on digg.com"
  • gotyourqueen, on 10/23/2007, -13/+33"perjury"
    • obxjdt, on 10/18/2007, -5/+4her husband got away with it too.....
      • YourDoom123, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1not the point...
      • Iconoclast25, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0He sure did . . . among other things, as has she . . . repeatedly. As TheOther noted above, to presume the cackling hag cannot be elected is to underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate . . . they elected its husband twice while he was shuffling about with his pants down around his ankles.
  • Sandwiches_Time, on 10/20/2007, -8/+38I like how this guy can't even spell perjury right.
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 11/02/2007, -47/+32VOTE FOR MIKE GRAVEL 2008
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -8/+50That's a funny way of spelling Ron Paul.
      (just kidding)
    • dracostimpy, on 10/17/2007, -5/+7Gravel's a decent insurance policy in case Ron Paul gets Wellstoned.
      • ninjasteeve, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4Ive been known to get well stoned on weekends. Maybe Mike Gravel, Ron Paul and myself could get together for a bit of bongs after work.
    • dacjames, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4I am... he's great. If only he had enough money to win.
    • Derrekito, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I will be, even if I have to write in the name.
    • Cyberen, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4He's mad as hell, and he's not gonna take it anymore!
    • norman619, on 10/17/2007, -5/+4VOTE FOR PEE WEE HERMAN 2008
    • WiseWeasel, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10ANYBODY BUT RUDY OR HILLARY '08! Catch the fever!
      • maz2331, on 10/17/2007, -3/+5Seriously. The woman is bad news dangerous. If you think Bush is bad, watch what she will do - think political opponents being endlessly audited by IRS, trumped up charges for felonies that never happened, things like that.
      • Iconoclast25, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0Anybody? Are you kidding?

        The empty suit from Illinois? Little johnny lawsuit? The bad hair from Delaware (he was a PoS the first time he ran decades ago!)? The dwarf from Columbus via deep space? Don't know who else is hanging around the dim fringes, but I've not seen a dim Presidential candidate I could stomach since 1960.

        McCain? The has-been actor? Mr Olympics?

        All the dims and the top four RINO candidates are not, collectively, worth a bad case of dysentery. The only possible choices are in the second tier of Republican candidates - Tancredo, Huckabee, Paul, Hunter.
  • Godlike, on 11/02/2007, -31/+16The whole god damn system is broken, the elections are rigged, and you care what someone who has no chance of being elected did in 2000? Dear christ ***** a grapefruit in hell!

    Go HANG Bush for killing 2000+ soldiers in an illegal, undeclared WAR and then you can slap Hillary on the wrist for being just like every other politician to ever take office.
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -8/+12Your kind still harps on what Bush did during the Vietnam war.
      • analogkid01, on 10/17/2007, -12/+5Your kind defends what Bush did during the Vietnam war. And...everything since.
        • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -6/+11I rest my case.
        • ozanweb, on 10/17/2007, -9/+3Good thing you rested it, because your case was retarded.
        • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -7/+3Then you should be put to sleep.
        • ozanweb, on 10/17/2007, -4/+3wtf?
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3It's like a Schwarzenegger movie in here... quick, hide replies, before I catch stupid!
    • Mothrog, on 10/17/2007, -1/+13Except of course, that good old Hillary supported the war.
    • nowherekido3, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3so then 2 wrongs make a right? I know bush is bad but both sides wont impeach him. and anyway this is the information we need before we elect a president. it speaks volumes about her character.

      are gravel, kucinich, or paul involved in this type of activity?
    • bilbus, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3illegal war? are you kidding? There is no such thing, a sovereign nation does not need to ask permission to go to war ... who should we ask the UN?
      • rex84, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Screw the UN, the war wasn't declared by Congress.
        • Mothrog, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Yes, Congress had a say. It's called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Congress voted on and approved the use of force.
  • aelias, on 10/23/2007, -51/+60This video paid for by the republican national committee.
    • norman619, on 11/02/2007, -2/+27That's nice. Is the info being presented to us truth? That's all I really care about. The devil himself could have funded this video and I wouldn't care. If it's the truth then she is just another criminal in congress. Forget about the messenger. Is the message the truth?
      • 1hunglow, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1***** yes!
      • hipnerd, on 10/21/2007, -7/+2"Forget about the messenger. Is the message the truth?"

        No.

        Any other questions?
        • norman619, on 10/17/2007, -2/+9Your Proof please?
        • benkrembs, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2The most intelligent response of the night!

          You are a moron, hipnerd.
        • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Stage 1: Denial
        • jazzmess, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1So... the taped evidence is a clever ruse? Who is that on the tape, a paid actor? No, please, speculate as to how the evidence was altered. You're theories involving spell casting and necromancy are sure to entertain and delight us all.

          Please, lefties. You guys always act as if you are so much smarter than those of us on the right. PLEASE don't act like something is not a crime if it is committed by someone you want for president. There are a lot of things that you can turn a blind eye to and pretend they aren't what you know they are, and you won't look like a total fool. Viewing unobscured, video recorded evidence is not one of those things. Jebus, it reminds me of that episode of Boondoocks where the lawyer keeps pretending that it's not R. Kelly on the tape, right up until R. Kelly gives his name and social security number.
      • clala1220, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1I'd like to know if this is real as well.
      • stalefries, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3The devil couldn't have funded it, the video is about the devil.

        /shameless jab!
  • bootlegged, on 10/23/2007, -16/+62Yawn. This is as likely to bring down Hillary as any impeachment attempts have at bringing down Bush.

    While we are at it, might as well throw in the Cubs winning the World Series, .9999 = 1, and Duke Nukem Forever coming out.
    • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -3/+12.9 recurring is equal to 1.
      heh heh heh
    • brianez21, on 10/17/2007, -3/+9Actually, .9999... does equal 1. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
      • nonokiaboy, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1Duke... oh where for art thou
      • tepidpond, on 10/17/2007, -6/+2Don't bother, brianez21. This is the sort of thing that diggers aren't capable of understanding. Their minds aren't formed to comprehend anything above 2+2 = 4.
    • MadScientist440, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6Yes, but without the ellipses, it's just equal to 1 - .00001.
      • KyleGoetz, on 10/17/2007, -0/+11-.0001 you mean. You have one too many zeros in your expression.
    • Binto, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1"duke nukem forever *IS* coming out. It's in the makings as we speak! "
      -Me, 10 years ago.
    • gernblansted, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Duke Nukem Is Out.
      Oh, that's TF2.
      I knew at least one of the ancient legends came to pass.
  • techweenie, on 11/02/2007, -25/+9Two words: Halliburton, Cheney
    • moin1097, on 11/02/2007, -7/+6And that has to do with klintoon murdering her dissenters, how?
    • billbillbilly, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4actually thats one word...
    • ozanweb, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4I like this game. Four words: WMD
    • bilbus, on 10/17/2007, -4/+3How does Cheney have anything to do with Halliburton? He owns no stock (he had to sell it to run for the VP office.) You think he goes out of his way to give them contracts? Halliburton is one of a few contractors that can take on any job ... the are HUGE!!!
      • astr0z0mbie, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2According to the Vice President’s Federal Financial Disclosure forms, he holds the following Halliburton stock options:

        * 100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07
        * 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08
        * 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09

      • mirunit, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2So astr0z0mbie - what other company could take haliburton's place? So easy to criticize....
    • PathDaemon, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Two words: Clinton, Hillary
  • Trocisp, on 10/23/2007, -44/+47I believe the proper term for the title of this article is "*****."
    • nowherekido3, on 10/17/2007, -5/+8how so?
      • Trocisp, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3The tape shows coincidence and circumstance. Felony implies that it would be admissible in a court of law, and this clearly wouldn't be... circumstantial evidence is a bitch.
        • DAaaMan64, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4No it doesn't, they have the recording of her saying she knew of Paul's involvement. At the event itself she thanks him personally and continuously throughout the video. She denies involvement or knowledge then and now. I don't see that as circumstantial at all.
          • Trocisp, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1She doesn't say what she's thanking him for, nor does she explicitly state what exactly was told to her when she was "briefed by kelly"
          • DAaaMan64, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Lets let it go to court. See what they say. But stating their name at the event seems pretty obvious of their donation.
    • Scaryclouds, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11It is indisputable evidence that it was Hillary Clinton on that video tape. If what that guy says is true then she committed a crime hook, line, and sinker. There is nothing circumstantial about that evidence.
    • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1While this all seems legit to me and deserves the kind of attention that will cost her the election, the likelihood of her being prosecuted for this is pretty slim.
      Aren't there laws against recording telephone calls without the consent of the person on the other end of the line? This is what got Linda Tripp in trouble during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. This phone call is a big part of the allegations against hillary clinton but it wouldn't be admissible in court.
  • Trocisp, on 10/23/2007, -17/+9*****, double post - nevermind this one.
  • threemagic, on 10/19/2007, -25/+66Largest fraud in election history and you hear it on Digg first???


    Ummm... no
    • kuragami, on 10/17/2007, -10/+9Ummm... yes. If you knew even the most basics of media you would understand.

      Ever hear of the gay porn star and friends making numerous visits and nightly stay overs to the Bush White House? No?

      How about the pedohile slave train leading right up into the White House? Gee I wonder why.

      Tons of evidence of both. There was even a massive documentary by the big media on the child slavery sex ring leading into the White House. You can still sometimes find it on the Internet sometimes and it's quite shocking. Also rare is the newspaper reports on the subject.

      Google it if you want or crawl back under whatever rock you prefer to live under.
  • ianweller, on 10/17/2007, -15/+8The only way this will ever develop into a "bad thing" for the Hillary campaign is if this gets dugg enough and blogged enough to the point that the media actually pays attention -- pays attention to the point of making it into a three-day-long story. Never going to happen.

    We are the independent media; we are never listened to.
    • iPirate, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4This was already on Digg a LONG time ago.
  • jserio, on 10/23/2007, -31/+18F-ing Ron Bots. RON PAUL will NOT win. Not even 1% of the US population knows who this guy is.
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/17/2007, -7/+10I dunno about that. From what I know of him and his stances on various issues, I respect the guy (I have no idea who I'll eventually vote for), but I'm so sick of the cheerleading for him on Digg that I'll absolutely hate him by the time the election actually rolls around..
      • rickbauls, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5You know, I've been hearing about this "freedom" thing for long enough, it's really starting to bother me.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Don't worry you'll hear about Clinton and Giuliani enough on TV, newspapers, etc
    • ruley, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4he just got 5% from gallup.
      • Bamborzled, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5But, but, Gallop is evil and owned by teh evil corporations. Ron Paul definitely has a higher ranking than 5%. You should always trust the straw polls and internet polls, which only activists go to and not average voters.

        But 5% is pretty impressive growth. Let's just hope Hillary and Giuliani don't win the primaries.
    • Toshibi, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4It's up to 5% now and gaining by the month, at least among Republicans who voted in the last primary who own land line phones, that have been called by Gallop.
    • Calc1000, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Deciding what candidates to like or hate based on how hard their supporters promote them... inversely. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of educated voting habit this country needs right now.
    • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1I don't think ron paul is a very realistic candidate but if I was called and polled on who I support I would definitely say him. Even though he is not an ideal candidate the libertarian side of the political spectrum is being completely ignored by all candidates polling over 15%. Hillary Clinton's politics are completely different from her husband's but Bill Clinton was more of a libertarian than all the front runners in this election.
      • LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is only unrealistic for the republican nomination, unless almost all of his 5% actually go ahead and vote in the primaries. hes also the only republican that has a chance against any of the democrats that grandstand against the Iraq war while supporting the one in Iran.
  • macromorgan, on 10/23/2007, -36/+52Perjury isn't a crime when it's committed by a Clinton.

    Surely you remember the whole impeachment thing with Bill?
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/17/2007, -10/+13Based on questions that no one has any business asking.
      • gossipninja, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6Normally I think many would agree. But in the context of an investigation into sexual misconduct, you have to ask questions about sex.
        • hipnerd, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4Richard Shaife paid women to pursue lawsuits against Clinton, and he was found innocent in every case. Afte rseven years of investigation and $80+ million spent, there was also not enough evidence to pursue charges against him in the Whitewater affair. The prosecutions were politically motivated, not in the interest of justice.
        • biotch, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1And why is there an investigation into whether our president got a BJ?
          Was it important for our nation? No.
        • morpheus69, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Ummm....wrong! It was not an investigation into sexual misconduct, it was an investigation into a failed land deal called Whitewater. When the Republican-appointed partisan prosecutors failed to turn up any evidence of wrongdoing in the actual land deal which was the subject of the investigation, they began pursuing irrelevant tangents like Monica Lewinsky. Learn your history before you post.
          Let's put every Republican and Democratic Senator and Congressman under oath and ask them if they've ever had an affair, that way we can pursue criminal charges when we discover that, like most Americans, 50% of them have.
          I'd rather have a president who lies about a blowjob than one who lies about weapons of mass destruction to get us involved in a war that has now cost of $700 billion and almost 4000 US soldiers lives.
          • gossipninja, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The charges arose from an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded his investigation into Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In a sworn deposition for this case, Clinton denied having "gotten sucked off" or a "sexual affair" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations" [1] that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[citation needed] Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky's confidantes, provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Lewinsky discussed having oral sex with Clinton. Based on these tapes, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury.

            I do not doubt starr was politically motivated, but Clintons OWN Attorney General saw enough merit to expand the investigation in regards to sexual misconduct.
            And Bush was wrong about WMD's in Iraq, HOWEVER when dems say he LIED, they are being foolish, a large number of intelligence agencies OUTSIDE THE US supported the conclusion that iraq had WMDs, Hussein HIMSELF stated he had them on TV and that they were to be used on us forces should Iraq war 2 start. Saddam's own generals tried getting them for use on us forces, but they weren't there. Think about that last line, Saddams own generals thought he had them.
          • gossipninja, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

            Bush was wrong about wmd's in iraq (nothing new, hes wrong a lot) but that doesn't mean he lied. If i ask you a question and you tell me wrong answer, its doesn't mean you LIED.

            Great controversy emerged when no such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found, most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after 2002,[1] though various theories continue to be put forward.
    • MadScientist440, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2I remember that he was in fact impeached. He might not have been forced out of office or made to do jail time, but many think that whole deal contributed to the mess we're in now with the election of ole' Dubya. Sometimes perjury is the only crime that sticks.
    • edsamex, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Could you please define the term "Perjury"?
      • Iconoclast25, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0Depends on your definition of "is" . . . .
        ;-)
    • FreddieFalcon, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1....or by your VP's Chief of Staff. Surely you remember Scooter Libby.
  • omnirusa, on 10/23/2007, -17/+27Largest fraud in election history? Hell this video almost makes her look good in comparison to some other canidates.
  • honus, on 10/17/2007, -13/+30You all will be outraged over this. And then it'll be on Fox News and you'll be even more outraged.

    RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.
    • norman619, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Oh yeah because we should be used to our politicians and their supporters breaking the law and getting away with it by now right?
  • barius, on 10/23/2007, -52/+79"Largest fraud in election history."

    Um, no. The largest fraud was when the *courts* appointed Bush supreme dictator of America.
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -20/+14Yea, it was terrible that after three recounts they adhered to the Constitution and put an end to gores whining.
      • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -4/+13The thing is.... It actually was terrible.
        Where have you been? Mars?
        • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -6/+12Sorry. I'm busy counting my haliburton money.
    • fishbert, on 10/21/2007, -6/+2I certainly would've rather had Gore in office than Bush... but give it a rest already!
      Stop your damn bitching and moaning over events of nearly 7 years ago.
      Hell, go join MoveOn.org, and actually do what their name says.
    • topiKal, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Murderers are worse than thieves; does that mean we should allow all the thieves to go free just because there are worse criminals out there?

      Grow up. Everyone hates Bush, but do you people really need to use every political discussion to complain about his administration? This has absolutely nothing to do with him or his presidency.
  • kelarsblackdrop, on 10/23/2007, -35/+127I don't care if you hate or love Hillary; i just want to share with my fellow Diggers that this is not only a clearly biased post, but a piss poor quality video. I don't mean audio or video quality; i just mean it's bad. I can't even figure out what the supposed crime is. I mean, it's the "largest fraud in election history".... sounds important! Maybe i'd make it thru the opening minutes of the video if it had some kind of coherent succint point, and wasn't put together so amateurishly. I got bored and realized it was going to be a waste of time pretty quickly.
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -15/+6It's a lot better than loose change or anything by moore.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/17/2007, -8/+6Send in the Democrat clowns...don't bother, they are already here
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Uhm, yeah and the Republicans are winners how? Republicans haven't succeeded at ANYTHING except TAX CUTS for the RICH. No thanks. I'll stick with the US Constitution. It's not about a Party anymore. It's about WHICH PARTY DOES NOT ***** WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
    • facelogic, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6So you're saying because you don't understand election funding fraud laws, they don't exist? And if a point isn't presented with all the skill of Hollywood then it isn't valid? Or if something is boring then it is a complete waste of time and can in no way be truthful or accurate?
      • JigoroKano, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5If people can't understand a law, then they don't care when it's broken... unless it fits their agenda.
    • benkrembs, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3"Maybe i'd make it thru the opening minutes of the video if it had some kind of coherent succint point, and wasn't put together so amateurishly. I got bored and realized it was going to be a waste of time pretty quickly."

      THIS is why our country is in the state it's in. Because things that actually matter have to be dumbed down for people who think American Idol has substance.

      Sorry the video didn't have a car chase, sex scene, or Paula Abdul in the first 30 seconds. I'm sure the next important video that comes along will.
    • jasntam, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Waste of time??????? You're a liberal in denial.
      Watch you the whole video and learn something.
      Y ou don't know it but you're being brainwashed(conditioned)
  • MadScientist420, on 10/23/2007, -38/+87"..Largest fraud in election history"

    I'm pretty sure the election fraud in 2000 was little larger...
    • MadScientist440, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3Took the words right out of my mouth. Nice alias, by the way.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/21/2007, -6/+4if you call the electoral college fraud
    • LastVisibleDog, on 11/02/2007, -10/+3What fraud was that, Left-wingnut tools? That election laws can't be changed after the election despite Gore's effort or that the president is not elected by popular vote? You ignorant Tools really need to wake up - stupid parrot of propaganda is no way to go through life
    • scottc, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The 2000 election turned on our silly electoral college system. The 2004 election may well have been decided by fraud, though. The 2008 one will likely not be close enough for fraud to matter much. It's hard to steal an election when there is widespread support for one side. Of course the Democrats could screw up big time and lose their lead by then...
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Do you work for Diebold and do you know something America needs to know?

        If so, how come Diebold doesn't have a SINGLE WHISTLEBLOWER? Is DIEBOLD a BLACKWATEResque CIA entity?
  • TheSavant, on 10/18/2007, -20/+35Why is every news clip a Fox News clip?
    • Louis11, on 10/17/2007, -6/+8I suppose you didn't watch the video because MSNBC was on there too ;-)
    • intangible, on 10/17/2007, -4/+6And the Fox News clips were mostly defending Clinton... what do you think that means?
    • intangible, on 10/17/2007, -7/+6And the Fox News clips were mostly defending Clinton... what do you think that means?
  • GorfTron, on 11/02/2007, -37/+35I guess the anti-hillary, GOP slime machine is kicking into gear. This should be quite a spectacle.
  • painted82, on 10/17/2007, -22/+6I got a friend who actually plans to vote for Hilary. What do you guys think I should say to him so I may convince him otherwise?
    • Ndiggnation, on 10/17/2007, -6/+5Well, I would tell him not to vote for an actress who isn't even running, and that boys don't cry..
    • vade79, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5If it's against Giuliani and Hillary (god help us all), tell him he is voting for the right person.
    • Calc1000, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3I'm afraid there's not much you could say to someone braindead enough to support Hillary in the first place.
    • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Try 'The election isn't until Wednesday'
    • LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Tell him she grandstands against the war with Iraq while supporting a new war in Iran.
  • Krakn3Dfx, on 10/23/2007, -11/+47One thing kept coming back to me as I watching this video...

    Think Clinton banged Cher?
    • KidDynamo0, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3You know he at least offered a tour of the oval office...
      I can't believe we had a pimp for president for 8 years...fantastic.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Clinton did go to Welsley...Lesbo till graduation
    • EmitStop, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Which Clinton?
    • Mothrog, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2She's got the ugliness down, but she's got nowhere near enough meat on her bones for Bill Clinton. Oh, did you mean Hillary. Well, maybe.
  • king3vbo, on 10/17/2007, -25/+17Sentence fragments galore!
    And frankly, all conservatives do is lie, so why would you believe this in the first place?
    • yfguitarist, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5If you're going to generalize, at least get it right - both sides of the party lie. Frankly.
    • Scaryclouds, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5...whoa that is a really pathetic statement. Condemning an entire ideology. You seriously think liberals don't like? I'm not defending conservatives. Yes many do lie, really most, but it has more to do with people with agendas then people of a political spectrum.
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Liberals avoid lying, because when you lie you have to lie to cover it up with more lies and eventually it comes out anyway. The Republican Party have destroyed themselves. They divided their party and if I was Conservative on any issue, I'd avoid being associated with them as much as I'd avoid being associate with the [now defunct] Whig Party. The New Progressive American Century will be decided by the Libertarians and the Democrats and the defenders of the Constitution - not the Rapists of the Constitution.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4you are a idiot - I pity you
    • Kent4jmj, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"
  • ngmcs8203, on 10/17/2007, -7/+16Am I the only one who read the description and thought: Man... I've seen Google ban Web sites for lesser amounts of keyword violations before. That description alone made me not want to read what was written/recorded/whatever. It just screams spam to me.
  • RetardoCrisp, on 10/18/2007, -19/+20Nope...biggest election fraud in history would have been Bush's sketchy win the 1st time...well the second time as well!
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Yay electoral college..... (one thing I disagree on with RP, but hey, its a drop in the bucket)
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/17/2007, -5/+3Only if you live on the Democrat plantation and are fed only Democrat propaganda.
  • sonaboy, on 11/02/2007, -30/+28hahahahah! well, HELLO Republican Smear Machine! Haven't heard from you in a while! Is it about time to gather all the morally outraged, conservative housewives together in solidarity? What will you call them?
    Swiffer Veterans For Truth?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/21/2007, -8/+10What...are you the posterchild for brain-dead Democrat propaganda tools? You are dumb as a box of bricks - Peter Paul was a big-time Democrat until the Clinton illegally screwed him - do a little research Mr. Parrot.
      HINT: despite the left-wing extremist propaganda you spew, the Swift Boat Vets were REAL veterans (some decorated) that served with Kerry (sorry to deflate you propaganda balloon)
      • sonaboy, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2left-wing extremist...hahahahahah. you ***** tools wouldn't know a REAL leftist if they smacked you in your 12-sandwich-eating face. hahahah. god, you neo-cons can't even keep your own party in line. you're hemorrhaging most of the actual conservatives to the libertarians - so you have to play dirty. except most people aren't buying it anymore.

        i don't give a ***** if the swift boat vets actually exist. the fact is, kerry served in combat. bush didn't. the swift boat vets were created SPECIFICALLY to draw fire away from bush and put it on kerry. those soldiers traded in their service and honor for a PLOY. ***** them.
        • UpBeforeSunrise, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Neo-cons? I voted for Gore and Kerry and this time around I am gonna put my nation ahead of my party and support Ron Paul ,I worry about people that blindly support their party ,Hillary is the biggest Neo-con out there ,look up Neo-con in Wikipedia or anywhere else ,their philosophy accually came from the left.
  • joebooty, on 10/20/2007, -6/+20purgery??
    May the gods of spelling have mercy upon your partisan soul.
  • Nekura20x6, on 11/13/2007, -31/+51Nobody died when Clinton lied...

    What's worse - having a sleazy person contribute to your campaign and lash out when you don't try to pull string on his behalf or lie to the American people and send hundreds of our young men and women to die in a bogus war.

    I'm a Desert Storm vet and I'm *sick* of the chickenhawk drum beating ***** from the right. While I'm no Hillary supporter, even if this were true it pales in comparison to the war crimes committed by the current administration.
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -12/+3Try again:
      http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodyc ...
    • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -13/+4Did you get out before Desert Sword? (the actual ground offensive)
      Or, are you just making things up? You know, liberal “truth”.
      Yes, I was there also.
    • nowherekido3, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7explain to me what this has to do with bush. two wrongs do not make a right. we dont take a thief and let him go because there is a murder standing next to them. you cuff em and prosecute them both. same should be done with clinton and bush but STOP trying to push this off onto bush's many many failures and lies hes commited.
      • TheRemoteViewer, on 10/17/2007, -3/+5It's only fair to bring up Bush when a Democrat is accused of wrongdoing, considering the first words out of any Republican's mouth when they're accused of wrongdoing are "vincefostersandyburglarbillclinton"
      • vade79, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4I think they bring it up because it is a distraction from larger issues.
    • bilbus, on 10/21/2007, -3/+5Fully tell that to the poeple Clinton's attacks killed in Sarajevo, or do they not count.
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1He was trying to provide intelligence to Bush. Bush ignored that intelligence and Sept. 11th happened.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/17/2007, -5/+5Tell that to Vince Foster. Hey Nekura20x6, Hillary voted to authorize the war (so much for the "right" nonsense). Don't be such a parrot-tool - do some research and think for yourself.
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Almost everyone in Congress voted to FUND THE WAR because it happened just after Sept 11th. CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR on IRAQ. It's still an illegitimate war, no matter how your Republican blather tries to spin it.
    • Scaryclouds, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3This has nothing to do with Bush. Two evil can co-exist. A murderer should get a free pass because the Zodiac killer is still on the loose!
    • p0tent1al, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3whether it pales in comparison is of non issue. We all know these other politicians are corrupt, but she was caught on tape, and she needs to go to jail. Bush needs to go to jail, all of them need to go to jail, we shouldn't be saying "oh it's ok for now because so and so got away with it", it's just an asinine argument.
    • Mothrog, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Did you forget Kosovo, Somalia, and Bosnia? Good old Billy Boy was almost put before a war crimes tribunal for his deliberate targeting of civilian facilities like hospitals during our little Bosnian jaunt. Oh, and the whole basis for that war was a genocide that nobody every found any real evidence of. Clinton's wars managed to kill 4,302 soldiers during his first four years in office, 885 shy of Bushie's numbers.
      • darkciti2, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1a) They weren't American Soldiers. FOX News has taught you how to regurgitate well though.
        b) Kosovoa, Somalia and Bosnia were REACTIONARY. They were done to preserve our reputation with the UN, etc. Bush as completely destroyed all of the 'Good Will' that America was known for throughout the world. He singlehandedly turned us from friend of the world, into world enemy number 1. BUSH did this. He is still in office, so don't blame the new Administration (whomever it may be [it should be a peer group and not a President, but that's just my opinion]).
        c) IRAQ was a PROCATIVE war (not pre-emptive, because the intelligence demonstrated there were no ties to Saddam.
        • LuaPron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2The term, "war of aggression" is more accurate than "PROCATIVE war".
  • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -20/+18Compared to what bush has done she could have ***** in the guy's mouth and still seem like an angel in comparison.
    At least she's arguing for universal healthcare. Someone has to nationalise america's messed up system. We in europe take it for granted that you get treated for free if you get ill. It's basic human decency isn't it? Treating the sick, helping the needy? How can people argue against that??
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/17/2007, -6/+6Listen. I don't pretend to know about the law of the land in the EU, don't pretend to know about the law of the land in the US.

      And people call Americans pompous.
      • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -6/+3So basically, you're saying you don't know what this universal healthcare stuff is about and calling me pompous.
        I knew no-one could come up with a decent argument :-P
        All I was trying to say is that it's best to vote for people who are trying to sort stuff out. And I do actually know about the US system.
        • 3tcp, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1 If we think we can fix it without adopting the same crappy system that Europe has then that's up to us. We know the system, we know what we like about it and we know its problems because we use it. We in America take it for granted that we actually get to elect the people who determine policy instead of having unelected counsels of ministers from foreign countries make decisions without our consent.
          Whatever you were taught about the US system isn't enough to make you qualified to participate in a debate with people who have spent their entire lives living under this system.

          All I'm trying to say is that when people you don't know, living in a country that you're not a part of are discussing an issue that you have no experience in dealing with, its best to ***** OFF and let them sort stuff out.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7I don't want half my paycheck to fix some retard who broke his leg. The government wastes enough of my money, the last thing i'm going to let them do is waste billions/trillions on hypochondriacs, while I can guarantee no Senator or high level government official will have to pay into this "money". Basically, they would just continue to ***** the middle class. No thanks. Crap, in the Bay Area, if you make 100k, you're considered rich by national standards, but you can barely afford to live in a box.
      • Efilnikufesin, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0But you're willing to spend that amount every day in Iraq?
      • LuaPron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Actually, the government officials will gladly pay the tax - they'll simply vote for another increase in pay if things arn't "cushy" enough.

        I'm far more angry about the war in Iraq than I ever could be about any health care program. I think social programs contribute to war by justifying the large flow of cash to the federal government. This flow of cash gets diverted and used for war when tyrants get elected. When I oppose social programs, I oppose part of the basis for war funding.
    • bilbus, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6If you have insurance you won't have bad health care. If you have no insurance you will still get treated. Its not the fed's job to keep you healthy .... Be an adult and take some personal responsibility for your self. The EU is a welfare state .... what tax rate do you pay over there now? Its not "free" your money is forcefully removed from your pockets, and you get the privilege of health care. More power you give the govenment, the less power you have. No thanks i will take my paid healthcare.
      • Yukenna, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2There is a light!!!
      • Syric, on 10/19/2007, -3/+1"It's not the fed's job to keep you healthy..." Well that's the thing. I personally believe that that falls under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... and particularly "the general welfare". A government should provide for the well-being of its citizens, same as it regulates pollution and earthquake safety, etc.
        • LuaPron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2the right to "life" was intended to be a prohibition on killing - you have a right not to be killed. if the founders of this country wanted you to have a right to health care, they would have been far more explicit about it.
      • diggdallas, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1If you have insurance, you're paying thousands of hard earned dollars a year to get cheap copays, free dental cleanings (if you're lucky), and not much else. Insurance is America's greatest enemy. We're all paying for mortages on million dollar estates of people who don't even care that (if) we exist while we watch our loved ones die because of obscene health care costs.
        • LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Socialized medicine will only make conditions worse - care will become more expensive because the government will be offering whatever the HMOs and drug companies are willing to charge for more and more people. The price will be paid by those of us who are responsible enough to work and pay our own way through life.
    • Binto, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Oh, hey canada. How's that free national healthcare treating you?

      I hear things are going quite well for you, EH?
  • SubZ3r0, on 10/17/2007, -21/+11vote for Barack Obama 2008 We had enough white guys
    • moin1097, on 10/18/2007, -16/+5Just what we need. HNIC
      • hipnerd, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5What does "HNIC" stand for? I'd like for you to spell it out, please. I hate having to interpret racism through a filter.
        • hihyooka, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Head ***** In Charge

          I don't even see how it's relevant, the way he used it.
          • moin1097, on 10/18/2007, -9/+2Well, if knappy head becomes da prezident, can we all forget that repairations thang?