Hillary Clinton: Every Nation Must Be With Us Or Against Us watch!
youtube.com — Remarks from Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on September 13, 2001. "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." Sounds awfully familiar doesn't it.. Do you want this warmonger to be your President?
MakiMaki- 1822 diggs
- digg it
- bianconeri4ever, on 02/02/2008, -11/+177Ya she sure stands for change alright...
- bosssmiley, on 02/02/2008, -7/+6Where's the problem? She was just 'on message' like the good little drone that she is.
There wasn't much political capital to be made by being measured in one's remarks on that /day/ in history. - CrazedLeper, on 02/02/2008, -4/+38She stands for whatever the polls indicate she should stand for.
- mrsteveman1, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8I'm not really fond of Hillary, and I know we don't want idiot drones in office, but honestly if those drones do what the people want, isn't that the point? Isn't that a republic?
Obviously doing so to get elected then doing entirely opposite once in office is a bad thing...... but aren't we supposed to be electing people who's ideas and actions reflect the public opinion?- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9That's the point. Only her WORDS reflect the public opinion, NOT her actual policies. What she says and what she does are two very different things. If she is elected she will do nothing so don't expect big changes.
- allatti2d, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4What the hell do you know about her policies? Have you actually read any? Or do you just go about doing what everyone else tells you to do?
Maybe you should do some research before you pretend to know about policies or the history of a person's decisions. - Tilon, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7Her policies are *****, sir.
- allatti2d, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4What the hell do you know about her policies? Have you actually read any? Or do you just go about doing what everyone else tells you to do?
- Tilon, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Hillary is a product of the current system, that is, lobbying = influence.
- cephelo, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Not entirely. We don't have a direct democracy because oftentimes, the public at large gets very bad ideas. If we implemented everything the majority wanted, we'd have a very different country.
- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9That's the point. Only her WORDS reflect the public opinion, NOT her actual policies. What she says and what she does are two very different things. If she is elected she will do nothing so don't expect big changes.
- known, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1She sounds very desperate...
- mrsteveman1, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8I'm not really fond of Hillary, and I know we don't want idiot drones in office, but honestly if those drones do what the people want, isn't that the point? Isn't that a republic?
- sanman, on 02/02/2008, -8/+16She's just trying to "differentiate" herself from Obama.
Then later, if she runs against McCain, she'll deny ever having said any of these things, while calling him a warmonger.- Kautylia, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8She said that two days after September 11. Differentiate herself from Obama? No one knew who the hell he was then.
- aakashtuli, on 02/02/2008, -19/+33Ron Paul '08
- jollins, on 02/02/2008, -9/+17Thank you for your thoughtful and relevant response.
- m00kie, on 02/02/2008, -12/+4most of the ppl on digg are cowards.
- cnot3, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9Only a sith deals in such absolutes.
- deanlowe, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3Name one person, whose name wasn't Bobby Fisher, that wasn't thinking the something simular on 9/13/2001? Think back, what were you thinking that week?
Were you not part of the over 90% that agree with Bush that month? Was Obama any different, really?
What politician goes against 90% of the country??? Stop trying to revise history and if you want to keep this line of argument then you have to stop using the 2/3 of the country wants out of Iraq argument. What ever happened to "the will of the people"?- jessehadden, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I think it depends on how much media you subject yourself to, as well as what circles you run in. Personally, everyone I knew back then was in a similar state of disbelief as myself -- how could our politicians be so unapologetically bloodthirsty? Since when does the USA shoot first and ask questions later? When did we abandon logic and reason as the enlightenment values of democracy?
A lot has changed since 9/11. We're a nation of warmongers, or at least, people who've been lulled into thinking that warmongering is acceptable and sensible. This is a new and sudden shift -- we've been a war-like nation for a while, but not so brazenly pompous about it. A comment like this may not seem strange today -- but back in the early 9/11 era, it was still evil enough to freeze blood.
Always remember that most of the world was with George W. Bush until he uttered the same words that Hillary Clinton uttered in this video. There's a reason, rooted in recent history, why they knew it was time to turn their backs.- deanlowe, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3What the hell are you talking about? She, like most people, wanted the countries that knew who/where the people who helped the hijackers are to give them up. Maybe you know what she was really thinking but that's what I thought people who said that meant.
World opinion didn't turn against Bush until he invaded Iraq. Almost everyone was in favor of going in to Afghanistan.
- deanlowe, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3What the hell are you talking about? She, like most people, wanted the countries that knew who/where the people who helped the hijackers are to give them up. Maybe you know what she was really thinking but that's what I thought people who said that meant.
- jessehadden, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I think it depends on how much media you subject yourself to, as well as what circles you run in. Personally, everyone I knew back then was in a similar state of disbelief as myself -- how could our politicians be so unapologetically bloodthirsty? Since when does the USA shoot first and ask questions later? When did we abandon logic and reason as the enlightenment values of democracy?
- FutureGuy, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2We might as well put Bush in office for 4 more years.
Obama 08!!! - jesuswuzanalien, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah a change of diapers.
- bosssmiley, on 02/02/2008, -7/+6Where's the problem? She was just 'on message' like the good little drone that she is.
- allaboutdatiki, on 02/02/2008, -8/+45Can't we just start over?
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/02/2008, -5/+9I'd tell you yes and tell you who to vote for to make it happen but people don't really want that.
They want a guy that is fun to have at parties.- SovereignGFC, on 02/02/2008, -5/+8Not all change is good, change for the sake of shaking things up can be just as bad as not doing anything at all.
- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -6/+2Life is short, we need some REAL excitement in this country, not the exaggerated false drama you guys come up with.
- dkern, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I agree with you there!
- SovereignGFC, on 02/02/2008, -5/+8Not all change is good, change for the sake of shaking things up can be just as bad as not doing anything at all.
- WNW3, on 02/02/2008, -5/+4Start over? That's called a revolution. Do you want the terrorists to win?
- zmjone2992, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7mmm yes
- dkern, on 02/02/2008, -11/+6Terrorists? What ***** terrorists? Oh, I see, you still believe all the ***** no matter how many lies are uncovered. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were not attacked by Osama Bin Laden. The Bin Ladens have been in business with our selected officials for years. Its truly mind boggling how many people still believe that America is under siege by rogue Muslims. Wake the ***** up we are under siege by rich people who are dangerously close to being stopped- they have already been caught. They are desperately trying to grasp onto a non-existent fear in order to enslave us. It only works on nincompoops and the easily brainwashed.
- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3but then what was that whole thing with all that smoke I saw a few years ago and then all that stuff on TV?
- Ihatenicks, on 02/02/2008, -6/+4It was a series of lies perpetrated by the colusion of your presidents office, your intelligence sevices, your media and big business.. all to justify a smash and grab raid on the resources of an otherwise innocent society (you did know that the Bush family are an oil familly didn't you? Don't you remeber the FIRST gulf war perpetrated by Bush senior for the same reasons?)
...and YES, your government DID blow up your own buildings. - JeffD, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5You fool, don't you know the truth? It's quite obvious Bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden and the BIC corporation (of which both family's own a significant amount of stock). They were aiming to create mass hysteria and a never ending state of war that would in turn create endless reams and reams of paperwork from here into the end of eternity that would require millions upon millions of new BIC pens to be produced in order to fill out all of aforementioned paperwork.
The bloody hospitals might be in on it too, although I don't have full proof of their involvement yet. They stand to benefit from the increased rate of joint and hand injuries that have been occouring due to all the increased paperwork people now have to fill out.
It's a conspiracy I tell you! - thedaylights, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Hey JeffD and dezmo, do you find it at all strange that the US air force was conducting a training exercise simulating the hijacking of an aircraft that would be used to crash into a building on Sept 11, 2001? Seriously? That's not odd to you? That all the jets that would normally be scrambled to intercept a hijacked aircraft were out of range, deliberately out of range, and that Dick Cheney was, on that morning only, directing this exercise? WTF!!!???
Before you spout off about tinfoil hats, just watch the movie Zeitgeist from start to finish, ok? It seriously pisses me off how people are so cavalier and close-minded about things, without doing any real investigation of the claims they dismiss. If you don't believe what they show, verify it for yourself. The website has links to verify the accuracy of the information presented in the moviet. http://zeitgeistmovie.com
- Ihatenicks, on 02/02/2008, -6/+4It was a series of lies perpetrated by the colusion of your presidents office, your intelligence sevices, your media and big business.. all to justify a smash and grab raid on the resources of an otherwise innocent society (you did know that the Bush family are an oil familly didn't you? Don't you remeber the FIRST gulf war perpetrated by Bush senior for the same reasons?)
- Tilon, on 02/02/2008, -5/+5"but then what was that whole thing with all that smoke I saw a few years ago and then all that stuff on TV?"
We have no good evidence on that, just crap assumptions by our Government.
7 of the Hijackers are still alive. - Shirt, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8@^
It was the World Trade Center blowing up. Doesn't mean Bin Laden did it. The truth is that we CAN'T be sure he did it. It is already very probable that at any rate the Bin Laden "tapes" were fake. Look it up on Youtube. I am not promoting things like Loose Change, but I am suggesting there is more to 9/11 than the White House wil tell you.
- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3but then what was that whole thing with all that smoke I saw a few years ago and then all that stuff on TV?
- BeefBaron, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4How do you know things wouldn't be better if the terrorists won? You have no frame of reference.
They just want you off their land, same as you would want them off your land if they showed up 100 years ago and built their giant machines where your homes were. - WNW3, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Hmmmm...I should have use tags I guess
- WNW3, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1sarcasm tags that is...putting things in brackets makes them invisible
- LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -9/+1Hillary can't win because she is so republican. Obama can't win because he is so very liberal. Sorry liberal may be king on digg.com but America is not liberal. Even clinton wasn't as liberal as Obama. He doesn't have a chance. So expect another 4 years of republicans.
- mooseontheloose, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Obama is about as liberal as Giuliani is communist
- LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2what are you smoking?
- GeneralFailure0, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3A liberal can't win but Hillary can't win because she's too conservative?
- LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -6/+1Hillary and OBama cancel eachother out. Hillary cant get the liberal democrats so she wont be nominated by democrats. Look at the list of liberals supporting Obama including uggh Ted Kennedy. Obama can get the liberal vote which might get him the democrat nomination but the majority of America isn't liberal so he wont be president. Maybe you think this liberal left wing digg.com is a true representation of America? keep dreaming.
- adooga, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6It makes me laugh that you think digg is so liberal and left wing. Perhaps you have skewed idea of what those words mean.
- LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -5/+1Seriously is everyone here smoking weed? You dont think digg.com is majority leftist? liberal? democrat? ahahah. seriously less hashish please.
- adooga, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I'm saying YOUR comprehension of those terms seems a little skewed. Your views seem pretty far right, especially for someone so young. I don't believe you have any idea of the breadth of political thought that surrounds you, either here on digg or anywhere else.
- mooseontheloose, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Obama is about as liberal as Giuliani is communist
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/02/2008, -5/+9I'd tell you yes and tell you who to vote for to make it happen but people don't really want that.
- fraglessone, on 02/02/2008, -6/+60I don't think she could have made Bush any happier with that statement.
- omnithought, on 02/02/2008, -16/+7I take back my statement about her and Ann Coulter being lovers. It's her and Laura Bush.
Either that or George finally got a Lewinsky...or is that a Clinton now?- ghamal, on 02/02/2008, -7/+8Laura+Hillary+Coulter- The Snatches of Dooooooom (TM)
- bumblefoot, on 02/02/2008, -42/+6am i the only one who noticed how poor that statement is "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us." what else are they going to be?
- porplem, on 02/02/2008, -0/+41Umm, neutral?
- AetherWind, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2All I know is that my gut says "Maybe".
- Myonosken, on 02/02/2008, -0/+30Wanting to stay the ***** out of your ***** dealings?
- Ihatenicks, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Bingo!.. we have a winner.
- hplasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Not buying it?
- porplem, on 02/02/2008, -0/+41Umm, neutral?
- frsrblch, on 02/02/2008, -6/+136It must be nice to look at the world in such black and white terms.
- gooovil, on 02/02/2008, -10/+2Sorry for my rudeness. Here is the black and white perspective put to work:
1) You are either with us or you are with terrorists - gwb
2) Every Nation Must Be With Us Or Against Us - hrc
3) She is either slut or ***** to make babies - me gigity gigity goo
I am sick of these tactics. - skyfire1, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
- gooovil, on 02/02/2008, -10/+2Sorry for my rudeness. Here is the black and white perspective put to work:
- Adamande, on 02/02/2008, -7/+103I'm not with Hillary, so I guess I'm with the terrorists then. I'm so glad the world is so orderly black and white and my only two choices are to support crooks.
- JeffD, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8I'm not with the United States when it comes to a lot of things as I'm sure a lot of us here are. Preemptive war, torture, aggressive foreign policy... does that make digg a terrorist organization? We gather here together and often people ... gasp ... talk about the ways they feel the United States has gone wrong, and some of these people are *shudders in fear* foreign nationals! I think I need to start locking my doors, the CIA might come up here to Canada and try to have me arrested and "detained" for questioning.
- Picaroon, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4You're an idiot. If you really can't understand what she's saying on September 13, 2001, don't vote because you're simply incapable of making an informed decision.
She was simply saying that either a nation is with the US and against Al Qaeda, or they harbor terrorists. That's a simple fact, it was a speech given 2 days after 9/11, and you people are all idiots if you have a problem with what she said. I don't even ***** like Hillary, but this is stupid as hell.- kesin, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3agreed.
- Shege, on 02/03/2008, -2/+0No, you're the idiot Picaroon. People will usually say what they are really feel and think when they are stressed/angry and hillary showed that she is really a warmonger at heart.
- noPCtoday, on 02/02/2008, -21/+128***** THE RIAA
- makkaveli19, on 02/02/2008, -0/+23i think this might be the only statement that could get dugg up in every post.
- adooga, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1Statement? I suppose.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/02/2008, -13/+6Why is this being dugg? Good sentiment, but completely off-topic.
- GhengisKhan, on 02/02/2008, -9/+2Huh?
- makkaveli19, on 02/02/2008, -0/+23i think this might be the only statement that could get dugg up in every post.
- swrostmore, on 02/02/2008, -10/+114The thing people forget is, every nation WAS with us when we invaded Afghanistan. Even Iran backed the invasion and regularly fed us intel.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -10/+24Then the world found out what's really going on. Things changed.
- TritonX, on 02/02/2008, -0/+37No, the US left for Iraq, betraying all their allies in Afghanistan.
- twrife, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1We didn't really leave Afghanistan..
- TritonX, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Not but you could have focused your resources on finishing the job you and your allies started in there. Instead you went to Iraq with the majority of your forces because nobody else wanted to follow you, letting the situation in Afghanistan degenerate. That's why Canada and other allies are asking for more country to participate in that war, otherwise we will be leaving in 2009.
- twrife, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1We didn't really leave Afghanistan..
- TritonX, on 02/02/2008, -0/+37No, the US left for Iraq, betraying all their allies in Afghanistan.
- Servebot, on 02/02/2008, -6/+15i hate hillary just as much as any digger but, this is obviously out of context... i mean this was 2 days after 9/11...
- samk, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0There were many nations before 9/11 who did nothing to help us stop al Qaeda - including Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. They allowed al Qaeda to operate freely in their countries, and refused to take our side. The "with us or against us" ultimatum was directed at them. Ultimately, everyone except Afghanistan chose to help us.
- Akufen, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2You're forgetting the United States among the countries who failed and even ordered people to stop investigating Al-Qaeda even BEFORE 9/11.
Plus, there wouldn't even BE an Al-Qaeda without the US. So who the ***** is she to point the finger to anyone but her own government?
- Akufen, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2You're forgetting the United States among the countries who failed and even ordered people to stop investigating Al-Qaeda even BEFORE 9/11.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -10/+24Then the world found out what's really going on. Things changed.
- Chairboy, on 02/02/2008, -5/+27It's ok. She's a uniter, not a divider.
- darthchaosrspw, on 02/02/2008, -12/+2Hahahahahahahaha. I laugh at your ignorance.
- PandarenLord, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8Are you sure it's ignorance?
- deanlowe, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2Yeah because you couldn't find anyone that wasn't thinking the same thing 2 DAYS AFTER 9/11.
- PandarenLord, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8Are you sure it's ignorance?
- darthchaosrspw, on 02/02/2008, -12/+2Hahahahahahahaha. I laugh at your ignorance.
- Dudeee, on 02/02/2008, -16/+5Obama and Clinton are gonna be running together from looks of it.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I doubt it. In the last debate, they each cordially said they'd consider each other. Consider doesn't mean "We're definitely running together."
- 33PercentGod, on 02/02/2008, -7/+12If only life was that simplistic you 'tard.
- doctornkul, on 02/02/2008, -6/+284Anakin: "Either you're with me, or you're against me"
Obi Wan: "Only a Sith speaks in absolutes."
Is Hillary Clinton a Sith Lord?- SuperMoses, on 02/02/2008, -2/+49^---- The Force is strong with this one
- gnuyen, on 02/02/2008, -4/+24Yoda: Do or Do Not, there is no try.
Is Yoda a Sith Lord too?- pilot3033, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3what's with the digging him down? he has a point
- StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -0/+17Except Yoda's saying is practically unavoidable. Either you will do something, or you will not do something. Your "try" effort will inevitably result in one or the other--you reach the goal, or you don't. Doesn't mean you can't reach a different goal, or anything else, though.
- dezmo, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5so basic logic is a Sith Lord?
- AdmiralJimbob, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7Well, Yoda said that before Lucas started putting awkwardly blatant political commentary in his movies.
- Rizzen, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Different situations. You can remain neutral in a conflict, but when taking actions, and the try implies action, you either do something or you don't.
- gnuyen, on 02/02/2008, -4/+24Yoda: Do or Do Not, there is no try.
- cl2yp71c, on 02/02/2008, -15/+40Darth *****?
- RedHerringHack, on 02/02/2008, -2/+6That's fantastic.
- lamprey187, on 02/02/2008, -10/+5yes young Skywalker, Darth Maul Hillary is a Sith.
- coudboule, on 02/02/2008, -1/+47Yoda-Kenobi '08!
- StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately that means we need to get cracking now for the Constitutional amendment! When the Founding Fathers wrote foreign citizens couldn't be President, I don't think they meant foreign as in from another planet. Two amendments, then?
- shinynew, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3so either a black man, a woman or a dead guy?
- Nanobe, on 02/02/2008, -1/+25If *only* a Sith speaks in absolutes, isn't that an absolute?
- thetensor, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10You've just taken your first step into a larger world.
- Namaha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9Oh *****..
- WolverineBlue, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Fine, Probably only a Sith speaks in absolutes, sort of, IMHO. *fixed
- afx1, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6you just blew my mind
- dailyapplecrisp, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4as a star wars nerd its
Anakin: "either you're with me or you're my enemy"
Obi-Wan "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
- SuperMoses, on 02/02/2008, -2/+49^---- The Force is strong with this one
- belikedurkheim, on 02/02/2008, -2/+12Hmm, sounds familiar.
- PolicePeople, on 02/02/2008, -8/+30I don't plan on voting for Hillary, but I would like to see this quote in context.
- rubaaan, on 02/02/2008, -7/+34just after 911, a lot of people probably said a lot of things without thinking too much.
- CrazedLeper, on 02/02/2008, -0/+22And a lot of people stopped thinking on that day.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -6/+7Yeah, but quite a but more started thinking on that day.
- blackcloud333, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4I would like to cut her some slack, but the way she phrased it is pretty disturbing.
- blckt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6that didn't start with 9/11
- exomni, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3I started thinking harder than I ever had on that day.
If, after that day, you didn't agonize over every action, keep silence over every unnecessary word, you are not human. - ascolti, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3No. Not everybody was. A lot of people, mainly outside the US were saying things like "It's been less then 4 hours and they are already saying it was definitely Osama Bin Laden and he and his allies were going to pay." and "Where were all those super fast jets that are meant to guard the US?" and so forth.
- TrevaLVF, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2A lot of people say and do things without much thinking, particularly logical and wise thinking. It's rather like all these people that buy into this "change" spin. There is not a lot of talk, particularly in detail, about how a couple of candidates with CFR ties will bring about change and about what needs to be changed. Not enough thinking people are asking those candidates (on camera and mic) tough questions concerning things they don't even bring up when on TV or giving speeches. So, yeah. People don't think too much, but I won't put it off on reactions from the 9/11 attacks.
- HellDonut, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2So you mean that this candidate will stop "thinking too much" in the advent of a crisis? That's not exactly a good asset for a leader-to-be.
- galapagos, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2But don't we want a president who can keep his or her head in a crisis and who can find a way to bring people closer to us rather than threatening them? After all, not everyone has much incentive or cause to be 'with' us. We have a history of kind of ***** with the little guy...
- MaTT2011, on 02/02/2008, -5/+90If our choice is between Clinton and McCain then America is doomed.
Dooooooooooooooomed.- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -7/+30Time to start printing "Ron Paul: We tried to tell you *****" bumper stickers. I'll be rich.
- MaTT2011, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9I'd buy 3 =)
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3*holds up spork*
- Dweed, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Well, Clinton-vs.-McCain seems slightly better than Clinton-vs.-Giuliani.
- MaTT2011, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2That is true my friend. Theres always a silver lining =)
- ninjasdash, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1lol thats not saying much
- apollomurga, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4that's is what i'm worried might happen. if it's between hilarry and john mcain then i'm going to lose it.
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -7/+30Time to start printing "Ron Paul: We tried to tell you *****" bumper stickers. I'll be rich.
- caninedevotion, on 02/02/2008, -20/+27C'mon, she said this two days after 9/11. It is extreme and...wrong, but...c'mon! 2 days!
- floatingpoints, on 02/02/2008, -2/+24Um, she's a "leader". A senator. Now someone who's running for president.
If YOU said it 2 days after, then it doesn't matter, but someone who leads our country cannot have knee jerk reactions and say/do things without thinking...- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -11/+3I totally disagree. Everyone I spoke with shortly after 9/11 was angry for blood and vengeance. As a nation, right after the attacks we were not in complete control of our emotions.
That said: Obama 2008!- cakeeating, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7You obviously didn't talk to me. Or anyone else that I spoke with shortly after 9/11.
That said: Obama 2008! - Shirt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Oh *****, everyone's got people!
- Philbert, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Ah you tricked me into digging you up, then I finished reading...
- floatingpoints, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1The reason why everyone you spoke with after 9/11 was "angry for blood and vengeance" is because they're ***** stupid... and say/do things without thinking rationally.
Which was my original point. In fact, I was one of the few saying, "You guys are surprised we got attacked? We've been ***** with them for decades now. What else do you think would happen?" - getting odd looks from people. But it was the truth. Bush's approval going to 90% or whatever after 9/11 was ***** pathetic, and THE defining moment in our country's history when ***** just fell apart.
What about JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis? That ***** takes patience and clarity - and had Bush or, really anyone for that matter, been in his shoes, I'm guessing we'd be dead by now.
You don't play around with that *****. That's the type of mentality that's caused our racism and stereotyping. Your average idiot american sees a person of middle eastern decent at an airport, maybe even with a turban, and I guarantee you they think something about terrorism. Even if for just a second.
- cakeeating, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7You obviously didn't talk to me. Or anyone else that I spoke with shortly after 9/11.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -11/+3I totally disagree. Everyone I spoke with shortly after 9/11 was angry for blood and vengeance. As a nation, right after the attacks we were not in complete control of our emotions.
- mcmlxxii, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Yeah right, a politician of her experience knows the weight of every one of her words. She said it because it was a popular thing to say at that time, and she's in the business of being popular. Shallow and populist often works, sadly.
- GhengisKhan, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4She said it because it was the thing to do at the time. That's the problem with the Clinton's; they stick their wet finger in the air and figure out which way the political winds are blowing. Not a way to govern the greatest country on Earth.
- floatingpoints, on 02/02/2008, -2/+24Um, she's a "leader". A senator. Now someone who's running for president.
- spyd3rweb, on 02/02/2008, -0/+29What happened to neutral... Neutral is good, you sit by and watch everyone else blow each other up.
- ggfobster, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Yep, theres a reason we were the deciding factors in WWI and WWII... we remained neutral for as long as possible.
- Canute, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
- gooovil, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Normally there are three states: yes, no, and neutral. In the art of war, there is a 4th state - Remain neutral and switch to attack mode when time is right. I guess you can call that greyhat.
- HalBSure, on 02/02/2008, -9/+41I dislike Hillary. I don't have that level of hatred many people have, but I certainly have no love for her. And I'm certainly not going to put too much stock in a statement she made two days after Rudy Giuliani Day.
- TheDHC, on 02/02/2008, -15/+21well.... this was said almost the day after September 11. so i wouldn't discredit her that much.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Well, that makes you even more fail than she.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Right after 9/11 Americans were angry for vengeance. I remember it like it was yesterday. As a nation we were not in complete control of our emotions. It took a while for the initial shock to wear off and for people to regain their composure.
- zmjone2992, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4like 4 years
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -7/+2That's cute, because the day it happened I could see that the US government was trying to cover up the fact that those buildings were imploded by controlled demolition, and I couldn't pay any attention to anybody's kookie talk about anything far less important.
- Frost9999, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8Then maybe it's time for Americans to stop acting like small children and address the worlds problems in a compassionate way rather than seeking vengeance.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Right after 9/11 Americans were angry for vengeance. I remember it like it was yesterday. As a nation we were not in complete control of our emotions. It took a while for the initial shock to wear off and for people to regain their composure.
- Frost9999, on 02/02/2008, -1/+9So, America's leaders are allowed to be irrational in stressful situations? I think you should vote in someone that can stay calm during a crisis and make good decisions and sensible statements.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Well, that makes you even more fail than she.
- usgovterrorists, on 02/02/2008, -14/+9No Hillary, no matter how much you love war, Every Nation Doesn't Have To Be With Us Or Against Us.
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!- maklershed, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4What's your deal? You say basically the same thing every time you comment:
http://digg.com/users/usgovterrorists
And I'm afraid to ask but what the f*&$ is a Ponzi scheme?- wellyuk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. It is named after Charles Ponzi.
- aakashtuli, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1you are dumb
- ggfobster, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1This guy is probably working for the CIA or some garbage, please ignore...
- maklershed, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4What's your deal? You say basically the same thing every time you comment:
- lamprey187, on 02/02/2008, -5/+21flippitty floppetty flip flop. waffles anyone?
- aakashtuli, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2not funny
- exomni, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4What the ***** kind of waffle maker do you use that you have to flip your waffles in?
- ShinRaTDR, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2"These aren't waffles, they're just square pancakes!"
Should be the Hilary campaign slogan.
- ShinRaTDR, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2"These aren't waffles, they're just square pancakes!"
- SLH06, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Well, there goes neutrality.
- Ihatenicks, on 02/02/2008, -6/+9Yet another ultimatum from America... WARMONGERS!
This isn't an either/or situation.. some of us would rather have nothing to do with you at all.. neither for nor against.
You are a danger to the peace of the world and should be dealt with, preferably peacefully, but if you simply refuse to listen then that doesn't leave many other options.
I preferred it when your policies were isolationist, now they are expansionist and the last time a country had such a blatent expansionist point of view we had a war.
Pull back... see reason.- Namaha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Because Hillary Clinton's statement 2 days after 9/11 constitutes the views all of America.
- kesin, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1because hillary clinton' statement 2 days after 9/11 should constitute what most americans thought 2 days after 9/11. remember people this was 7 years ago, 2 days after 9/11....but no people only hear her voice and freak out OMG SHE SAID WHAT BUSH SAID LOL OMG HITLERY LOL LETS DIGG THIS
- Ihatenicks, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0ANY leader off a nation should NOT advertise KNEE JERK REACTIONS.. they are supposed to stay strong and calm for the people, not give in to some kind of amorphic rage and hatred.
These are EXACTLY the type of comments that show her character (or lack thereof) and are a PEREFCT illustration of her inappropriateness to be a leader.
Fly off the handle FTW... not!
- Namaha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Because Hillary Clinton's statement 2 days after 9/11 constitutes the views all of America.
- CrazedLeper, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3The United States is the Queen of England's attack dog. You're getting a warmonger no matter what.
- TheOtherGuy, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Give my best to Mr LaRouche when you see him next....
idiot....- CrazedLeper, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Duck and cover! The Soviets are back!
- TheOtherGuy, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Give my best to Mr LaRouche when you see him next....
- vanzan, on 02/02/2008, -2/+12God I want her to lose so bad
- ghamal, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8These politicians are putting us at risk with this type of arrogant thinking. Don't be fooled into overconfidence by our current super-power status. Either us or our children are going to be hurt in the long run if we insist on trying to intimidate the entire world. It did not work for Hitler.
- tgc1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4At this rate, the US will be a 3rd world nation by 2020.
- Ihatenicks, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0Actually I think that 99% of non Americans are hoping for sooner.
Tomorrow at noon... *flush*
- Ihatenicks, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0Actually I think that 99% of non Americans are hoping for sooner.
- 1randomguy08, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah because Germany is a thirdworld country atm.
- tgc1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4At this rate, the US will be a 3rd world nation by 2020.
- RhodesSkolar, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11It took a village to raise this idiot.
- kesin, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2youre talking about yourself you know.
- Philbert, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2And who do you think raised the other candidates?
- Lowrider49, on 02/02/2008, -11/+3Obama and Clinton are now kissing each other, planning their partnership to install a Communist/Socialist government that forces you to pay more taxes for benefits for everybody else. McCain is a militarist armed with the Bush Doctrine and he is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. Romney is in love with Romney and he's trying to buy his way into the “social elite”. Huckabee is preaching to the people to elect him. Don't You Get It Yet? There is a Solution.....Ron Paul. Stop pandering and seriously read about this guy.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -2/+6What's a Ron Paul...?
- Eiknujrac, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3You're right, the Civil Rights Movement was racist, and all the gains made through it should be erased.
While we're at it, you know the FBI and the CIA sometimes don't work, lets just get rid of them too.
One day you blind Paul followers will realize that a complete free market,free trade, no regulation governement destroys the middle class, and redistributes all of the money to the wealthiest of wealthiest. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. But how could I just assume such a thing? How would I know without having evidence? How would I know without trying it?
I don't have to try it, these countries already did: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Poland, Thailand, Indonesia, China.......
In every single country that shifted from a non-free market system (Keynesianism, Socialism, etc...) to a complete, open border, no regulation system, the poor got poorer, the rich got richer, and the middle class dissapeared. Its a great idea in theory, but human greed seems to trump all. You give the rich more money, they are not going to invest and let "trickle-down" to the poor, they're going to keep it.
Now, if you're rich, I can see why you support RP, but who the hell else would?- insurgente, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2You speak the truth, but the blindness of the Ron Paulites is so ***** intense it's no idea in arguing with them. They are a lost cause.
- Lowrider49, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Enlighten me with your vast knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs and the specific reasons Ron Paul would not improve both the domestic economy and foreign relations/
- Lowrider49, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4I see you haven't researched a thing about Ron Paul or his political platform. If you had, you would not have made those ridiculous comments. Give it a try. Do some research. What are you afraid of? The rich are the last element of society that donate to his campaign. He isn't for "no government" as you state. Why do you think the 26 million he has collected from common people all over the country has an average donation of 203 dollars each. And why do you think he has never taken money from any lobyist or corporation. Why doess the SEC report him as having the largest amount of donations from enlisted military personnel and veterans. Come on man, take a look and don't just slam somebody because you like someone else.
- Kautylia, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2We are quite aware of who Ron Paul is. I can't imagine anyone who has read digg in the year doesn't. He is an interesting man with great integrity, but frankly his ideas are way too out there. All the good that he will be able to do for this country has already been done. His presence at the debates as a check on the ***** of his opponents and a conservative voice against the US's aggressive tendencies was completely necessary and started an important national dialogue. But he would not do good for us as a president. He can have a government position where he deals with foreign countries. But I want to keep him away from domestic politics. He'd lead us down a path that would hurt the country.
Don't get me wrong; I really like him. But he wouldn't make a good president.- Lowrider49, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1By voting for another candidate, you will vote for higher taxes in all forms of taxation, not just income tax, more government regulations and less freedom. I'd rather not pay for more illegal foreign wars and someone else's health insurance and I certainly don't want over 15 million illegal immigrants injected into our country who will stand in line for more handouts. You all seem to be eager to vote for your candidates who present a comfortable and cushy position for you. Ron Paul's position is not so comfortable but it is logical and well constructed and it will save your America.
- Kautylia, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2We are quite aware of who Ron Paul is. I can't imagine anyone who has read digg in the year doesn't. He is an interesting man with great integrity, but frankly his ideas are way too out there. All the good that he will be able to do for this country has already been done. His presence at the debates as a check on the ***** of his opponents and a conservative voice against the US's aggressive tendencies was completely necessary and started an important national dialogue. But he would not do good for us as a president. He can have a government position where he deals with foreign countries. But I want to keep him away from domestic politics. He'd lead us down a path that would hurt the country.
- insurgente, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2You speak the truth, but the blindness of the Ron Paulites is so ***** intense it's no idea in arguing with them. They are a lost cause.
- insurgente, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2You blind, foolishness-speaking Ron Paul backers use the terms "communist" and "socialist" all the time, yet the vast majority of you know nothing of what either are. Ridiculous.
- Lowrider49, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately, we do know, and you should know as well.
- insurgente, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1So tell me, what is socialism? Is it a totalitarian Stalinist state? Or the simple idea that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the workers?
- Lowrider49, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1It is what they want you to think it is.
- insurgente, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1So tell me, what is socialism? Is it a totalitarian Stalinist state? Or the simple idea that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the workers?
- Lowrider49, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately, we do know, and you should know as well.
- Ranvier, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1You know, I would vote for Ron Paul, but I want a candidate who is pro-choice. A candidate that would votes yes for gay adoptions, a candidate that votes yes on enhancing the AMBER alert system that helps protect against child abductions and other child crimes, a candidate who is for stem cell research (of all types), a candidate who votes yes on reauthorizing the children's health insurance program, a candidate who is against school prayer and against allowing the ten commandments on government property, and a candidate who votes yes on direct election of senators (aka the 17h amendment).
Ron Paul is not this candidate.- Shirt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Does that candidate exist?
- Lowrider49, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2He is for Limited Government ! What is so difficult to understand about that?
- Ranvier, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0Exactly! So why is he thrown around like anyone would love him if they just read about him? Some people, crazily enough, want some of those things he wishes to get rid of.
- Ihatenicks, on 02/02/2008, -3/+0Dugg down for being a competely ignorant fool..
Since WHEN were communism and socialism the same thing?
..And the only thing bad about EITHER of them is the propeganda your govenment spoon feeds you on a daily basis.. remember McCarthism? Reds under the bed?
Your entire culture is based on war and bigotry. - JoeVet, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul wants a theocracy which is just as bad a fascism. He has already submitted a bill to allow the creation of state sponsored religion. And of course no theocracy is complete with out invasion of privacy and discrimination based on religious doctrine, all of which are included in H.R. 300 sponsored by Paul.
- Niubai, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Damn, this is so unthinkable. Reminds me one dumb movie where Chris Rock is a candidate and his opponent uses to say all the time "God bless America, and nobody else". So selfish and wrong.
- MookiBlaylock, on 02/02/2008, -5/+5What are we suppose to do, support terrorists?
- jdaw4210, on 02/02/2008, -2/+11Only Sith deal in absolutes.
...Uh oh. - Tomyris, on 02/02/2008, -15/+4Is anyone else sick of the constant flood of anti-Hillary crap that has taken over Digg? I almost prefer the Anonymous stuff or better yet - the Ron Paul spam. Or better yet - when there was variety on the front page instead of politically skewed/taken out of context stories. I miss those days.
- mrgreenjeans9, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5"Is anyone else sick of the constant flood of anti-Hillary crap...".
no. - kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5I'm sick of the mean-spiritedness of it all, but I agree with the conclusion: Obama > Clinton
- mrgreenjeans9, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5"Is anyone else sick of the constant flood of anti-Hillary crap...".
- londubh, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4Is that really her voice and did she actually say that? It could have been spliced together. She's already an unacceptable candidate.
- mrgreenjeans9, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5yikes
- madfrogurt, on 02/02/2008, -17/+17That's from September 13, 2001. I think its safe to say emotions were running high and she has since learned that that policy proved to be impossible to enact.
Oh but hey lets all accuse her of being Bush, and Hitler, and a 9/11 conspirator. Thats much more rational thinking. ***** the RIAA, ***** $cientology, Ron Paul is the only hope for our future, and Ubuntu will save mankind from Microsoft's chokehold on our children.
Yay Digg.- Frost9999, on 02/02/2008, -4/+6Rational thinking during highly stressful situations is something a presidential candidate should be capable of. Please don't forgive irrational behaviour and statements just because people were upset.
- 1337Einstein, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2You had a point until you started bitching.
- madfrogurt, on 02/02/2008, -5/+1It was a pretty simple point to make, so yeah I did go off on a tangent to rail against the huge population of reactionary ***** in Digg. I can't tell whether the population as a whole contains this great a number of people who would speak before thinking about a subject, or if the internet attracts people who have nothing better to do than end every sentence with "9/11 was an inside job, Bush is Hitler."
- TrevaLVF, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1As emotional as I was, I still remained reasonable. Far from joining the nationalistic fervor, or even stupid enough to believe whatever was coming out of the mouths of people I suspected might be in on the attacks...(Like the Nazis were with their own version of 9/11 - Reichstag)
I refuse to make excuses for her, Bush or the rest of them. Dennis Kucinich didn't take leave of his senses, despite the shock and emotions we felt. He didn't sign away our rights, like Hillary and them did and he didn't make fascist-style statements like that, either. The US Government is not the boss of the world. Our military is not supposed to police and occupy the world, either. If the US government, the CIA, and some of these crooked global industrialists would just leave our neighbors alone, we wouldn't have enemies wanting to blow us up. - stealthc, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry, emotions are never a reason to throw sanity out the window. Ever.
- ricoboy24, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2so if one nation is against us? everyone else is too? what the *****?
- lowerlogic, on 02/02/2008, -1/+14Only a neocon speaks in absolutes.
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3Not true. Half of the people commenting on this digg are speaking in absolutes about Hillary.
That said: Obama 2008! - oggydefl, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2Only a flaming liberal insists on using catch words like "neocon" because they lack originality and, hey, it just sounds so cool.
- userperson, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Yeah 'cause everything is relative ... like morality.
That said: none of the above 2008!
- kermit4karate, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3Not true. Half of the people commenting on this digg are speaking in absolutes about Hillary.
- Daolohua, on 02/02/2008, -7/+9Ok I'm no supporter of Hillary; but come on, people. You're holding what was commonly said throughout the world TWO days after September 11 against her? As a country we were in a state of shock and we were angry, and this sort of statement was not only accepted but was a mantra throughout the world, despite it's simplistic absurdity.
- krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3*****.
- Adamande, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2I'm holding that against anyone who said it. It's a blatant threat to your allies to either get in line and shut up or be considered terror-friendly. No room for dissent, debate or second thoughts. No room for freedom. The US dictates every country in the world should be at war since they are, or else be considered friends of the enemy. And the right-wing hardliners here in Europe gladly echo this divide-and-conquer strategy, and now we are all heading towards a police state. Good times.
- MacintoshSauce, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8This illustrates the exact reason why Hillary Clinton should not be President.
- Ne007, on 02/02/2008, -4/+14Who are WE to tell other countries what they should and shouldn't do?
SOMEBODY has to stand up to our tyrannical government. I'd have nowhere to go if other countries were to fall in line with the U.S. establishment.
We need diversity in this world, and this is what the "war on terror" wants to destroy. - insanebrain, on 02/02/2008, -3/+22We are against you. . .now ***** off.
- Blandanomics, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3O RLY?
- tehxen3, on 02/02/2008, -16/+4I don't like Hillary but what's wrong with that statement. Why shouldn't nations who harbor terrorists pay a price?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Do their citizens deserve to have their lives ruined for the political class's mistake?
- tehxen3, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2US never targets civilians, unlike their people and their governments which don't hesitate to sponsor killings of US citizens.
US tried to replace their dictatorship with a civilized government but now they insist on killing people from their own country.
They are to blame for their own problems.- rooster113, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0listen to yourself, what right do we have to replace any government but our own, some day far from now (hopefully never) the tables may turn and some country comes here and replace our gov with what ever they see as "civilized" would you just sit there and take it or would you become a "terrorist"? also you have your facts in reverse there was a democratic gov in Pakistan until we backed this military overthrow.
- tehxen3, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2US never targets civilians, unlike their people and their governments which don't hesitate to sponsor killings of US citizens.
- kill9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2So nations like Pakistan are paying a price??...oh wait, that price tag is paid for by the US
- tehxen3, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Pakistan is helping in fight with extremists.
- JohnFlux, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1How about not being with or against?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Do their citizens deserve to have their lives ruined for the political class's mistake?
- trevor98, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Neutral countries must remain neutral and are thus "on our side" because they don't help those wishing to do us harm. Neutral countries go to absurd lengths to keep that status. This hollow position was more about dealing with those countries that claim neutrality in such attacks as 9-11 but by either omission or commission help those that actively seek to do harm to the US. It was about, as a matter of US foreign policy, making disparate countries choose to help US foreign policy or oppose it. Unfortunately the policy was side tracked and never whole hearted enforced.
Some countries pay lip service to helping to quell international terrorism but don't actually do any thing except keep themselves in power. The invasion of Iraq side tracked the issue by creating discord amongst the worlds nations.
I can't stand Hillary but slighting her on this issue is worse than petty, it's moot. On 9-13-01 what else was she going to say?- sealhands, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3couldnt agree more, i dont support her either but everyone in the country was saying things like this.
- kill9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2You talk as if 9-11 was the first terrorist attack in the world. It is well known that countries like Sri Lanka, India have been the target of terror and have been fighting terrorism for over 5 decades (thanks in part to US support to Pakistan which is a leading supporter of terrorist organizations targeting India). So what was US doing before 9-11?? Wasnt it assuming a neutral position?? Did other nations go to war against US for this? On top of this, you expect countries to support the US dishonest propaganda and support US crimes in Iraq??
- CarzorStelatis, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Er... neutral countries take neither side. That means they do nothing to help the terrorists, but not do they do anything to help US foreign policy. So Billary's statement essentially requires countries to abandon neutrality status by picking sides.
- Swift2, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Say a truly neutral country has a few terrorists hiding in it. It would not be breaking with their neutrality to help us neutralize them, or to cooperate with the FBI finding them. Okay? Nothing fascist about that. We did that in Yemen, successfully. We caught the guys.
- duckyinc, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2because being neutral just doesn't cut it anymore.
- Nicosil, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/02/2008, -0/+16Let's use that logic on her then. She's either for the constitution, or she's against it.
(Might be nice to apply that to other candidates too...)- mr5150, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2The consititution has always been a thorn in their side, the quicker they can make it irrelevent the quicker the easy installation of government issued rights can come about. Their objective is to make America into a total socialist entity where everyone except the elite are at the mercy of the state.
- AndrewDB, on 02/02/2008, -6/+19Jeeze, if you need a sign that she's a fascist, there's a huge blinking one.
- Swift2, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Oh, yeah. You can tell this from one sentence uttered on Sept. 13, 2001.
- JustinBZeta, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2...Hitlary...
- Babykitkat, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Hillary Clinton needs to be in Prison
The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America.
http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2 - kendrick14, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0can somebody please tell me how to delete my account i'm trying to delete it and create a new one
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by