digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at my.barackobama.com

Largest Obama Rally Crowd Yet: 75,000 Rally in Portland

my.barackobama.com — The largest rally in presidental primary history was in Portland today.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -10/+23OBAMA 08
    • Shendelzare, on 05/19/2008, -11/+3Does this really need to be front paged twice?
      75,000 Morons assemble in Portland... WOW! Buried as SPAM.
      • RajDhillon, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Someone is a little mad.
        I'm not gonna say who.
        But I think you know them.
      • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Nope your buriedX
  • jugbo, on 05/19/2008, -5/+18I think he's got PDX in the bag! w00t!
  • StateRadioFan, on 05/19/2008, -6/+24I love my city!

    Barack-N-Roll
    • mrlivingston, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I love my soon-to-be city! I'm in town looking for a new home, and was bummed that I wouldn't have time to go to the rally. But...we were passing the waterfront on I-5 and saw the masses across the water. I knew it was thousands, but 75,000! Wow. Just wow.
  • Deadpixel1221, on 05/19/2008, -7/+30Mind-blowing. With crowds like these this election will be landslide. Syanora McBush!
    • HellDonut, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9Try "sayonara" instead. Not that I expect them to understand.
    • mpphan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, that was some butchered Japanese.
  • yakvomit, on 05/19/2008, -2/+17Little Beirut! I'm in that picture halfway back and close to the river.
    Absolutely amazing I've never seen anything like it.
  • TomPlansMedia, on 05/19/2008, -4/+7http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/johnno22/p ...
    http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080518/capt.4 ...

    amazing.
  • PCloadLetterWTF, on 05/19/2008, -8/+10I have a dream...
  • TomPlansMedia, on 05/19/2008, -3/+18flickr set from the event: http://flickr.com/photos/theoregonian/sets/7215760 ...
  • velvetphog, on 05/19/2008, -4/+13You can hear a pin drop at McCain "rallies."
    • badjoke, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9Yeah, but you get free Bengay at those.
    • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5McCain is about the worst possible candidate the Republicans could have selected. That's what you get when you let Fox tell you who you should vote for.
    • kublerross, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3not if their hearing aids aren't on
  • edstate, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6A free cupcake for all.
  • plimpton777, on 05/19/2008, -19/+4They were told Ron Paul was going to be give a speech there.
    • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10Are you sure? I don't see anyone wearing "911 inside job" T-shirts or white hooded cloaks...
    • tyler9090, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8at least learn to write before you say stupid things on digg
  • StatiK69, on 05/19/2008, -11/+4There would have been more people show up if it was raining... sun scares some people there.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1THE ONLY THING IS YOUR A MONGLOID!
    • StatiK69, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Obviously none of you are from Oregon...
  • radiofrequency, on 05/19/2008, -15/+5"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

    Is this like when Carter said we should all lower our thermostats and wear sweaters? We need a candidate that will protect Americans' standard of living, not lower it.
    • tyler9090, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10In other words you want America to continue it's massive obesity and dependance on foreign oil, and continue to use most of the world's resources at the expense of the rest of the world! If that's what you stand for then John McCain deserves your vote!
      • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2It's not the government's job to tell me what I can and cannot do with my money. If it does, we are living in under an oligarchy. Perhaps the government should just tell us all to commit suicide so that we stop using up resources.

        Also, if we are all forced by our government to use less, then the rest of the world will benefit from the reduced prices (caused by our reduced demand) and use more. The world will be in no better shape, but we will have lost our freedoms. See "Jevons Paradox": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
        • 0xception, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2lets think of it this way...

          say the US is a big ass 5 year old playing in a sand box, this kids got a shovel and likes to hit any other kid that tries to get into the sandbox and play.... now there's a group of about 40 other 4 year olds all scared at the moment to try and play in the box just sitting along the edges w/ the feet in the sand. Sooner or later all those kids are going to realize they can all just go in and kick the crap out of the 5 year old and take his damn shovel....

          So in the words of john McCain "it's a national security issue"
        • mabs0, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3"It's not the government's job to tell me what I can and cannot do with my money. If it does, we are living in under an oligarchy."

          This has got to be the dumbest definition of an oligarchy I have ever read and believe me, I read a lot of undergraduate final exams.

          As for the Jevons Paradox... sorry to burst your bobble but it has nothing to do with what you said. It talks about increase in efficiency in the use of fuel and not about decreased demand for fuel. If you could actually comprehend the logic, you would have realized it talks about increasing consumption and not decreasing it.

          Why do I even bother?
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1@0xception: How exactly is buying oil on a global market like swinging a shovel at other kids in a sandbox? If the Chinese want to buy oil, they will buy oil. Our prices will go up, and we will be forced to invest in alternatives which at that point will be economically sensible.

          @mabs0: I didn't say I was defining oligarchy. Oligarchy is rule by a small group. I said we would be living under the control of those in power (a small group) who told us what we could and couldn't do with our money. Once we are told what we can and can't do with our money, we effectively have no power left to vote those in power out of office, because they have the means to prevent their ousting.

          Yes, the Jevons Paradox refers to efficiency. If we in the United States force ourselves to use less oil and use alternatives, we are more efficient. Being efficient is obviously a good thing, and I'm not at all saying we should consume as much as possible just to keep the rest of the world from having it, but our savings of oil mean that the rest of the world will be able to buy the oil we aren't purchasing for lower prices. The total oil usage will be about the same, globally, and we have our freedoms infringed upon.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Ya PICK YOUR OLD ASS GRANDPA McBUSCH!
    • danmosqueda, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2This is a fresh statement from Obama today (19 May 08) in Oregon. And, though all the Kool-Aid drinkers out there won't see, the folks who provide the vote don't want to hear Obama's campaign of negativity and shame - they want to hear how he's going to fix problems. We don't need to do any such thing (i.e. lower our temps a'la Carter's idea, who was one of our worst presidents) - but perhaps creating investment credits and priority on using switch-grass ethanol, wind power, clean nuke energy (yes it exists if you put your Kool-Aid down long enough to be intellectually honest), and drilling off the continental shelf, and other ways including conservation to make us independent of the Arabs. In fact, we could work with India to do this and make the most bang for our investment dollars/rupees.

      So get off this guy's back and open your eyes.
  • DuffyDirect, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3Not bad at all considering the city doesn't even have a million people.
    • shondell, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4actually there's more than 2 million people that live in the metropolitan area of Portland
      • DuffyDirect, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1a metropolitan area isn't a city?
        • cacarr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0How a city "proper" is defined varies quite a bit. It's an administrative, rather than a population boundary.

          Portland "proper" is under one million, as is San Francisco "proper."
  • thentro, on 05/19/2008, -1/+14For comparison, Super Bowl XLII was hosted at University of Phoenix Stadium which can seat a maximum of 73,719 people.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Phoenix ...
  • lazersailer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12I had an amazing time there today! The Decemberists played a free show, and my friends n I got a cool Oregon sign!
  • JustAn0th3rFace, on 05/19/2008, -7/+7Unity. This is one of the many things in which our nation needs. I think Obama is the man to bring this (among many other things) to us.
    • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Unity. Another way of saying, "agree with me or get out."
    • ZhugeLiang, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Unity? By playing class warfare, that's what passes for unity? By the way, how can people call him a uniter when he can't even unite his own party? Ridiculous.
  • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -10/+4Socialism is apparently popular. It's quite disheartening to see so many people getting so excited about voting my dollars out of my pocket and into someone else's.
    • mabs0, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Unless you are Bill Gates (in which case what the hell are you doing on digg?), you have nothing to worry about.
      • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1And why should you have any right to Bill Gates' money?

        And no. Every time you hear the word "government program" change it to "taxpayer program". Every new program begun with the best of intentions raises taxes (or inflation) and drives more people to the government teat.
        • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -3/+7Well, I can only assume you don't use roads, public water, public school, or police/fire/hospital services.

          Oh you're only talking about INCOME tax huh? I forgot how those taxes are somehow more immoral than regular taxes.

          I suppose you don't use any technology/medicine developed with the use of income tax, right? Wait a second, how did you get on the internet?...
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1Tell me exactly why roads, water, education, and other services must be paid for by the government. If I don't own a car, why should I be forced to pay taxes to benefit those that do? If I don't have children, why should I be forced to pay for those that do? The government has no business having a monopoly on any of these things, and threatening jail time those who refuse to pay for things that are of no benefit to them.

          A major reason why the United States is so dependent on oil is because the government forced investment in road infrastructure. This caused investment in mass transportation to languish while the government poured billions into creating a culture based around the automobile.

          Please read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism" by Robert P. Murphy, or spend some time on mises.org.
        • mabs0, on 05/19/2008, -4/+7"And why should you have any right to Bill Gates' money?"

          Because he wouldn't have been that successful had he not benefited from the taxes paid by everyone to fund schools, research projects, infrastructure and keep his ass safe. Like it or not but you live in a society and that means your achievements and your misfortunes are influenced by other people's achievements and failures. If you don't believe me, try living on a deserted island (no government, no taxes) for a while and see how far you'll get in life.
        • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5Did I say somewhere that those things *must* be paid for by the government? Why, you must have me confused with somebody else.

          Do I think that those services wouldn't have come to exist under a free-market structure and that in those cases that government intervention was the most pragmatic solution? Yes.

          Do I feel that taxes are an appropriate (and yes, they *are* constitutionally outlined) and the most efficient way of paying for these services? Yes.

          What exactly do you think are the point of taxes (even forgetting federal income tax for a second) if not for the creation of things like roads and emergency services? (all voted on at some point)

          Even though your anti-road tirade is a strawman, what would have done? Let the american people continue to use horse-drawn carriages? All I hear from you pseudo-libertarians are a bunch of naively-idealistic "in-theory" ideas and no pragmatic solutions.
        • ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4@juankovo

          You have no car, and no children. You are definitely a Ron Paul supporter.

          When you DO get a car, you are not allowed to use the roads I paid for, until you have paid the same amount as I.

          I won't say the same for children. I am pretty sure you won't be procreating...
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1@mabs0: "Because he wouldn't have been that successful had he not benefited from the taxes paid by everyone to fund schools, research projects, infrastructure and keep his ass safe."

          First of all, the government should not be funding schools, research projects, and infrastructure to keep his ass safe. He can pay for his own crap, if he wants it. He should not be forced to pay for your crap and my crap and his crap. The percentage of taxes he pays should be no higher than for anyone else, unless you can demonstrate that he has used political influence to take more from the pot than he should rightfully get (which may well be the case). Arbitrarily taxing the "rich" at a higher rate just because they're rich is just Robin Hood politics, and it's destructive to the market. It provides disincentives to contribute productively to the economy.
        • mabs0, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5You eat, don't you? How do you think that food gets to you? You are using the internet. How do you think those lines where put in place? You are using roads.

          "A major reason why the United States is so dependent on oil is because the government forced investment in road infrastructure. This caused investment in mass transportation to languish while the government poured billions into creating a culture based around the automobile."

          That is the most inane causal chain I've ever heard anyone come up with. You want to know what a country with no investment in infrastructure looks like? Try your favorite flavor of third world country. Investment in infrastructure is directly correlated with economic growth and wealth. The Romans figured it out. I'm sure you'll be able to master the idea if you let it sit with you for a while.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1@onetimer: Whenever the government invests in something, the decision is made by a handful of people who have a handful of people shoving money into their pockets to get things done. The United States is built on roads because Detroit knew it could make millions if driving was easier. The AAA invested heavily in getting the government to build roads.

          When the market invests in something, it is always the right decision, because if it is the wrong decision, it will lose money when it fails. When the government makes the wrong decision, it doubles the budget and gives it another go.

          There really is very little need for taxes, honestly. We had no income tax at all for the first 135 years of our existence. Most of the taxes we pay today are less than a century old. Our government is extremely bloated, because people constantly attempt to vote themselves largess from the public purse.

          If by "constitutionally outlined" you mean "provide for the general welfare", then what exactly *can't* fall under that umbrella. It would provide for the general welfare if the government gave free health club memberships to everyone and told us we could only ride our cars for trips of more than 5 miles, but I don't think that's exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3"First of all, the government should not be funding schools, research projects, and infrastructure to keep his ass safe."

          Yeah, I mean, we should all be willing to do whatever it takes to keep our homes and businesses from burning down. Fire departments are just a manifestation of tyranny, right? And traffic lights? Who needs them? Emergency responders? Save yourselves! Foreign invasion? Raise your own militia. Need an educated work force so that you can run your business and contribute to our economy? Better plan ahead and pay to educate the children in your neighborhood. Someone committed a civil offense against you? Build your own courtroom, hire a judge, find a jury, and have yourself a trial.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1@ssn697. I have kids and a car, which is *exactly* why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't want the government telling me where my kids need to go to school, for example, which it does now by charging me for public education whether I use it or not.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1@mabs0. The Roman empire also collapsed. I'm not saying that 100% of government investment in infrastructure is bad, as it can sometimes take a huge entity like the government to jumpstart investment in a particular sector where the entry costs are too high, or the expected return-on-investment timeline too long, for private investors to consider. The space program, for example, would likely not have gotten started with private investment for several more decades or perhaps even a century. But after NASA's heavy investment, technology has improved to the point where private investors are beginning to put their money on it. However, it's nearly impossible, as with any gargantuan government program, for NASA to exit the market and let the more efficient private firms take over.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1@eir574. Did I say that fire departments and traffic lights and emergency responders were unnecessary? No. Do they need to be paid for with public money? No, but they usually are.

          Police departments, for example, are generally public because a vast majority of people in a community recognize the benefits of a police department. Yes, they could all go out and hire their own protection, but to prevent freeloaders from taking advantage of the benefits of everyone else's decision to purchase police protection, it's easier and cheaper to forcibly tax everyone in town than to find and sue everyone who isn't contributing by hiring private police.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4@juankoyo,

          Do you want to depend on each community to decide whether or not it needs traffic lights and roads? If it would be useful for one big road to connect communities that are far apart, are they supposed to get together with every community in between and find a way to build it? Or, might it be better to get governments involved in infrastructure like roads, bridges, and traffic lights?

          You didn't respond to the point about benefiting from an educated work force. If you want to start a business, are you going to start paying to educate your future employees now?
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1If the voters of a community of communities (e.g. a county or state) decides that it is beneficial to have a single provider for road construction, that's fine. I am not against all government infrastructure programs. However, government investment in one solution to a need (say, in concrete roads for transportation), especially on the massive scale of the federal government, destroys all other solutions which simply can't compete with a product that everyone is forced to pay for. What if our country had a network of rails that could carry as much traffic as our Interstate system? We wouldn't need Iraq's oil right now. What if we had ended government subsidies of oil companies decades ago? Oil would be more expensive and there would be robust bus service in every city in America.

          Businesses benefit from educated people. Those people benefit from being educated by being hired by businesses at higher wages than the uneducated. It is up to the parents and students to recognize that if they want to earn a better living, they must invest in a quality education. Just as the business must produce good products in order to attract customers, people in the workforce must possess the skills that businesses need in order to attract employers. There is no need for a government-mandated education because the free market demands educated people.

          The public education system in America is terrible because there is virtually no competition. Bad schools and bad teachers are almost never weeded out of the system, because they're all supported by taxpayer money and have no risk of going bankrupt. However, if people were free to choose their own schools and teachers, the bad ones would be driven out of the education market very quickly, or at least be forced to lower their prices so as to attract more students. As it is now, we've doubled our spending on education in the last 30 years with no change in student performance. And yes, that's adjusted for inflation.

          Even student aid programs hurt education. They drive up the cost of tuition because every school knows that virtually every student will be bringing $1000 of Uncle Sam's money to the table. This is the largest factor in colleges' ability to raise tuition by 7-10% every year.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Let's say I'm born into a poor family. My parents are working hard at minimum wage jobs (because we'll always need someone to do those things), and they can't afford to pay for me to complete even a basic level of education. I guess I'm doomed to repeat the cycle under your plan, right?

          Let's say I'm running a business and I realize that my potential pool of workers is uneducated because the government provides no education and their parents couldn't afford to send their kids to private schools. Instead of helping the local economy, I'd look for workers elsewhere. If my needs are great enough, I'll maybe bring in skilled workers from abroad. Or, perhaps I'd just do business in another country with a better educated work force.

          What about children with special needs? I volunteered at a school that had only autistic children who couldn't be placed in classes with mainstream students. The goals of that public school were much simpler: get the kids to the point where they can take care of themselves and live on their own as much as possible. Under your plan, these kids would have gotten that kind of specialized education only if their parents could pay for it (the county paid more per student there than at other schools). They'd grow up with less of a chance of being self sufficient, and unless you're content to let them live on the streets, they'll be a bigger burden on society than they would have been without that initial investment in education.

          Schools have problems. The solution isn't to get rid of them and leave private schools as the only option.

          A friend of mine came home one day and found a snake in his house. Yes, a snake. He called animal control. I guess that wouldn't have existed in your ideal world. When my father suddenly started complaining of severe abdominal pains, we called 911. Would that system exist in your ideal world?

          What you're arguing for seems to boil down to the government providing nothing for its citizens and letting everyone fend for themselves. Have you ever seen a documentary on how Chinese citizens in areas the government doesn't much care about live? That kind of gap between the rich and the poor isn't good for society.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1"and they can't afford to pay for me to complete even a basic level of education. I guess I'm doomed to repeat the cycle under your plan, right?"

          Education is unfordable *because* of mandated public education. See here: http://mises.org/story/1679

          For a fuller treatment of education on the free market, see here: http://mises.org/story/2216 No sense on me restating everything they've said.

          > "Schools have problems. The solution isn't to get rid of them and leave private schools as the only option."

          Yes. It. Is. Well, you don't have to get rid of them outright, you just have to allow competition to force them to improve. Right now private schools can't compete because the public schools have guaranteed income whether or not they serve their customers well.

          > "A friend of mine came home one day and found a snake in his house. Yes, a snake. He called animal control."

          Why would there be no animal control services in the free market? If I come home and find that a tree has fallen on my house, or that a pipe has broken and flooded my basement, I call someone to come and fix the problem. Why should the city come and fix the problem if there's a snake in my house?

          911 service is provided by the government because it's generally agreed upon by the citizens as a necessary service that makes more sense to be paid by all taxpayers (to prevent freeloaders from abusing it). I've discussed this elsewhere in this thread. I am not opposed to taxpayer-paid 911 service and it would be one of the last things I would worry about trying to give back to the free market.

          > "What you're arguing for seems to boil down to the government providing nothing for its citizens and letting everyone fend for themselves."

          The big question is what the role of government ought to be. I, and the framers of the Constitution, have no desire to see a government that takes care of us from cradle to grave. Quibbling about whether or not 911 and animal control service should be public or private distracts us from the more important issues like Social Security (which is nothing but a legalized Ponzi scheme) and government intervention in business decisions.

          > "Have you ever seen a documentary on how Chinese citizens in areas the government doesn't much care about live? That kind of gap between the rich and the poor isn't good for society."

          Remember that every time the government attempts to equalize the playing field between rich and poor, one of two things happen. 1) the rich become poorer and the poor become no richer, or 2) the rich stay rich because they have the political wherewithal to keep their competitors out of the market through regulation.
    • Olfster, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4I consider myself upper middle class, and I have no problem with the next president increasing taxes even if I have to pay more. What I pay in taxes realative to what I earn compared to someone with slightly more income is a crock of *****. The first thing that has to go is the tax rate for unearned income. This 15% capital gains tax was nothing more than welfare for the rich. Then we need to make sure the estate taxes are in place and even increased. In the past eight years we have seen what a silver spooner can do to this country. If I have to work hard for every penny then you should too.
      • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Every time the government takes a dollar from you, it burns half (or more of it) and spits it out to someone else. Generally, the dollars that it spits out do not accomplish their stated goals. All the money we've thrown at the war on poverty and the war on drugs and and at our schools and so on – what good has come of it? The poverty rate has not decreased, the drug usage rate has not decreased, and we're spending more than double on education than we did 30 years ago with no change in test scores. And yes, that's adjusted for inflation.

        Also, estate taxes are destroying family farms. Farmers have huge investments in equipment, buildings, and land, even though they have very slim profit margins. When they die, their children often have to sell a significant portion of those assets just to pay the estate taxes.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5So be against the war on drugs and estate taxes, not against publicly funded roads.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Publicly funded roads have created a nation dependent on oil and with virtually no mass transportation. The government dumped billions into public roads, which made alternative transportation uneconomical. Railroads struggled for decades because the government subsidized paved road infrastructure so heavily. Now rail is coming back, because the cost of oil is finally offsetting value of the government subsidies. Government intervention in the market got us into this mess in the first place.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5But, are you also against publicly funded mass transit?

          Besides, roads do serve a purpose. Mass transit isn't always possible. Sometimes emergencies require more direct transportation. I'm glad that an emergency vehicle can get to me if necessary, and that if a personal emergency comes up while I'm at work, at the very least I can call a cab to take me directly where I need to go rather than relying on the mass transit schedule. I personally can't walk far enough to get to the closest train station (even though it's pretty close to us by most people's standards), so I'm grateful that I have the option of driving.
        • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1I don't think much of publicly funded mass transit, no. I live in a small city about two hours away from the capital of my state, yet I pay taxes to pay for buses and light rail in the capital that I will probably never use. Even local mass transit generally doesn't need to be funded by taxpayers. If there's an actual need for it, the market will provide it.

          I'm not suggesting that we don't have any roads. I'm just saying that our heavy public investment in roads has hurt diversity of transportation options. We have congestion problems in virtually every major city because high-speed rail was so much more costly than the sticker price of publicly-paid roads. Ideally, roads should serve areas that are not heavily traveled or short distances, and rail or other methods should serve heavily-traveled longer routes. It's a bit silly to have 10,000 inefficient cars simultaneously driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles when most of them should just be taking a train and renting a car in the destination city. Or perhaps the train should be equipped to carry its passengers' cars as freight. I don't know that, but the market does.

          See www.mises.org for more information on the topic of the balance of the free market and government. I think you'll find it interesting.
        • izackcarson, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Family farms have disappeared due to the mechinization of farming. Small landowners have not been able to make enough money from crop and animal prices to cover the costs of doing business. However, family farms have been doing much better with the organics and local eating markets. But in order to cover their costs, the prices of these products does have to be higher. Estate tax limits are high enough that most family farmers do not have to worry about this.
        • Olfster, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1My point is that I want a tax system that makes the wealthy pay taxes at the same percentage of wealth generated as I do. This passive income BS has got to go. Most farms are now corporations. Once it is a corporation and no longer a sole propritership or partnership then any gains made and passed through an estate should taxed accordingly. My preference would be as non-passive income like the majority of working Amercans have to pay their taxes. Pay your share. I do, so should the wealthy in this country. Just because you pay more in taxes does not mean you pay your share.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1ARE YOU STUPID.LOOK UP WHAT YOU WRITE BEFORE YOU WRITE IT MONGLOID!DONT BE AS STUPID AS ALL YOUR FRIENDS.WE REALLY NEED TO FIX OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM.WE NEED MORE SPECIAL ED!:)
      • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any idea what socialism is?
  • bluedig, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5wow, that is a lot of people
  • lickmylovepump, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2boring...
  • bluedig, on 05/19/2008, -5/+6Hope
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2503237165_906 ...
  • sryan8913, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10pics or it didn't happen...WAIT WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Q
  • c0deblue, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9wow the same story twice in the front page at the same time? good story but is that necessary?
  • SicKiller, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1I love OBAMA! I'm WHITE and I love OBAMA.

    I wear this shirt proudly - http://www.tshirtinferno.com/node/69
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -9/+6So now the obamabots have taken to making up phony "records" so they can break them?
  • Kaervek, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Now that's just damn cool.

    Proud of my town!
  • lhbaker, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Where's Waldo?
  • hanalex, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4http://www.filedropper.com/obama
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Dugg for having a pic of Megan Fox on your desktop
  • von8, on 05/19/2008, -13/+8Obama has the ideology of Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Your money is not your own...everything belongs to the government first and to you second.

    It's called socialism and it's coming to America.
    • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

      Obamaphiles, we live in a republic. Stop voting us into a democracy. Learn the difference between the two.
    • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4I saw a documentary on the internet (and collaborated by someone on the ron paul forums) that explained how taxes are just like somebody breaking into your house and holding a gun to your head while they pilfer your pockets! Nobody should have to pay taxes anywhere ever. Look how informed I am!
    • expo1001, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5It works pretty well in Europe, I hear. And everyone can finally get health care.
      • juankovo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Perhaps we should have the government pay for all of our food. That way everyone can get food! It's a basic human right, after all.
    • ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5In depth thought is like Kryptonite to you, isn't it? The rhetoric train left long ago. You might as well head back to the Ron Paul forums. They appreciate bland *****, and ignore reality. You should fit right in.
  • spamcrusher, on 05/19/2008, -11/+7The Obama spam bots have succeeded on getting two Obama articles on the front page about the same ***** thing. It's going to be a long four years of ***** sucking by the Digg bots once Obama wins.
    • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3A RuPaul supporter complaining about spam? How rich...
      • spamcrusher, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Even as a Ron Paul supporter his spam got on my nerves as well. However, the Ron Paul spam was nothing compared to the Obama salad tossing I see on Digg.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2YOU GOT IT BITCH:)
    • imgstacke, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1correction 8 years...
  • notsurewhen, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5So?
  • skippyoh, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5I didn't know this was going on. I'm pretty mad I missed out. Looks like everyone in Oregon was there.
  • rusty123jimi, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4I was there and it was awesome! Barack Obama FTW!!! =)
  • kingygk, on 05/19/2008, -10/+5Talk about mind numb robots. "We submit to the Great Obama." This country is seriously *****.
  • Scheissen, on 05/19/2008, -6/+175,000 obamaclones, screw your spam
  • expo1001, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Obama stopped at a Dairy Queen near Portland earlier today, and my Fiancé's parents and little sister got to meet him, his wife, and his son. My Fiancé's little sister is 14, and she said she thought his son was cute. They said Barack seemed like a really nice guy, and actually seemed like a real person.
    • MJDub, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Obama has two daughters and no son. o_O
    • imgstacke, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2That was just some random black family... geez..

      And your future sister in law has the fever...
  • Nubli, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I don't know which story to digg, this one or http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Draws_Record_Crowd_ ...
  • richpav, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I'm just hoping the Secret Service keeps him safe.
  • element1ne, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1obamapalooza!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.