Digg

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

McCain faces doubts among Republican conservatives

afp.google.com — The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, calculated that McCain had garnered no more than 45 percent of the Republican vote since January. Some vote for libertarian Texan Ron Paul, who has refused to quit the race and has racked up more than one million votes...

Bury

RonPaulNews 153 days ago, made popular 153 days ago

1327 diggs
digg it

472 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

LadyKofNYC, on 05/12/2008, -53/+95And if there hadn't been any voting fraud, McDouche would have garnered less than 25% of the Republican vote. How could he have gotten 45% of the vote with close to ZERO people on the ground supporting him?
- Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -63/+41Why is it that the biggest losers are the ones to shout "vote fraud" the loudest? I guess it never occurs to them that people outside of their immediate circle of supporters despise their pinhead candidate for some excellent reasons.
  - Liberty1776, on 05/12/2008, -34/+33Why don't you wake up, sheep?
    - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -11/+27Because we're not LARPers in some sort of nerdy conspiracy game. A healthy distrust of the government is one thing, assuming that people aren't full of ***** on every possible conspiracy is another.
      - WickedDrag0oN, on 05/12/2008, -8/+9Hey don't insult us LARPers we're more sane than that guy!!!
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10Then they came for the LARPers, and I didn't speak up.
    - thadizzle, on 05/12/2008, -12/+4Obviously, you suck at math and statistics.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -11/+7Obviously you didn't bother to look at the voting results in the primaries.
    - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3I should ask you the same question.
  - stienster, on 05/12/2008, -12/+22what are those "excellent reasons"?
  - Observant1, on 05/12/2008, -13/+22buried as Herkspeak.
    - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -7/+9Did you coin that term? If you don't mind, I will likely borrow that sometime.
    - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -13/+9Go ahead, he stole it from someone else. You people rarely have an original thought.
      - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -7/+7More Herk speak.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3Thank you for making my point, moron.
  - thepretext, on 05/12/2008, -5/+18He has a point, dunno why he's being dugg down. I wen to the Hillary forum for kicks after she lost North CarolIna and they were all shouting fraud.
    - rabidg00se, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Oh man so did I, hillaryis44.org was on fire.
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -8/+6I didn't know women could get herpes from their cats.
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5Lotta racist catladies on digg tonight, I see. Howdy HI44!
  - rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11Get real. Talk to real people and most don't even know who Ron Paul is. That's not fraud.
    - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -6/+10Thank the big media for that. But wait, many Paul-haters debate me saying that EVERYONE knows who Paul is and they just don't like him or his policies. Which is it?
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -9/+8Mainstream America doesn't know him.
        
        Online, EVERYONE has heard of Paul through the actions of his minions. The majority of those people don't like him either.
      - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4I have found that most people don't like him out of some sort of irrational fear that if the government is cut back they will somehow be worse off. I guess there has been a good long run job done by the government to make people truly dependent. Government cripples people then hands out a crutch and folks believe since they got the crutch, the government is some benevolent entity. Funny.
      - chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2"I have found that most people don't like him out of some sort of irrational fear that if the government is cut back they will somehow be worse off."
        
        That's because Paul is a psychopath with retarded ideas such as abolishing the FDA and letting big pharm set up their own replacement.
      - djholybolt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Paul is no Psychopath. He's a Constitutionalist. He believes in the foundations that this country was built on when the declaration was signed. IT WAS A DECLARATION OF FREEDOM. He only wants to correct the mistake that have occurred over the last 100 years.
  - trumpydumpy, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6"pinhead candidate"
    Someone's been watching O'Reilly too much...
  - LumpyRevolution, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Ummmm.... I was actually in New Hampshire at the recount. It was full of phony ballots. Wake up and smell the Nazi state.
  - PhilLesh69, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Because the people who win have no reason to shout vote fraud, maybe?
- Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -48/+24Your candidate lost. Get over it. Ron Paul followers are the only ones I see bitching--you don't see Romney or Giuliani supporters whining.
  - jaalin, on 05/12/2008, -13/+24romney or guiliani supporters dont use the internet lol
    - DOCKAUF55, on 05/12/2008, -7/+19That's because Rommney and Giuliani had no ideas. They were simply the same ***** in different packages. Ron Paul is still the only truly conservative running.
      
      ***** THE NEOCONS!
    - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -20/+13Ron Paul had no ideas. He was just re-working policy from 200 years ago to try to make it in the modern world. Fortunately for the country he lost and we'll never have to face the nightmare of a Ron Paul presidency.
      - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9HERKSPEAK
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -9/+5MORONSPEAK
      - djholybolt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0HERESY!
        'he was just re-working policy from 200 years ago'
        
        umm... that's because that's where we should still be. It's a shame that over the 200 years the constitution has been around it's been used to whipe ass instead of whoop ass.
    - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4I was a Romney supporter, jaalin.
  - PhilLesh69, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1There has to be supporters, in the first place.
- wonderchemist, on 05/12/2008, -5/+34Some people just punch the bubble of the person they dislike the least.
  Some people just punch the bubble of the person with the name that sounds familiar.
  Some people just punch the bubble of the person with a certain party next to their name.
  Some people just punch the bubble of a random person.
  - t0x2c, on 05/12/2008, -9/+26And then there are the select few that actually know the candidates and vote for who they think will be the best next president.
    - mcberg182, on 05/12/2008, -3/+29I don't understand what you mean.
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -6/+12We must vote for the 'popular' one, because they're gonna win! Everybody says so, anyways...
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -12/+7"We must vote for the 'popular' one, because they're gonna win! Everybody says so, anyways..."
        
        People grounded in reality and interested in "winning", yes.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -15/+9pig, you're the one who voted for the guy your stoner buddies told you about. I've seen enough of your comments here to realise that you have no idea who Ron Paul is or what he stands for.
      - onetimer, on 05/12/2008, -15/+8@peppermentpig
        
        God I hate that self righteous "oh yeah we're NOT voting for the *popular* candidates" ***** line I hear from you guys. If you want to vote for the candidate you believe in (whoever it may be), fine. But don't chastise someone if they are voting for a candidate that they think has a realistic chance of winning. Your reasons for voting for whoever you want isn't any better than their reason. It's a non-factor and it's ridiculous people bring it up at all (typical adolescent "against the grain, rebellious anti-authority statement" BS if you ask me)
      - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -9/+12Yeah, listen to Onetimer, vote for who the media tells you is going to win!
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -7/+12"Yeah, listen to Onetimer, vote for who the media tells you is going to win!"
        
        Paul can't even win the majority on a single state, though. It's not like they're 100% incorrect here.
      - vault, on 05/12/2008, -11/+6kemp you know what's funny? How you're both a Ronbot AND named after a type of SHEEP's wool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemp_(wool)
      - card51short, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9"But don't chastise someone if they are voting for a candidate that they think has a realistic chance of winning. "
        
        Nooooo...by all means vote for whoever you think is going to win so you can be the BIG WINNER!!!
        We are going to vote who we think is the best candidate for the job...not who is most likely to win lol
      - chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1"We are going to vote who we think is the best candidate for the job...not who is most likely to win lol"
        
        That's never been a good idea in the history of politics.
      - djholybolt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0@Chaosium:
        'That's never been a good idea in the history of politics.'
        
        And that's why you're a sap and we get stuck with ***** presidents. Go vote for guiliani you *****
    - PhilLesh69, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I just wish that group were the majority. Too bad it's not.
  - GhostyBoy, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6I agree with all of that *and* I think there is rampant vote fraud.
- deadbaby, on 05/12/2008, -5/+22We live in the age of mass media. You don't need someone knocking on your door or giving a speech in your town to learn about a candidate anymore
  - PhilLesh69, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6Yeah, you can learn about him from a french news service that quotes a newspaper owned by the moonies.
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -52/+31Maybe it had something to do with the fact that all of McCain's competition was insane?
  
  #1) Huckabee was a radio preacher. Top of the crazy scale.
  
  #2) Mitt Romney belongs to a religion with magic underwear.
  
  #3) Ron Paul wants to roll back the federal government to the place where it was when we had child labor and the great depression.
  
  John McCain: Kind of a dildo, but at least he's sane.
  - macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -28/+23Sorry, you insulted Ron Paul - thus you will be dugg down to hell. That said, you're absolutely right - the Republican party didn't really have any viable candidates this year.
    - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -15/+4"the Republican party didn't really have any viable candidates this year."
      - Romney ran.
  - NeoConned08, on 05/12/2008, -14/+51what caused the great depression ass hat? The Federal Reserve did with it's loose monetary policy. The Roaring 20's was dubbed that due to the amount of liquidity the Federal Reserve had created, far above and beyond what the gold standard mandated at that point in time. It caused malinvestment and the bubble eventually busted. Guess what's happening now with the housing bubble. Perhaps READ Ron Paul's new book to find out how sane the guy actually is before you start mouthing off about economics, which you apparently know nothing about.
    - wejmahtin, on 05/12/2008, -9/+36Not a ron paul fan, but I have to agree 100% with NeoConned... ( great name btw ) .. Ron wanted to take us back to where we were *before* the federal reserve *created* the great depression.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -16/+13Yeah. Back to $20 a month salaries, no health care, no equal rights for minorities, unrestrained corporations raping the Earth and every person on it and a willingness to allow the weak to die and the poor to starve. Good thinking, bonehead.
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -15/+11I hate that Ron Paul has a whole generation of young people really excited about policies that would eventually have them (and their children) working in sweatshops and eating eating tainted food.
        
        Republican plan for government:
        
        1) Tell everyone that government sucks.
        2) Take control and make the government suck.
        3) Eliminate the government.
        4) Rape babies and eat the poor without any interference.
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -10/+7How was that Democrat-controlled Government working for us back in 1980, floss? With the exception of the first 2 years of the Clinton White House, we haven't had a Democrat-controlled Government since. Honestly, we are far better off now than we were in 1980, or 1994. And given that it's amazing since those pesky Republicans had the either the White House, both Chambers of Congress, or both for all but two of the past 27 years.
      - trumpydumpy, on 05/12/2008, -9/+7"$20 a month salaries" - yeah I'm pretty sure there were millionaires, and even billionaires in the 1920s.... nice try. who really cares what you make as long as products are cheap and there is no inflation?
        "no health care" - how was there no health care?
        "no equal rights for minorities" - when did Ron Paul say he wants to remove minority rights? he is a strict constitutionalist, meaning he would want to protect minority rights... nice try again.
        "unrestrained corporations raping the Earth and every person on it and a willingness to allow the weak to die and the poor to starve. Good thinking, bonehead." - you are trying to tell me that's not exactly what's going on right now?
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -9/+8You are an idiot, Dumpy. I'm not even going to begin to explain how stupid you are. I am getting tired and don't want to be up for a half hour typing a response to you that will go in one ear and out the other. Good night.
      - trumpydumpy, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9Right... just call me an idiot, call me stupid. Don't post a response, because you would actually have to think in order to do that. Name calling is much easier, and doesn't require any sort of logic or maturity. I find it funny you continue to get away with calling people idiots and stupid, I'm sure you've been reported countless times. You must know someone who works at digg, or something, because I've never seen someone blatantly troll so continuously without getting banned.
      - theright, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6Just as an aside, interesting to note that trumpydumpy here is a 9/11 denier in his spare time. It never cease to amaze me how every paranoid delusional member of the 9/11 denial movement just so happens to support Ron Paul.
    - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -18/+24Yeah, yeah- the fed. reserve played a role in the great depression, but it wasn't the sole cause- and the fed. reserve has done a good job keeping the economy stable and prosperous ever since.
      
      The point is, Ron Paul wants to return to a Laissez-Faire government, but we know that such a government was doomed to fail. Corporate power CAN'T be fought without a strong government, and the national economy can't compete internationally unless the federal government is holding the reigns.
      
      Paul talks pretty about states rights, but it will lead to oppression of the working class, and collapse of the economy, as unchecked corporate greed favors immediate profits over stability of the system.
      
      But hey, keep on digging me down- I don't care as long as the electorate keeps digging Ron Paul down.
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -7/+16"and the fed. reserve has done a good job keeping the economy stable and prosperous ever since."
        
        Since going off gold backing, the dollar is now worth ~4 cents. So far so good, eh? Is this your definition of stable and prosperous??
        
        "The point is, Ron Paul wants to return to a Laissez-Faire government, but we know that such a government was doomed to fail."
        
        Do we, really? Does chaos ensue every time two people come to an agreement and exchange goods without paying the state for the privilege of doing business?
        
        Corporate power exists as a consequence of government, because corporations are government recognized entities.
        
        Rich people are rich, and poor people are poor, and that's not fair. That's about the simplest way I can describe the argument of class. Labels like this don't explain why people are rich, or poor, nor do they give respect to people as individuals able to exceed beyond the labels you give them.
      - caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -10/+15Flossdaily, we see that you always digg down Ron Paul and always protect Israel. So the two are linked and you oppose Ron Paul because he is the one candidate who will not guarantee automatic American service to Israel.
        We are not responsible for maintaining Israel.
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -13/+10PeppermintPig: Since the great depression, under the fed reserve we became the greatest economic power in the world. Our recent falling dollar is a drop in the bucket. Corporate power exists because of money, not government. Laissez-Faire governments only make sense in true Meritocracies- and US isn't one, no matter how much we like to pretend that it is.
        
        caferrell: My dislike of Ron Paul has nothing to do with Israel. And by the way we DON'T maintain Israel- the relationship is mutually beneficial.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -13/+8Oh, look! Another bigot!
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -6/+7@Herkimer56: That was for caferrell, right?
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -11/+2@flossdaily
        
        I'd call caferrell a bigot. But I'd also call you one after the sweeping generalizations you have made on this page. You are reminding me of this user in a way.
        http://digg.com/users/Ell3
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6@jcm267:
        
        bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
        
        I haven't displayed hate or intolerance, I have no prejudices, and I'm not intolerantly or obstinately devoted to my own opinions.
        
        Sorry, you can call me a lot of things, but bigot doesn't apply.
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -9/+2You have demonstrated the same intolerance for all things Republican that Ell3 has shown for all things liberal. From what I have seen, I think that bigot does apply in your case.
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3"You have demonstrated the same intolerance for all things Republican"
        
        So what? People have the right to see Republican ideas as bad for fairly different reasons than seeing Paul ideas as bad.
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6We have great advances in business and technology IN SPITE of what the government and federal reserve have done to harm the economy.
        
        "Corporate power exists because of money, not government."
        Since we seem to like using definitions:
        Corporation -
        An artificial entity created under and governed by the laws of the state of incorporation.
        
        A legal entity created by the registration of appropriate incorporating documents with the supervising government office. May be private (ownership held by specific individuals and not traded on a public stock exchange) or public (shares traded on stock exchange).
        
        In feudal Europe, corporations were aggregations of business interests in compact, usually with an explicit license from city, church, or national leaders. These functioned as effective monopolies for a particular good or labor.
        
        Form of doing business pursuant to a charter granted by a state or federal government. Corporations typically are characterized by the issuance of freely transferable capital stock, perpetual life, centralized management, and limitation of owners' liability to the amount they invest in the business.
        
        ... Corporations, not merely businesses. There's more to it than just money.
        
        "Laissez-Faire governments only make sense in true Meritocracies- and US isn't one, no matter how much we like to pretend that it is."
        
        Your use of the word government is a contradiction here. Besides, the free market is not about forcing a new way through politics, but rather resisting all sources of force, be they common thieves or the elected kind.
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4So, chaosium, what common ground do you have with the Republican Party?
      - jcm267, on 05/12/2008, -7/+9@ pig
        
        Would you at the very least admit that Government funded research in nuclear and space technology, the Internet, and medicine have been economically beneficial to the United States?
      - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5"So, chaosium, what common ground do you have with the Republican Party?"
        
        I don't see much common ground with the Party of today. I'm a social liberal and find the dem offerings if not smaller in governmental scope than the reps, certainly better managed. I'm certain you disagree, but my disagreement with their policies is generally less severe than a fully "free-market" and restrictionless economy. No FDA, no oversight, not even the underfunded and cronied ones we've got today.
      - Herkimer56, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6@flossdaily
        It certainly was. Sorry for the confusion.
    - haiduz, on 05/12/2008, -19/+18you paultards are so stupid. The great depression was largely cause by everybody speculating investments. Poeple would take out loans and gamble short term on the stock market. This greatly inflated the stock prices, until they all collapsed and no one oculd pay back their loans. that was the principal cause, not the federal reserve.
      
      In fact is you go to wikipedia, the great depression talks about how if the federal reserve had more power, it could have averted the great depression altoghether:
      "By not acting, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply as measured by the M2 to shrink by one-third from 1929 to 1933. Friedman argued[11] the downward turn in the economy starting with the stock market crash would have been just another recession. The problem was that some large, public bank failures, particularly the Bank of the United States, produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and that the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks fell. He claimed if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did and the money supply would not have fallen to the extent and at the speed that it did."
      
      Stop telling us to buy Ron Paul's book. That would be like me telling everyone to buy The Communist Manifesto to see how sane karl marx was. The gold standard is the biggest joke, at least john mccain understands ecomonics enough to see what a stupid idea that is. And btw, since youre a gold standard ron paul supporter, i will automatically assume youre a truther too. fyi, the government didnt cause 9/11
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -12/+9They don't care about the nuances of the argument. They only care that Ron Paul is a rebel.
        
        What they don't understand is that all of Ron Paul's GOOD ideas about civil liberties are actually LIBERAL ideas that they can get from voting for any democrat (even Hillary).
        
        And all of Ron Paul's BAD ideas about economics they can get by building a time machine and traveling back to the early 1900s and voting for any candidate they want.
      - JigoroKano, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7That's not completely accurate though floss. Hillary doesn't have a good civil liberties record on guns and drugs.
      - MrCobaltBlue, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
      - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2^^^^^ lulz
    - rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -11/+12Sorry to rain on your parade, but the Gold Standard was a big contributor to the Great Depression. The Fiat System was created to allow more flexibility to currency.
      
      Either way, we can't go back to the gold standard because there is only about $4 trillion dollars' worth of gold in the world, and we have twice that just in the U.S. economy. If we wanted a currency backing, we would have to go to something new.
      - kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7The fiat system was created basically because the US Government defaulted on its international gold obligation due to overspending.
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Stupid Digg comments system. This one's directed to jcm.
        
        "@ pig
        
        Would you at the very least admit that Government funded research in nuclear and space technology, the Internet, and medicine have been economically beneficial to the United States?"
        
        I certainly cannot admit to something I do not believe. But I should qualify my response by saying that the government didn't do anything that the private sector couldn't have done on its own. Regulation is the reason why the government was able to do some of these things before the private sector, such as developing nuclear power.
        
        The internet was not entirely a creation of the government.
        
        The space program is bloated. That's not the same thing as saying I oppose space exploration. Now that the nationalist inspiration has faded, space exploration seems to have taken a back seat to more war and the growth of domestic social programs.
        
        Medicine?
      - KMye, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1"Regulation is the reason why the government was able to do some of these things before the private sector, such as developing nuclear power."
        
        Umm, you really think the private sector could and would have put as much or more into nuclear technology and infrastructure development than the government did? Over even close to the same time frame?
    - matador3, on 05/12/2008, -5/+12"The Fiat System was created to allow more flexibility to currency."
      
      Yes, and that flexibility allowed the the short sharp corrections under the gold standard to become massive bubbles that are devastating when they burst. You can argue that the Federal Reserve system is better and we're better off 'smoothing things over' and dealing with bubbles rather than having constant corrections and less economic growth under the gold standard; but you can't possibly argue that the gold standard had anything to do with causing the Depression.
  - BrewmasterC, on 05/12/2008, -8/+27Ron has advocated pulling back to year 2000 spending levels. I don't think that is quite "great depression", which was caused by the federal reserve in the first place...
    - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -4/+22Democrat Woodrow Wilson I will add. He also is responsible for unlawfully instituting the federal income tax.
      - caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -7/+14Woodrow Wilson was the worst President in the history of these United States of America. (He may be overshadowed by George Bush the younger)
        Wilson was responsible for the income tax, the Federal Reserve Bank and the Treaty of Versailles that basically guaranteed that World War I would soon be followed by another global conflagration.
        He was an intellectual, overly sure of himself. Now we have a moron who is equally overly sure of himself
      - rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -7/+10The 16th amendment. Please read it.
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -7/+9Federal Income Tax is not illegal. Here is the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
        
        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
      - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -8/+10and now show me the states' voting roll that made it an amendment..... What's that? It was never legally ratified? Oh yeah......
      - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -5/+8@TonyLocNE. It was ratified, dumbass. Here's the voting roll you requested:
        
        According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:
        
        1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
        2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
        3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
        4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
        5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
        6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
        7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
        8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
        9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
        10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
        11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
        12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
        13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
        14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
        15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
        16. California (January 31, 1911)
        17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
        18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
        19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
        20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
        21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
        22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
        23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
        24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
        25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
        26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
        27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
        28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
        29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
        30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
        31. New York (July 12, 1911)
        32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
        33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
        34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
        35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
        36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
        
        Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
        
        37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
        38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
        39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
        40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
        41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
        42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
      - chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Libertarian response: "Nuh uh!"
      - KMye, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Man, I hadn't seen the "It wasn't ratified" argument for the 16th before. Do Paulestinians use that argument for every amendment they don't like?
      - chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3"Man, I hadn't seen the "It wasn't ratified" argument for the 16th before. Do Paulestinians use that argument for every amendment they don't like?"
        
        "It's not in the constitution" is easy for amateur constitutionalists like Paul and his culties.
    - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -14/+13Once again, the fed reserve played a ROLL in the great depression, but they weren't the sole cause. Another contributor was the Gold Standard, which paul want's to reinstate.
      - caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -9/+11Just what kind of roll did they play? Was it a poppy seed roll, or maybe a sweet roll?
        
        Usually when someone is involved in a given action, their participation is referred to as their ROLE
        
        Also, the third person, singular, present tense conjugation of the verb to want is wants, by adding an apostrophe you have created a word that is very rare and quite difficult to use correctly.
      - PeppermintPig, on 05/12/2008, -7/+6I agree, they played a roll. This video should explain everything:
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzMMm39RG6M
- reed311, on 05/12/2008, -16/+46I love how on Digg, people can make sweeping statements with absolutely no facts to back them up and they get dugg. The vote fraud thing would have been a conspiracy beyond comprehension. It would have included every small town clerk (my mom being one of them) in on the conspiracy. The small town clerks (who hand count their votes) would all have had to been in on the conspiracy to take votes away from Ron Paul. There are thousands of small towns and small town clerks, if this was the case somebody would have talked by now.
  
  It's simply not realistic. It would be one of thing if Paul was winning every small town in America, or he was at least doing a lot better than his usual 5%. But, essentially, you would be accusing my mother of throwing away Ron Paul votes in a small town in Maine where he got less than 3% of the vote.
  - t0x2c, on 05/12/2008, -6/+30Your mom's a conspirator.
    - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -11/+8That's it, she's going down.
      
      CFR TRAITORS, ALL YOUR MOTHERS.
  - spacedog800, on 05/12/2008, -13/+9It doesn't work like that. Read/Listen to Greg Palast, and investigative reporter for the BBC. He has emails from the RNC back in the 04 election where they have "Caging Lists" targeting specific demographics in certain regions (illegal) that primarily vote dem. The scam works by throwing out hundreds of thousands of legitmate votes by branding them as criminals or suspect voter addresses.
    http://www.gregpalast.com/purging-the-purgers/
    - rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6Except that the caging was against BLACK PEOPLE. Because black people vote democrat. They didn't do it against possible RP supporters. So please pull your head out of your own ass, stop rationalizing and believing that America agrees with you, and shut up.
    - spacedog800, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I agree with you. Thats the point I was trying to make.
  - muckemuck, on 05/12/2008, -7/+10here... go watch this.. make sure you watch the last 10 mins or so when they do the mock election
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4463776866 ...
    .. and go spend some time reading on blackboxvoting.org
    and.. you do know that in one county in NH a woman was caught doing exactly what you describe? She "mistakenly" put down 0 votes for Paul when he had actually gotten votes. ? Just because your mom is honest doesn't mean everyone else is.
    - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -12/+5Please explain why anyone would waste anytime committing voter fraud against Ron Paul? No one votes for the guy. Seriously, man. Do you really think Ron Paul has a shot in hell at winning anything? It would be a waste of time and effort to do that.
  - dgarry7, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5Your mom is one of those bluehairs w/ an Order of the Eastern Star bumper sticker? Yes, I do believe that there is a secret network that spreads out over this country (indeed the world) like an octopus that acts as one when the command is given.
    - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3MAAAASSSSSOOOOOOONNNNNNSSSSSSSS
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -14/+7absolutely retarded. I'm going to write an article about how Barack Obama faces doubts among democrats since almost half of em chose hillary.
  you ***** hypocrites. to all of you harping on this, stop making democrats ***** look bad with your stupidity.
  - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -10/+5It's more the Paulsies who care and are harping on this, not Dems.
    - djholybolt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0WRONG
- PerfectV, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9Every time I see A McCain Rally there are about 15 people there. How could it be? All these people vote yet no one shows up at the rally?
  - MrCobaltBlue, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6All his supporters are old war vets who think he's taking care of them.
  - korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Kerry had some great rallies too. Then all the people didn't bother to vote on election day. If half the kids 18-24 who'd gone to those rallies had voted he would have won.
- kingm1k3, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8I know that when I went to vote in the PA republican primary, they gave me a "sample ballot" which of course ONLY had McCain and his delegates listed on it, as if he's the only choice. Then of course you have uninformed Joe Schmo show up on voting day because he wants to feel good about himself and what else can you expect to happen?
- tomasII, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3Ah yes, another paranoid delusion.
drmobutu, on 05/12/2008, -12/+39Oops, McCain isn't conservative enough? Don't worry, the Reverend Moon will tell you who to vote for...
- PhilLesh69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Yes. Sung Myung Moon owns the Washington Times. Or actually, he owns Newsworld, which owns the Wash Times and the company I worked for up til march of last year, UPI.
  
  Neocons are not conservatives, though. Just consider that they will align themselve with a guy who claims that he spoke to Jesus on a mountainside in South Korea, and that Jesus told him to unify all of the world religions in preparation for the second coming. Obviously that fits nicely with the other rapture nuts in the neocon sub-party.
  
  By the way, this story is from AFP, does anyone know what AFP stands for? Agence France Presse. It is the French AP or UPI or Reuters.
- noprtyaff, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1All three of the remaining candidates leave a lot to be desired. It truly amazes me that these three are the three remaining. The best and the brightest are clearly not serving in U.S. government. http://donfeder.com/articles/0802Mc-Psycho.htm Have a nice day.
  - djholybolt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0ERM... FOUR remaining candidates
    (poor ron paul)
- LukasSmith, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Noprtyaff I agree with you. Unfortunatly you are on digg.com where the Obama fanatics slave day and night to purify the holy name of Obama. They have built Obama up so high when he falls it should be quite entertaining. Because I can tell you Obama sure as hell isn't the messiah. To be fair none of the other candidates were or are particularly great. But OBama is the great hype. If he does fall he will be treated to a Ron Paul special. His name will never be mentioned again.
jana67, on 05/12/2008, -53/+162McCain will falter...He does not represent the American Conservative. "War hero" image is a media creation not supported by the facts:

McCain graduated 894th of the 899 cadets in his class at the Naval Academy. Google it. Why would we want someone who was a failure and took his responsibilities so flippantly as our commander-in-chief?

* McCain was an irresponsible pilot who crashed 6 planes, and started a major fire on an aircraft carrier through negligent action. Why would we want someone this reckless in the most-important office on the planet?

* McCain collaborated with the enemy, was given "soft" treatment because his father was an admiral, and is known as "Songbird McCain" by those who were imprisoned with him. (Vietnam Veterans Against McCain) He is the MIA/POW family's worst enemy for his constant attempts to belittle their concerns and stifle their inquiries while serving in the Senate.

McCain ditched his ill wife to marry an heiress when he returned from Vietnam http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/110 ...
http://www.squidoo.com/groups/RonPaulRevolution
- Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -30/+60Remember the whole "Swift Boat" thing? I didn't question Kerry's service and don't question McCain's. Both did a hell of a lot more for their country than you likely ever will, and spreading ***** like this is moronic.
  
  For example, the fire was not McCain's fault. He was almost killed in that incident. As for his flying, I'd like to see you land on a carrier before you bitch about his flying prowess.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fi ...
  
  The "soft treatment" is still harsher than anything you or I have ever experienced. "Soft treatment" was when McCain was given medical treatment for his wounds after they found out who his father was. McCain is permanently physically debilitated from this "soft treatment" you speak of.
  
  Anyway, in summary, you're a liar and you're pathetic. Give it up.
  - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -15/+37"Remember the whole "Swift Boat" thing? I didn't question Kerry's service and don't question McCain's. Both did a hell of a lot more for their country than you likely ever will, and spreading ***** like this is moronic."
    
    Yep. I'm a Dem and I don't want to see anyone attacking McCain's military career either.
    
    Again, it completely ***** misses the point to this election.
    - Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -6/+13Agreed. It should be about the issues. II was appalled with how some people treated John Kerry. Shameful tactics no matter who uses them.
      - bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6oh like reverend wright? or how about how they are calling him an elitist? or how about how they seem to focus on his middle name being hussien?
    - isparadiselost, on 05/12/2008, -18/+17If you plan to wrap yourself in the flag to garner attention via your alleged heroics, you'd better have them to back you up. If not, you're better off letting sleeping dogs lie.
      
      Both Kerry and McCain are disgraces to the uniforms they wore. The evidence is overwhelming in both cases.
      - InspectorGadget, on 05/12/2008, -10/+9You're an idiot.
      - kipmartin, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9overwheming? hardly. by the way, the biology teacher called and needs that pickled brain back.
  - isparadiselost, on 05/12/2008, -15/+11"Anyway, in summary, you're a liar and you're pathetic. Give it up."
    
    You proved neither. Try again using logic and perhaps a touch of rationale. Ad hominem ***** stinks like your breath.
    - OffPiste, on 05/12/2008, -6/+5Pot!!!!!
    - bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -6/+1dugged up for pointing out how picaroon missed the swift boat.
  - sa9e, on 05/12/2008, -7/+13You nailed it, Picaroon.
  - MrCobaltBlue, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Great thing about Wikipedia? Anyone can edit it.
- str1fe, on 05/12/2008, -14/+20Americans like making war heroes President (see Washington, Taylor, Eisenhower). Unfortunately, many people see McCain as one. I hate McCain for the same reason I hate Kerry: a tarnished military record.
  - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8Someone with your desired credentials wouldn't have the desire to seek higher office. They generally make it to the lower levels and see themselves content to help their constituents locally, rather than selling themselves on "personality".
    - isparadiselost, on 05/12/2008, -7/+6I'm guessing you have done the same service for your country as these brave veterans have?: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
      
      I thought not.
      - TinternAbbot, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6That website simultaneously claims that McCain received "soft treatment" and that because he was subjected to 5 1/2 years of harsh psychological torture. Which is it?
      - bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2well one has to be true, and both suck. Either he's insane or a pretty boy who got it easy. Or is he lying about the whole POW incident?
  - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -16/+10Kerry's military record wasn't tarnished until republicans started shelling out big bucks to people to have it tarnished.
    - TinternAbbot, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Ehh...
  - kipmartin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5how about some proof of the tarnished records?
  - sa9e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Neither one of them had a "tarnished record" factually speaking, unless you include Kerry's denunciations of active military during Vietnam as war criminals "reminiscent of Genghis Khan".
    - dollar0dot02, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0Washingon, Taylor, Eisenhower won their wars. So how many wars did Kerry and McCain win? Possibly this is what str1fe meant when he wrote tarnished record.
    - publiclurker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"reminiscent of Genghis Khan".
      Worst misspelling of Mai Lai ever.
  - jonesin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1His military career doesn't matter at all anyway. Our country is falling apart, we need somebody who can build countries, not destroy them
  - JoeVet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The only thing that tarnished Kerry or McCain's military career is they became career politicians.
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -18/+21McCain's only notable military accomplishment is being caught by the enemy. I'm sure that more than qualifies him to be Commander and Chief.
  - Picaroon, on 05/12/2008, -7/+20False. His war record is easily readable by anyone.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Military_ ...
    - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -12/+15Sorry, I take it back. McCain's only notable military accomplishments were being caught by the enemy, crashing a crapload of jets, and bombing civilians from the air.
    - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I shouldn't have been dugg up for that. I was being a wise ass.
      
      Listen, McCain served his country proudly, but nothing about that service indicates that he has any strategic skills or special knowledge that would make him a good military leader.
  - knumbknuts, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2Holy ***** *****, you are the dumbest ***** on tah Intranets. Congrats. There can be only one.
  - PhilLesh69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2"Commander and Chief"????
    
    Is your favorite song, "Hey mister tangerine man" or do you use the phrase "for all intensive purposes"???
    
    It is "Commander IN Chief".
    - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, you've never made a typo before?
- swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -16/+12The best part of the McCain candidacy is Karl Rove already dug up the best dirt on him when he lost to Bush in 2000...did you hear he fathered an illegitimate black baby?
  - PhilLesh69, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1But see, even though it isn't true, that now works in his favor, this time around ... anyone feeling white guilt can vote for McCain with a clear conscience because they aren't voting against a black candidate, they are voting for a candidate who is the father of a black child.
- gtluke, on 05/12/2008, -7/+31dude you just made half that ***** up or are posting some seriously stretched crap there.
  he received "soft" treatment because they were afraid that if they killed him there would be serious repercussions for killing an admiral's son.
  he didn't start the fire on the USS forrester, his plane or the one next to it was hit by the malfunctioned missile. he got horribly burned dragging another pilot from a burning plane
  they beat confessions out of him
  - isparadiselost, on 05/12/2008, -12/+7Links to support your allegations?
    - InspectorGadget, on 05/12/2008, -9/+8Burden of proof is on you, smearmonger. For *****'s sake, sitting at home masturbating into a crusty sock while playing CoD4 does not qualify you to play armchair general.
    - RepubOperative, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8The information is in the following document
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fi ...
    - SouthsideIrish, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Go watch the History Channel TV show, and you will see a missle going off and impacting McCain's airplane. All in beautiful b/w. Don't take wikipedia for the evidence, just get the program and see it.
  - IphtashuFitz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Forrestal, not forrester
  - muckemuck, on 05/12/2008, -10/+6might look into why that missle was fired.. you'll find something about the afterburner on McCain's plane in there. Whether it was intentional or not (i.e. the pilot in the other plane was pissed off that McCain would flame him OR some sort of mechanical hiccup) will probably never be answered though.
    - SouthsideIrish, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Again, watch the History Channel program. Much of the fire, including this accident is in there, in beautiful B/W. The incident was filmed, by the Navy, when it happened
- Sogui, on 05/12/2008, -3/+32This got 45 Diggs when most of these are either fabrications, irrelevant, or the wife thing, a complete lie.
  
  His "ill wife" and he were separated for many years and the divorce was a mutual decisions (not ditched) and even to today his ex-wife supports him and his candidacy.
  - muckemuck, on 05/12/2008, -9/+5proof? otherwise I'll believe the original comment since none of what he said is new and I've never seen any of it disproven.
    - KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9I like how if HE doesn't provide YOU with proof, that you will just believe the later. Why not look ***** up for yourself? Why do people find it so hard to do their own research and make up their own minds?
    - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9Where is the original posters proof? I really wish I knew why people liked you existed. You bring absolutely nothing to the table of life beside *****.
  - mal1964, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sheep are not perfect, Like us they have flaws.
  - Xcel, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I too would support my ex-husband if he was going to become President..
- mal1964, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11"War hero image"
  Its real not an image, Because real hero's are human and have flaws. Just like you and me.
  PS That's a ***** attack in my book.
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -9/+3mccain is our next president.
  - Wartyboskfapped, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Keep repeating it over and over, like a mantra 'there's no place like home! there's no place like home!' and maybe it will come true! Republican magical thinking, it's how they won the Iraq war!
- SouthsideIrish, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11Look douchebag, of all of the things he has done, he did not start a fire the USS Forrestal. Thar accident was on the history channel, and his airplane is the one that got shot with a missile. The film is all in beautiful b/w and he was sitting there minding his own business when his plane blew. Get it right! I dislike him too, but don't blame him for things he didn't do, especially when it is in a History Channel TV show.
- Feep, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7My roommate's father served with McCain in the navy, and labeled him as, and I quote directly here, a "***** douchebag". Just...you know, food for thought.
  - mal1964, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Was he a pilot also?, Most non-flying sailors would say similar things about all pilots.
    - DeskFlyer, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Not really. The captain of our ship was a veteran pilot and he was probably the coolest person I ever met while in the service. Dude used to go out drinking with us and all. I think that prevented him from making admiral.
      - mal1964, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah I really don't mean "all" but that's what i typed. I was waiting for you. lol
      - IphtashuFitz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3All air craft carrier captains are pilots. The navy made that decision long ago since the primary purpose of the carrier is flight operations. It makes much more sense to have a commanding officer that knows from personal experience what the pilots go through rather than somebody that's only sailed ships and can only assume what they do.
      - mal1964, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1@iphtashu, I love learning something new thats old, And i mean that in a good way. Thanks
  - poopdigger, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate
    - knumbknuts, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1What does that make us?
- DeskFlyer, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13I can't stand McCain, but claiming that he was responsible for the USS Forrestal disaster is simply ludicrous. Keep your attacks factual if you wish to have any shred of credibility.
- Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8You should be ashamed. How can you, in your right mind, say this about the man? If you don't his politics or him personally; that's fine. But to sit there and belittle his military accomplishments is a down-right disgrace. The man served his country in Vietnam and sat in a POW camp for years. I guess torture someone to the point where they can't raise their arms over there head is considered easy treatment. That has nothing to do with how skillful a pilot he was. And as for that other crap you posted; Ridiculous. You are a sick and pathetic human being. You and every unpatriotic clown who dugg you up are the epitome of what is wrong with the world today.
  - publiclurker, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2We're using the phrase enhanced interrogation now days. Didn't you get the memo?
  - gadgetlust, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1"You and every unpatriotic clown who dugg you up are the epitome of what is wrong with the world today."
    
    I think there are quite a few sane people in the world who would beg to differ.
- poopdigger, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12+58 diggs on this comment honestly makes digg look like a pile of conspiracy-theorist nuts who will believe anything that suits their cause.
  - BobEwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Thats because it is.
  - willaggs, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2we're at 90+ now... I'm never looking at another political story on digg again.
- willaggs, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8I might not support him, but a lot of what you say is disgusting. He was never given "soft" treatment for being the son of an admiral. IN FACT McCain REFUSED to leave the pow camp, even after being given the offer, unless the rest of his men were freed as well.
  
  The man is a ***** war hero and no matter how you view his policies he should always admired for his sacrifice and loyalty.
  
  You ought to be ashamed for saying things like that.
- Nanite, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Wow, this proves that Republican are not above Swift-boating their own ranks. And the Ron Paul fans digg it to the moon!
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11Buried for outright lies.
jaymzdean, on 05/12/2008, -6/+41Some of my friends are Columbian, and some of my friends are Mexican. The "Ignorant American" assumption to meeting someone from either group (Columbian or Mexican) is that they are Mexican. This is basically what's happened to the Republican party. You have the neoconservatives, who hold the power, and the conservatives, who don't hold the power (any more - not since sometime before Ronald Reagan). But, because Americans are an ignorant bunch (generally), they see (R) and immediately assume they're conservative. Ask a confirmed conservative if there's a difference, but be prepared for an earful.
- chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -5/+22There's an academic difference, but the GOP and the conservative newsorgans aren't interested in traditional conservatism.
  
  It's hard to make a profit on.
  - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Sorry.. Bury this, I misread what you said at first and had already posted a comment.
- flavioribeiro, on 05/12/2008, -1/+30Excellent point. Unfortunately, people aren't completely wrong to equate Republican with Neoconservative, because the true conservatives are a minority. The ignorant American's generalization is a correct generalization, even if it's unfair to honest republicans out there.
  
  Many people in the Ron Paul camp are trying to retake control of the GOP, starting at the local level. Others in the conservative movement advocate abandoning the GOP altogether, but with the current election rules this is political suicide. I'm all for a constitutionalist, true conservative takeover of the GOP.
  
  Also, people born in Colombia are Colombians.
  - rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3People in the Ron Paul camp aren't conservatives: they're libertarians. Please stop equating one for the other. Conservatives support economic freedom but frown on "non-traditional" behavior. Libertarians support personal and economic freedom but a much smaller government with no safety nets. Socially the two are extremely different.
    - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6"Conservatives support economic freedom but frown on "non-traditional" behavior. Libertarians support personal and economic freedom but a much smaller government with no safety nets. Socially the two are extremely different."
      
      So you're saying that Ron Paul is a conservative and not a libertarian, then.
- govsucks, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6" Ask a confirmed conservative if there's a difference, but be prepared for an earful." Oh yeah, the Republicrats no longer represent me. My wife is from Colombia, and she is very conservative, she has had enough socialists pushing her and her family around to last a lifetime. Nobody deserves another hole in the head like a socialist
- exomni, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3I'm sorry, so in this analogy which are the evil neoconservatives: "the ignorant Mexicans" or the Columbians?
- RebeL5K, on 05/12/2008, -1/+10I love how in your attempts to bitch about Americans making sweeping generalities, you hypocritically proceed to generalize that most Americans are ignorant. Way to go, Ace.
  - expatcatalyst, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3I for one am about sick to death of that sweeping generalization! Just because I'm American doesn't make me ignorant anymore than being white makes me prejudice!
- ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5And yet you keep voting Republican.
  - korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2most closely suited of two crappy options.
    - chaosium, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1And the ones that leave you the worst off, let alone the rest of the country.
- ohplease, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5
  Pardon my "ignorance", but do you mean Colombians? Or Canadians from British Columbia?
  - chaosium, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2He was implying the South American variety.
- HellDonut, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Honestly, if your friends are from Colombia, how can you even write "Columbians"? It's not "Columbia" neither in English nor in their native language.
dizilbdog, on 05/12/2008, -20/+62It's amazing how people think Mcain as a Republican is a good candidate. It's funny how Ron Paul offers more freedom and more liberty, and the people are like Uhm No we like being a slave in this corrupt system and we will take more with Mr. Mcain. It's just amazing to me
- sa9e, on 05/12/2008, -21/+12Ron Paul offers a losing ticket only.
  - dizilbdog, on 05/12/2008, -4/+16And Mcain is a Winning Ticket??? hahahahahahah
- silverharbinger, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6That's because most "conservative" Americans will claim that they hate "big government" and don't want their tax money thrown at social programs, but the truth is they don't really want to lose certain programs, and love the programs that benefit them. Bush Jr. is one of these "conservatives" running on supposedly wanting a smaller government, but what does he do in office? He cuts federal welfare spending down because that's not important to his voting base or constituencies, and creates a (lousy) perscription drug benefit for voters.. I mean seniors, a Department of Homeland Security, and a Department of Faith-based initiatives. I hear very few of these "conservatives" complaining about these programs, yet they go exactly against what they should be wanting. Oh, and let's not forget about the expanded spending in the US military and the contractors we are using to help fight the war. The fact is, what most modern conservatives want is small to no government involvement where it doesn't serve their interests (welfare, health care, public infrastructure), and virtually unlimited amounts doled out, even to the point of deficit spending, on the programs that suit them.
  
  It's not conservatism, it's hypocrisy.
  - mtekk, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13We have a term for them, I believe it is neocon
    - silverharbinger, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I understand that, but what I'm describing doesn't really fit the definition of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives are about using America's postion as a superpower to change global governance, and while it seems that most American "conservatives" want that, they also want selective social benefits created for programs that suit their beliefs and interests. This is not conservative policy nor is it truly neoconservative at all, and that's why the only word I can think of for it is hypocrisy. Call it whatever you like though.
      - dizilbdog, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Honestly I think the Republican's are more about Power than money now. I mean look at the Patriot Act, 911, they have more than enough money.
- mbraynard, on 05/12/2008, -10/+7How can you be so blind? We don't support Paul because he hasn't proven himself. He's a member of congress. We don't choose people like him to be prez and never have - regardless of what they think, policy-wise.
  
  He also has absolutely no command presence on a stage and can't give a good speech. Further, we have some pretty big policy differences with him on Iraq and foreign policy in general.
  - dizilbdog, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10So you policy is to just attack nations start wrongful wars, propaganda about the boogedy Al-Queda the Patriot Act which takes away your civil liberties guess you don't like freedom sir. You like marshall law sure you will love that. How about unconstitutional taxes you like that, and oh this stupid drug war where criminals have more power than the police. Should I got on People are Blind and you sir can go back to your Mcdonald's and Dr.Phil. and Oprah..
    - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -8/+0You are illiterate. Does the term "run-on sentence" mean anything to you?
  - randumbusername, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6ill give you the stage presence. but you have to give me obama stammers more than bush in a "back and forth". and you have to give me mccain is nothing without the "war hero" jacket. mccain is the republican john kerry. outside of "electibility" and "war hero" what is there? hell ill take colin powell.
    - mbraynard, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2McCain has always been reliable and consistent on a variety of issues that are important to me. Spending (see the latest farm bill where Obama is hiding his position), life, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. He is also worlds better to me than Obama, who has not demonstrated the kind of intellectual honesty on the campaign trail that I would find acceptable in a president.
    - sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1McCain will be much more effective, because he is less divisive, than Bush.
  - mbraynard, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2The Patriot Act has taken no liberties from me and the wars being fought now are just and necessary. I'd be interested in having a dialog with you but it would help if you took your meds first.
    - dizilbdog, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2When was the last time a person from Iraq attacked you on U.S or anyone from Afghanistan.
      - mbraynard, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1There are two answers (though it's not clear what you are asking).
        
        Answer 1: Leading up to the Iraq war, the Saddam regime regularly launched missiles at US aircraft in the region. He also executed a failed plot to kill President Bush. He refused to co-operate with weapons inspectors per his agreement that ended the earlier gulf conflict, and he was funding terrorist attacks in Israel where many Americans work and live.
        
        Answer 2: It doesn't matter. The US's foreign policy is to pre-empt attacks on our nation and on our neighbors. No first free hits (or first free dozen hits per the Clinton administration). All hostile foreign regimes will be knocked down, one way or another, one at a time.
gtluke, on 05/12/2008, -13/+22so, when mccain runs against hillary or obama who are the conservatives going to vote for?
he's not conservative enough, but he's a ***** ton less socialist than obama.
- govsucks, on 05/12/2008, -8/+14I swear I will vote for Obama out of pure spite for what the republicrats have done...watch me. Unless Paul is on the ballot. Then I can say ***** the Republicans AND vote for freedom.
  - calantus, on 05/12/2008, -5/+13write ron paul in...
- RebeL5K, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6McCain will be as socialist or anti-socialist as the polls say he needs to be.
- ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3True. But what are you more afraid of, Fascism or Socialism -- and I don't mean Communism.
TherealObadiah, on 05/12/2008, -25/+15Yep, the way I see it we have the Three Stooges running. McCain, a closet Democrat. Hillary the female Tony Soprano, and Hussein Obama, the extreme Marxist. Some choice.
- Doomxeen, on 05/12/2008, -5/+7Did you feel like you had a fine selection when you were voting in GWB in his first term? Not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious.
- kipmartin, on 05/12/2008, -7/+9brilliant political analysis. a Marxist, huh? you must be a college professor to have that kind of depth in your political analysis. i can see from your point of view, Huckabee looks like Fidel.
  
  you need therapy, dude.
- kayala, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4He doesn't go by his middle name, douchebag.
  - Robjayne, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2I thougt his middle name was Hussien !
    - kayala, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and his first name's Barack, and his last name's Obama. Get used to them. Do you want people to start calling you by your middle name? Seriously, it's rude, and what's more, it's the most pathetically obvious manipulation you idiots could come up with.
  - tomasII, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Why does that intimidate you?
    - kayala, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Haha, it totally intimidates me that a bunch of bible-thumping morons are trying to unconsciously link Obama's name with racist feelings against Middle Eastern men. More like you're wrong, you're manipulative and I'm simply pointing that out. Now go crawl back under your rock and let the adults talk.
OffPiste, on 05/12/2008, -36/+13Fact #1- Conservatives have issues with McCain.
Fact #2- Conservatives have MAJOR issues with Barry Hussein and Hitlery.

Only a fool would think a Conservative won;t vote for McCain in the general.
- isparadiselost, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12I won't vote for McCain. There goes your theory. We can still write in our choice of candidate which I plan to do.
  - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7I as well. This year, I'm taking the stand to not vote for the lesser of two evils.
  - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3You're not a conservative. Simple as that. Ron Paul is the candidate of the self-righteous, dorm room punk. You all think you are so incredibly intelligent and there has never been such enlightened people like you in the history of time. Get a clue, Halo boy.
    - Robjayne, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You are an IDIOT.
      - Jackson0909, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Are you, or are you not in college?
- saxreturns, on 05/12/2008, -4/+15Well then, by your logic I am a fool. I've spoken to plenty of conservatives, especially on digg, who would rather see Obama in the White House than McCain. Hell, Obama's even expressed a willingness to take on some conservatives as part of his team of advisors should he be elected. Given that McCain would most likely just continue the dynasty of neo-conservatism that has hijacked and all but ruined the Republican party, I wouldn't be surprised to see many conservatives voting Democrat come November.
  - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3That's fine and all, but I still will not vote for either one. I still don't trust him completely, and the hate and overall rudeness conservatives receive on this site from Obama fans is simply enough to not vote for him. If his base needs votes come general election time, people need to stop being dicks and be more accepting of other peoples' views and beliefs. That being said, I will also not vote for a candidate in favor of the Patriot Act and 1st strike offensives against Iran.
    - saxreturns, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Anyone who blindly supports Obama while bashing conservatives on digg is just another mindless fanboy, plain and simple, just like the Apple fanboys, 360 fanboys, etc etc etc. Don't use that as a reason not to vote for him, it's much more important to look at the issues and see what the man himself says and does. Idiots can and will attach themselves to any campaign or cause; that's no reason to pay them any attention. Many of us Obama supporters are actually looking for some reasonable debate with conservatives. However, in a country where even the media fails to deliver that, is it any wonder political supporters are often screeching morons?
- kipmartin, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4very clever post.
- TinternAbbot, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13A lot of my conservative friends say they won't vote for McCain.
  - tomasII, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1None of my Democrat friends say they will vote for Obama.
geneusutwerk, on 05/12/2008, -19/+13More than a million?!? Woah Ron Paul is popular! Wait, what is the population of the US?
- reed311, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4About 100 million people voted in the last election. That means Ron Paul is at 1% with the voters. You are exactly right.
- masterwalls69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3and thats with EVERYTHING against RP...if he has gotten the FREE rides the other three was getting..he would be up there..oh and dont forget DIEBOLD...they can rig ANY election of their choice...so who knows how popular the others really are.
  - geneusutwerk, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yes everyone is out to get you.
n8o8, on 05/12/2008, -12/+52Hell yes he does! Ron Paul write in.
- wejmahtin, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4Frank Zappa by write-in.
- NightVortez, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4For me it's a tough choice between him and John Locke.
govsucks, on 05/12/2008, -8/+53Yeah, this guy has problems. I'm a conservative and I WILL NOT be voting for McCain. I would rather vote for Obama. But odds are I will vote for Paul even if I have to write it on the ballot with a sharpie. The Republipanders no longer represent true constitutional conservative freedom lovers like myself.
- sa9e, on 05/12/2008, -16/+4"Republipanders"? Pretty weak for a Obama-sympathizing RonPaulista.
  - govsucks, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, you can say what you want but "Compassionate conservative" menas 'We're gonna act just like the Democrats and try to buy votes and make government bigger."
- NightVortez, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I read it as "Republipanda's" thought about what it meant then remembered they are the number 1 threat to America.
- korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The republicans may not reprsent conservatism like they claim, but they're a hell of a lot closer to it than obama is. you're basically voting for someone who doesn't agree with you at all to spite someone who aggrees with you sometimes.
King0007, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14John McCain has a BIG Enemy.....Himself.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
kipmartin, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8the article said: "former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas -- both markedly more conservative than McCain"

markedly more conservative? how so?

well, maybe he isnt an evangelical. otherwise, hes a neocon with all the same policy leanings of the other guys. you cant be much more conservative. were they hoping David Duke would run?
- TinternAbbot, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2What's a neocon and how does McCain fit the bill?
- ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Romney was a Left-of-Center Liberal Republican in the same way Hillary is a Right-of-Center Conservative Democrat. Huckabee THINKS he's an economic populist but his policy is retarded; he does a good job of consolidating military and religious power, though, like any good Crusader.
GorfTron, on 05/12/2008, -4/+15Perhaps the far right is not as numerous or powerful as they think. McCain won the nomination. Perhaps they don't have a party after all.
- Troy64, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9The conservative vote was split between Huckabee and Romney, McCain picked up the rest. A lot of people like me stayed home because they didn't like either of them. However I will vote for McCain in the general election as the lessor of two evils.
  - 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Likewise.
    - Robjayne, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1And you get exactliy what you vote for .
  - chownrus, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4McCain is the "lessor" of two evils? So you're voting for him because he owns the evils and rents them out?
- mbraynard, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3McCain actually got more of the vote in the decisive primaries in 2000 and lost then - due to the field being split.
- dgarry7, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13if you vote for the lesser evil, you're still voting for evil
  - ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4But you're also voting against evil. Is your mind blown?
  - mbraynard, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Perhaps consider: do not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
chicofaraby, on 05/12/2008, -4/+16Yeah, the problem with the Bush administration is that they aren't far enough to the right. If McCain wants to win big, he should propose more tax cuts and de-regulation of industry. That's why the GOP lost seats in 2006, they didn't go far enough right.
- Arcueid01, on 05/12/2008, -9/+8I don't think that deregulation is such a good thing. We need regulation that is effective and not bought out. The FCC isn't doing their job lately and don't realize that the communications industry is fully of near monopolies. I agree with the tax cuts as long as they are for the segment of society that deserves them. The rich certainly got their tax cuts with the estate tax being repealed. Bush really swindled the American people on that one.
  - 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Not so. JFK's tax cuts brought high tax receipts. So did Reagon's tax cuts. And Bush's tax cuts brought the second highest tax receipts in history.
    Yes girls, a lower PRECENTAGE can bring higher RETURNS. And it does.
    - Wartyboskfapped, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3citation needed
    - chicofaraby, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2When was the last year tax revenue fell?
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7The estate tax is one of the most ***** up, offensive and downright criminal policies ever dreamed of. Anyone who says else wise is a major ***** and a true enemy.
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3The estate tax is one of the most ***** up, offensive and downright criminal policies ever dreamed of. Anyone who says else wise is a major ***** and a true enemy.
- muckemuck, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11Nope.. they lost in 2006 because they were still beating the war drum to fight on in Iraq. Did they learn from that?
  - 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7No. They lost because they backed these horrible immigration amnesty bills. And we weren't going to go for that.
    - Wartyboskfapped, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Oh, no, the failed war didn't influence voters *at all*. Go on living in that fantasy land. You won't see a Republican President for another decade.
    - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4You might, never underestimate the incompetence of the democrats. Just look at congress now, or look at CA state government for the past 20 years.
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4The repuclican ass kicking of 2006 had very little to do with Iraq, the big difference was all the money they pissed away while in charge, the illegal alien stuff going on, and their incompetence in security. hey didn't lose because a bunch of their constituents switched and voted for the other side, they lost because many of the people that put them in office in the first place simply chose not to show up to vote for them.... an effect still witnessed all throughout the republican primaries in the total voting numbers all the way back to the very first one for this campaign.
- rlbond86, on 05/12/2008, -6/+5Keep going right... like, past Hitler.
  - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6ummm.. Hitler was extreme left...
    - SheilaNoya, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Read your history books again. Hitler was Christian with twisted principles and an extreme right-winger who believed the government should intervene in social matters, like stopping the so-called "gay threat" to germany. That may all sound familiar if you're a Republican today.
      - TonyLocNE, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Read your history book again... Liberal Democrats are the party the intervenes in social lives. The role of the Conservative movement is to limit the amount of government in peoples' lives. Mixing Liberal Neoconservativism and Conservatism does not work.
        Your inability to understand the painfully obvious really shows your age. What this tells me is that you do not even come close to knowing your history before 1980, possibly even before 1990... I would make a safe bet and say that you are voting in your first presidential election this year?? Grow up and learn history you dumb *****.
      - TonyLocNE, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2I mean honestly, pull your head out of your ass... Have you never honestly heard of social welfare, social security, social healthcare, medicare, medicaid, and the federal income tax? And if you have, are you going to tell me that they are not social programs intervening in the lives of American citizens? Did you even know that these were all put forth by Democrats? Social Programs have severe negative effects of the people they are supposed to protect and they are a drain on the wealth of the nation.
- masterwalls69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3LMAO...I agree...If BUSH is anywhere NEAR right...i dont want any
- kemp34, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2The "left" "right" false dichotomy is a joke. The real political spectrum is two dimensional. Please look up the "Nolan Chart" for an education on this.
Deveak, on 05/12/2008, -9/+13So now that hillary is longer a threat to obama, operation "OMG! its not teh obama kill it!" is in full swing? seriously diggers, its not that important to slam every candidate very five minutes on digg. I miss my geek news, i miss hating of Scientology, i miss not giving a shat about politics (not a fan of any of the nominees). For the love of digg, leave the election things to fark or somewhere else, i miss topless girls playing the Wii.
- Protonz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6If only there was some way to filter what appears on your homepage... if only....
  
  /sarcasm alert!
- nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Hate to tell you this but a lot of the anti-McCain crap is coming from Paul supporters.
  - nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5WTF? Did you even see the name of the schmuck who posted the article? Do you think RonPaulNews is an Obama supporter?
- exomni, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6http://digg.com/news/technology
  http://digg.com/news/gaming
  http://digg.com/news/science
  http://digg.com/news/lifestyle
  http://digg.com/news/entertainment
  http://digg.com/news/sports
  http://digg.com/news/offbeat
  
  Here's a big hint: if you don't want election news, how about take a WILD move and NOT go to http://digg.com/news/2008_us_elections
  
  Captain Obvious rescues the day.
- masterwalls69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4that is the problem...DUMBASS...you would rather sell out you country kids and humanity because you dont feel like talking about poltics..all while they are working on getting rid of the last 1/2 of the constitution. Wake up..damn..please...or at least get out the way.
cupid311, on 05/12/2008, -6/+15I hope more republicans write in votes for Ron Paul in the general. That would be great as it would decrease the vote count for McCain giving the Democratic nominee (hopefully Obama) an edge.
- Arcueid01, on 05/12/2008, -1/+14I think that they should write in Paul for his principles, not to give the other party an edge. It isn't about parties it is about issues and stances on those issues.
  - cupid311, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I agree with this, They should write in Ron Paul for his ideals/principles. But i am saying from My perspective it will be taking away votes from McCain. I would rather Ron Paul be running against Obama. That would be a great presidential race.
  - korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1While I respect Obama as a person, I cannot agree with his policies. Which means I have to vote for McCain as he's my only other option. Ron Paul is no more a realistic candidate than Nader.
- masterwalls69, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2AMEN.... but this is america...we dont have a brain anymore..we dont vote on principle or character...its all about the best talkers and most promises.
exomni, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14Are you kidding me? Why do you think the GOP lost in 2006? McCain being superficially "further left" is the best thing for the Republican party's chances in November.

Who are the conservatives going to vote for if not McCain? Nader? Obama?

Laughable.
- Ne007, on 05/12/2008, -5/+13The neocon republicans are more democrat than the democrats.
  
  They have made government bigger, spend more on welfare AND they are for never ending war spending.
  
  What's laughable is that you are saying we need even MORE liberal republicans in office.
  
  The republicans have lost even the republican vote because they don't stand for the principles that their party is supposed to stand for - balanced budgets, limited government, humble foreign policy, no nation building.
  
  The democrats are representing more of a republican attitude than the republicans themselves. THAT's why the republicans are going to lose. "'further left' is the best thing for the Republican party's chances in November"? PFFFFF! You've got it completely backwards...they need to stand on their principles in order to win.
  - chicofaraby, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4Yeah, the GOP lost seats in 2006 because they are too far left. McCain should propose more de-regulation and more tax cuts to the investors that stimulate the financial sector. That's what Americans want, more cuts in services, more military spending and fewer taxes on the people who can spend the most.
    
    hehe
  - ZenMojo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Never ending war spending? Yeah, that's a Republican carrot, and the 'pubs can keep chasing it as long as they want. The anti-war crowd has been seated in the Democratic Party since 1968 when the Delegates ripped the nomination from their hands despite Eugene McCarthy winning more primaries. You probably weren't even alive the last time what you said made sense. The Republicans are the party of war and have been since Nixon.
- 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5You call it never-ending war. We call it never-ending defense.
  - mangosinslo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6never-ending defense by bleeding the country dry out of every single dollar?
    awesome job defending the country!
  - Wartyboskfapped, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Well then you'd be some kind of a moron, because it is by any metric not making America safer.
  - chicofaraby, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6How can you defend yourself from countries that never attacked you?
MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -5/+12It's a good thing for McCain that conservatives are only a small minority in the Republican party.
- SheilaNoya, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The term "Conservative" has been claimed by too many people with opposite agendas much of the time.
  Do they mean "social conservatives" who want our laws to be based on the bible so they can act just like the morality police in Arab nations, or do they mean "fiscal conservatives" who want smaller government and less regulation? The two are not always the same.
gtluke, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7oh well, we need a carter so we can get a reagan.
scamper22, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2McCain + Ron Paul ticket :P
that would be humorous
- brad3378, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Funnier than Obama & Paul?
BrewmasterC, on 05/12/2008, -8/+6John, what happened to Sidney's mommy? Oh that's right you left her you gold digging S.O.B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Military_ ...
there, on 05/12/2008, -12/+7Who cares what the neo-conservative Trotskites think,

Personally I think the "we don't like McCain" angle is just another mind game designed to positition McCain as a moderate....much like that pill popping Limbaugh and that transvestite looking Coulter claimed to support Hillary over McCain... much like some were trying to fix the Democratic primaries by voting cross party lines for Hillary.

All Americans need to know...

McCain... pro war with Iraq
McCain.... pro war with Iran
McCain... pro perpetual "war of terror"
McCain... pro- patriot act
McCain... pro torture
McCain.. pro tax cuts for super rich
Shall I go on? Another 4-8 years of Bush? What next ethnic cleansing?

Lets keep out eyes on the ball folks and let the media pundit trolls play all the little mind games they'd like. The only way "We the people" (left and right) can get any say with government that looks after OUR interests (rather than 1% of the population)... is by making Obama the next President of the United States.
- willaggs, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Alot of what you say is not true. For example, McCain has long been against torture and even said that he will get rid of guantanamo bay prison. (on the daily show)
  - TonyLocNE, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Thats called pandering to an audience of people that detest him...
    - willaggs, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2possibly, but I believe it coming from a man who spent 5 1/2 years in a prisoner of war camp. He knows better than anyone else that torture doesn't accomplish anything.
      
      This isn't a recommendation for him, I'm just saying that the poster is giving out a ***** attack. In fact, by all accounts McCain dislikes Bush and has many other differing policies.
      - there, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Actually you are all wrong and the one's making up the "***** attacks" (on me :)
        
        You say I'm wrong but then offer absolutely no evidence to the contrary on which point. His voting and behavior on the issues I mention (what counts) is exactly as I say. Bush says he's against torture...but then seems to have allowed it under his watch. McCain says he's against waterboarding too (TORTURE)...
        
        “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” McCain said in interview with the New York Times in response to Giuliani comments. “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”
        
        .... but than voted against the intelligence bill in February that would have banned it.
        
        Become informed. Stop listening to the pundits. Pay attention to what people do... not what they say.
        
        BUSH = McCain
    - there, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1http://tinyurl.com/57dtpp
wshwe, on 05/12/2008, -8/+12Obama will trounce McCain!

McCain faces doubts among Republican conservatives