What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- trentRez9, on 09/11/2008, -14/+234And this is the reason why this man must not win this election...
- magoghm, on 09/11/2008, -3/+69This is one more reason.
- HughesAP, on 09/12/2008, -27/+9I hate all this spin on Digg. The headline and synopsis of this story are spun beyond belief.
- JEWestbrookJR, on 09/12/2008, -3/+13maybe you would prefer the "no spin zone"?
- ajames01, on 09/12/2008, -17/+4Welcome to the half-assed liberal campaign to smear Republicans using social community sites in which they are already the majority or the users are too young to vote. When there is no real effect, they don't need to worry about facts, spin, or bias.
- Seemefearme, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Republicans smear themselves just fine. You are a prime example.
- card51short, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3you can't help but laugh at the people who come in here and say "THE ARTICLE HAS A "LIBERAL" OR "CONSERVATIVE" BIAS" but do NOTHING to show why the story is wrong but instead call names. Defensive at all?
Even their puny brains know if they had any sort of contrary evidence they would present it...which would make their case a hell of a lot stronger than "WAAAAH YOU DONT LIKE MY CANDIDATE WAAAA YOU HAVE A BIAS WAAA"
- cedarbaydave, on 09/12/2008, -3/+19I don't know if it is blood lust or some sense that they were shown up by Saddam Hussein after the first war, but these guys were headed for Iraq the first opportunity that came along once the Bush administration took over. 9-11 was just made it much easier for them.
More of the shame if McCain wins the election. :-(- webwatch, on 09/14/2008, -0/+1 McCain also seemed to make a case for war with Iran in his RNC speech. Palin seems to suggest war with Russia in her interview with Gibson.
- algaeturd, on 09/12/2008, -3/+17One of MANY.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/12/2008, -13/+17And we're *still* in denial that 9/11 was an inside job? Wake up!
- FrostyWalrus, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1This is what people said about Bush last election.
Everyone was in fear, and wanted revenge.
Everyone wanted war. - lulzitsadigg, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3WAKE UP SHEEPLE
- FrostyWalrus, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1This is what people said about Bush last election.
- tbredofsin, on 09/12/2008, -18/+1I disagree--it's the reason he MUST win the election, regardless of his other stands. Even if invading Iraq was irresponsible, it would be even more irresponsible to withdraw too early and risk leaving the nation an even greater mess in our wake.
- OwdenBowden, on 09/12/2008, -13/+1The fact is that whether we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan; and no matter what we say or do as a country, the majority of the worlds residents Hates Us. The rub here is that this same majority also loves us. They want to be us and no matter what we do, we are required to play a designated roll in the world as a Super Power (and this includes wars and invasions and what ever we like). To automatically point the finger at McCain or any republican/democrat that voted for the war is unfair and unjust.
Like it or not we need more powerful people like McCain at the helm for safety sake; and we also need more people like Obama in the background working behind the curtain to help interpret the actions of the Power ( this is what takes place between all the time in diplomatic circles and it works). If you think we would have been safer and avoided any attacks or terrorist activities with Obama at the helm then you are only fooling yourself. The "talking to the enemy" route was not even a thought the very second the plane hit the first tower.
The response to 9/11 (all be it too late and eventually misdirected) is still a just response. The only problem we have is that we should have used an absolute forceful response the like of which can be seen during WWI and WWII. We should have gone in and Leveled everything in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Created Rubble so that there was no place to hid for the terrorist organizations of the world that have gone there to bring on the fight. With everything in rubble it is a Bold statement that the US will not stand for this type of Terrorist activity and we will destroy all in our path to eliminate the terrorists from society.
Given the information that was presented I too would have voted for the military action. And as for withdrawing our troops - You can't do it because we created this hornets nest and we now are the bee keeper until it is fixed.- card51short, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3thank God you're considered a fringe maniac in intelligent circles.
- FutureGuy, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1But looks like he will damn it and I am heading the Canada. The guy and his gal is going to f things up here.
- sodade, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2It looks like the conservative puppet govt will keep power in Canada so that's not a good choice anymore either.
- xtothepowerofx, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1c'mon up.. we've got tons of room :)
- rawg, on 09/11/2008, -9/+106We already know that John McCain is willing to lie to win an election but it's important to remember that his pattern of lies goes back to his support for the war in Iraq.
- rz8472, on 09/12/2008, -0/+8Forget Iraq... he basically named half a dozen countries he wanted to attack and set the Middle East on fire. And if Chuck Hagel hadn't amended the original authorization to go to war in Iraq (the original draft entailed a 'blanket' authorization anywhere in the MidEast), he would have gotten his way.
- trym3815255, on 12/16/2008, -0/+0http://www.predictivedialer.info
- kemp34, on 09/11/2008, -7/+61You see, behind the scenes there is quite a bit of evil that goes on and these people convince themselves and rationalize they are doing it for the "greater good". In reality, all they are doing is committing evil in ways that round about helps them personally.
- staffell, on 09/11/2008, -5/+5Religion.
The Greater Good.
Synonymous (A lot of the time)- Turambar, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6obviously you've never been gay
- staffell, on 09/11/2008, -5/+5Religion.
- grumluvr, on 09/11/2008, -8/+59What a shill for Bush! Clearly he was scripted to call out Iraq as the instigator.
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 09/11/2008, -9/+54John McCain was WRONG!
- zorpscorp, on 09/11/2008, -7/+92All the plans for Iraq were on the table BEFORE 9/11. Bush/Cheney/McCain, all the neo-cons were pushing this war as soon as they had an excuse. Also, McCain was one of the first ones to say the anthrax attacks (which nearly everyone had forgotten about) came from Iraq.
- PolishLogic, on 09/11/2008, -20/+4Yeah, it probably had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq hated the US, and Iraq had already shown a tendency to like using chems.
- eliot2000, on 09/12/2008, -13/+2You're right. These are intelligent, educated people who probably could not deceive themselves into believing that Iraq had either a motive or the means to carry out such an attack. Good call.
- ruforealz, on 09/12/2008, -2/+12Wait who sold them the chems?
http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/images/palestine/rum ... - browntiger, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5>Yeah, it probably had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq hated the US, and Iraq had already shown a tendency to like using chems.
I guess McCain & Repukes are now planning on new invasions of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, ...
REPUKES ARE ALL CROOKS.
- obliviousfool, on 09/12/2008, -1/+9According to Gen. Wesley Clark the plan was to invade seven countries in five years. McCain managed to name four of those countries!
- Futile, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6I thought the anthrax attacks came from inside the US?
- zorpscorp, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4They did, from a lab in Ft. Derick, a military base! Don't worry though, no conspiracy here, just a lone enstranged doctor that conveniently killed himself.
- PolishLogic, on 09/11/2008, -20/+4Yeah, it probably had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq hated the US, and Iraq had already shown a tendency to like using chems.
- dildoolielly, on 09/11/2008, -7/+38McBush
- UglyBunny, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5McSame
- ruforealz, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5*****
- h4mx0r, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2McDonald.
- uskomaton, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0McPoison.
- davewashere, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3I'd rather vote for McRib
- Syko3599, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1McGridle. Mmmmm
- UglyBunny, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5McSame
- atdigg, on 09/11/2008, -6/+51This guy is obsessed about bombing other countries, I guess if you are a hammer every object in the world looks like a nail... probably for a pilot that's a normal reflex... bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb bomb Irak... oops Iran...
That's perfectly fine for any random 72 year former pilot, but not OK for somebody who hopes to become the president of the most powerful country in the world.- uskomaton, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2He was traumatized in 'nam and now he wants revenge, even if it's not on the same country.
- staffell, on 09/11/2008, -8/+38McCain supporters are blind if they can't see that this war is the worst thing that could possibly happen to humanity.
Vote McCain, vote destruction.- redleviathan69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Humanity? I don't know about that. The bubonic plague is pretty high up there. But worst since Vietnam, definatly
- TheThirdWheel, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Aids sucked pretty bad.
- redleviathan69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Humanity? I don't know about that. The bubonic plague is pretty high up there. But worst since Vietnam, definatly
- jesusisblack, on 09/11/2008, -8/+31Disgusting.
- patpl22391, on 09/12/2008, -7/+3I'll tell you what is disgusting. While the world takes a break and puts aside differences to remember September 11th. The kooks over at thinkprogress and all the liberal blogs keep pumping out their propaganda, and you all eat that ***** like it's candy.
- BrewBeau, on 09/12/2008, -2/+3Yes, because "everything changed after 9/11". Where's the memorial for all the dead US soldiers from 9/11 part 2, the Iraq war?
- caramba420, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2@patpl22391
You're totally right. A video of McCain speaking IS "liberal propaganda," because every time he opens his mouth it only serves to incite people into voting against him.
P.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- patpl22391, on 09/12/2008, -7/+3I'll tell you what is disgusting. While the world takes a break and puts aside differences to remember September 11th. The kooks over at thinkprogress and all the liberal blogs keep pumping out their propaganda, and you all eat that ***** like it's candy.
- jaschwan, on 09/11/2008, -6/+34McCain making the case for the war with false pretenses before the false pretenses even existed! What a fascist
- dildoolielly, on 09/11/2008, -8/+46Aren't you Cons embarrassed?!
Hell, I'm embarrassed for you- TruthExposed, on 09/11/2008, -7/+12No, they are not embarrased. Come back and you will see all their "reasons" why McCain is still a good vote.
- ObamaWins08, on 09/11/2008, -4/+9He forgot about Saudi Arabia.
...or maybe he didn't... - Skywise, on 09/12/2008, -13/+3Nope, damn proud.
FACT - Hussein WAS funding terrorist acts.
FACT - Hussein WAS trying to get yellowcake.
FACT - Hussein DID have plans to reconstitute his nuclear bomb program.
FACT - Hussein WAS directing the oil for funds program at the UN directly to his military and bypassing his people.
"But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others — who we know engage in proliferation of — of capabilities and, from time to time, involve themselves in state-sponsored terrorism. But never did we imagine on a scale such as this." - McCain
"The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11." - 0bamelt
Then 0bamelt voted for FISA and telecomm immunity and refused to accept campaign financing. That pretty much tells me who plans on enacting the police state this election.- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6FACT - I am working at a job
FACT - I have plans to make a billion dollars/day
FACT - I am trying to make a billion dollars/day
Think it'll actually happen?
At least provide the courtesy to provide *some* evidence to support your facts. - lisaawesome, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1FACT - Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica
- samthurston, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5FACT - The american CIA funds terrorist groups all the time, including at times both the Taleban and the Iraqi Government, often funneling money in the form of "Humanitarian Aid."
FACT - The US has Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons (aka WMD), and is employing them presently.
Should someone invade the US? Will you welcome them as liberators when they do? - caramba420, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3FACT - The Bush Administration gave $40 million to the Taliban 8 months before 9/11. This is much more funding than Iraq could have hoped to give them.
FACT - You're a douche. - Skywise, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1FACT - The Bush Administration gave the money as a good faith donation to try to establish good diplomatic relations with a muslim country that was seemingly bringing some good to the area. (and got burned for it).
FACT - They (the government) were still complicit in the 9/11 attack and sympathetic to Iraq.
So much for money.
- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6FACT - I am working at a job
- gnocchi1442, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3The only thing that embarrasses a Repuke is getting caught in a men's bathroom with someone's dick in their mouth.
- FrankHope, on 09/11/2008, -3/+39It's no coincidence that AIPAC, PNAC, the Neocons and the Israeli right wing were also looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq. The problem was that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. But that didn't stop AIPAC's puppets like John McCain from manufacturing evidence.
Basically, Iraq was Israel's enemy not America's enemy. But it has been Americans who have paid the price in lives and dollars. As they like to sing in the streets of Jerusalem, "Onward Christian Soldiers".- mrtymcfly, on 09/12/2008, -5/+0who cares?
Bush senior should have taken saddam out when he had the chance. Overthrowing his regime was still a major foreign policy objective even during the Clinton years... I seem to remember a little thing called operation "desert fox."
Even from the excerpts from the transcript of McCains interview, you can tell this article is completely ridiculous. He listed off several countries that the U.S. had hostile relations with, and with out a doubt harbor terrorists and practice state sponsored terrorism.
- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Should have? Did you forget about the quagmire? Oh, no one saw the problems with invading Iraq...you chicken hawks just don't listen. At least daddy and Clinton were SMART enough not to try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY - surferjoemaui, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1a fox is smart, a storm is not.
- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Should have? Did you forget about the quagmire? Oh, no one saw the problems with invading Iraq...you chicken hawks just don't listen. At least daddy and Clinton were SMART enough not to try.
- anarcurt, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Don't forget that Obama & especially Biden are AIPAC puppets as well.
- webwatch, on 09/14/2008, -0/+1After spending around one trillion dollars and sacrificing over 4000 of our men and women in Iraq, we will essentially hand over control to a Pro-Iranian government. Only beneficiaries of the Iraq war besides Iran will be the big oil that got no bid contracts in Iraq and the private security firms.
- mrtymcfly, on 09/12/2008, -5/+0who cares?
- shupy, on 09/11/2008, -5/+29I feel sad for McCain. I do believe he once had integrity, but he lost it when he towed the line for Bush.
- TheAmazingBob, on 09/12/2008, -5/+9I feel sad for Bush. The dumb ***** got thrown into a Presidency he expected to be easy as daddy's, and was faced with the polar opposite. Now he is going to live the rest of his miserable, stupid life knowing that everyone on Earth hates him, and that he contributed to the end of life as we know it. I do not believe that George W. Bush bears the intelligence that would let us criticize him any further. It would be like poking the autistic kid who pulled the fire alarm.
McCain, he's a bag of ***** who has absolutely no idea what he is doing. No offense to anyone here, but Arizona/Alaska stands no chance to Illinois/Delaware.- redleviathan69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1I Hope
- TheAmazingBob, on 09/12/2008, -5/+9I feel sad for Bush. The dumb ***** got thrown into a Presidency he expected to be easy as daddy's, and was faced with the polar opposite. Now he is going to live the rest of his miserable, stupid life knowing that everyone on Earth hates him, and that he contributed to the end of life as we know it. I do not believe that George W. Bush bears the intelligence that would let us criticize him any further. It would be like poking the autistic kid who pulled the fire alarm.
- PolishLogic, on 09/11/2008, -28/+9The morning of 9/11, 90% of the country made the case for war against "insert Muslim country here".
So what....- Kizilbash, on 09/12/2008, -7/+15So you're all warmongering racist scum and that makes it alright?
- PolishLogic, on 09/12/2008, -12/+5No, at least 10% aren't.
- neilgregge, on 09/12/2008, -12/+2The morning of 9/11, 90% of the country made the case for war against "insert country with *****-tons of oil here".
- gotacalc, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8No, the war was sold to a desperate America.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7Really? Then I guess it was lucky for Saudi Arabia, the nation where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from, happened to have guy named Prince Bandar who was really good friends with the Bush Family.
Otherwise, the nation with the most "*****-tons of oil" could have been invaded.
It's funny that people focus on distractions when there are more obvious geopolitical reasons for invading a contained threat that had nothing to do with islamic extremism.
- hiriumi, on 09/12/2008, -4/+16What if you lived in a country where United States attacked because of the wrong speculation? Your parents and maybe your family got killed because of that. Could you still say, "So what?"
- PolishLogic, on 09/12/2008, -7/+3"So what" isn't the point.
- hiriumi, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Then what is your point?
- thedarkrabbit, on 09/12/2008, -2/+4Tonight, on the History Channel, they played raw, unedited footage of that day. And it made me think a lot... After time, the memory fades and is diluted by current things to maybe lessen or change your view of the past... I had forgotten just how angry, how ready the country was to go to war in the moments following the collapse of the towers. The hatred people had on the streets was so strong you could taste it.
Now, 7 years later we're all looking back and saying that we were sold the war, but you are correct. On the day of 9/11/01 many Americans were, in fact, ready and willing to go to war with anyone. Hell, I fought in Iraq in 2 tours... but, as with 9/11... hindsight changes everything.- ironhide, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6I wasn't and I knew as I was seeing it all unfold that the powers that be would use that tragedy as an excuse.
- bobbarkerbilly, on 09/12/2008, -1/+9willing to go to war with the people that attacked us, mainly the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Iraq War, one and a half years after the attack, was sold to us.
Don't forget that. - PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6I remember trying to get in touch with my father who had been staying in the World Trade Center Marriott every monday night for the previous 5 years, to make sure he wasn't having breakfast in the concierge lounge when the south tower collapsed on it. I remeber then trying to get in touch with my sister who worked at an architecture firm 2 blocks north of the WTC complex. I remember seeing the smoke billowing up across the potomac river, and having the secret service come up on the roof of my company's building with a long hard-plastic case so they could set up a MANPAD position a block from the white house.
I also remember knowing immediately, before watching any news channels, that this had Osama Bin Laden's name written all over it, and thus Saudi Arabia was involved in it. Then I remembered how Osama wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. So when I first heard people talking on the news shows about Iraq, I had to go do some googling, and found out that PNAC had been looking for a reason to overthrow Saddam for several years.
That wasn't hindsight. That was direct vision of current and unfolding events.
It's only hindsight for people who found out after the fact. - rowjimmy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5my first thought on 9/11 was, "whoops, look like it's coming home to roost for american imperialism..."
my second thought was, "oh *****. they're going to use this as an excuse, and the vast majority of idiots will buy it."
right on both counts, i guess. sorry to all the people who have had to die for corporate hegemony, but it doesn't look like it is going to stop any time soon...
- SpinningHead, on 09/12/2008, -1/+790% of the country is retarded and wanted to act regardless of the facts?
- katagana, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7So what? An American Senator should be above that! He should have the insight and knowledge to see the proper way to deal with it!
- rondeth, on 09/12/2008, -2/+4I think most sane people realized that it wasn't a "country" we were after...then or now.
- forbush, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Finally someone pointing out what I've been thinking all along... where is the 80% of Americans that thought President Bush was doing a good job right after 9/11? Someone's wishy washy.
- Kizilbash, on 09/12/2008, -7/+15So you're all warmongering racist scum and that makes it alright?
- neilgregge, on 09/12/2008, -19/+7Hmm, I've been using Digg for a while now and, although it's been subtle, I've started to pick up an slightly anti-Republican vibe from the vast majority of the Digg population. Just thought I'd bring it up as a general interest point, as some users might not have noticed. I, personally, am neutral when it comes to American politics as, being a non-American, I don't see how they can in any way affect me.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 09/12/2008, -12/+3You know, you may be right. I am starting to think that the Huffington Post isn't as unbaised as people think it is.
- TheAmazingBob, on 09/12/2008, -3/+13At this point, (wherever you live) you're probably not safe from us damn Americans.
- forbush, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Heh... not to often I digg a blocked user... ;)
- ruforealz, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5Unless you live somewhere we want to bomb
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5It isn't exactly anti-Republican. It is very rabidly, undeniably, ANTI-NEOCON.
Neoconservatism is a very radical, militaristic and ideological faction within the Republican party. In fact, it isn't confined to the Republican party.
Neoconservatism is a straussian ideology, centered on the idea of American military hegemony, and the creation of an American empire.
I'm a traditional conservative, but I get accused of being a "liberal" by the neocon supporters because they can't think in very complex ways. They watch a news channel owned by an Australian globalist and read a very few narrowly focused news outlets, so they believe they are Republicans, and right, and all of their own personal shortcomings are erased by their loyalty to party and power.
It's quite frustrating to have an IQ that allows critical thinking, and to live with these morons running around ***** in their own mess kits.- rowjimmy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2"Neoconservatism is a straussian ideology, centered on the idea of American military hegemony, and the creation of an American empire."
there's where your a bit off. Neo-conservatism has nothing to do with American military hegemony, and everything to do with Western (particularly, but not solely, American) corporate hegemony. They don't want to rule for the sake of it, they want to rule for the bottom line of multi-national industry. The military is just one of many tools ("free-trade" agreements, WTO, World Bank, etc) used to ensure the rest of the world falls in line with the agenda of corporate hegemony. - eyepennies, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2What a great discussion, and I notice you both have Dead-based names. This whole experience made me a bit happier.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2rowjimmy, I think the greater agenda, the "macro" agenda, of which the neocons are just a piece of the puzzle, is like you say. However, the neocons are more about military power projection and a conflict based system of government. Obviously they operate within the same framework that all other ideological groups operate in. The agenda takes advantage of both left and right, and all the extremes within both sides of the divide. In fact, they rely on the division of ideology, both as a divide and conquer process, and also as a smokescreen so people don't realize there's a single agenda driving both sides.
Just look at the history of the key neocons. Rumsfeld and Cheney, in particular, go way back in their efforts to trump up every imagined threat against the country. In the 1970's they were considered by most in the halls of the pentagon and capital hill to be the "***** crazies" because they were always screaming about how the sky was falling, how the russians had nearly invisible submarines (and when the CIA came out with a study that said "uh, no. They don't," they responded with "SEE?!?! That's how invisible they are!!!")
Just look at the PNAC manifesto, "On Rebuilding America's Defenses".
- rowjimmy, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2"Neoconservatism is a straussian ideology, centered on the idea of American military hegemony, and the creation of an American empire."
- Skywise, on 09/12/2008, -2/+2Don't be stupid. The McCain bury brigade makes sure TRUTH like this never sees the light of day...never mind the front page. They're after us AND YOU... vote 0bamelt!
- xtothepowerofx, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4"...being a non-American, I don't see how they can in any way affect me."
you don't see how american politics affects non-americans?! have you ever turned on a television?.. or read anything in a newspaper other than the sports page?.. that's one of the most ignorant statements i've ever read in my life. no one on earth should be neutral when it comes to american politics. - forbush, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1You think? :p :D
- neilgregge, on 09/15/2008, -0/+0Nice to see everyone had their sarcasm hats on.
- RudolphtheRed, on 09/12/2008, -9/+2
- Gravesy1, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2With the amount of ***** comments you make, consider yourself blocked.
- surendrapathak, on 09/12/2008, -5/+16Stupid from day 1!
- Disturbedsavio, on 09/12/2008, -7/+26Those countries had nothing to do with 9/11. It was all Afghanistan and Osama Bin Ladin. Bush even confirmed on C-span that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 is an excuse to invade these countries.
There is no point at going to war with any of these countries. Iran has done nothing wrong, it's just a neighbor country to Iraq. Saddam is gone and Iraq is getting back on track, plus they have oil to help their economy. These small countries are of no threat anyways. The Soviet Union was a threat to America and Germany was a threat to America, Iraq is not right now.
If there's any countries we should be going to war with, it's these third world countries in Africa who kidnap kids and train them to be killing machines.
What we should do with the whole 9/11 situation is try to solve things peacefully with these supposed "terrorist" countries. War should be a last resort. We shouldn't be at war with Afghanistan either. If we worked together with these countries they could very well help us in the search for Osama Bin Ladin. War will do nothing but put them into submission and anger them, like Germany at the end of WWI.
McCain doesn't seem to get this though...- gotacalc, on 09/12/2008, -6/+2Some of your points are ok, and I hate McCain. You can't say that the Middle East poses no threat, though. What about 9/11? What about Iran (I really, really hope that we don't do anything about Iran, but still)?
- Gemfinder, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4I hope so too. Sun Tzu said that armed conflict must be left as an absolute court of last resort and only implemented when all other avenues have been exhausted.
Right now, Iran is under blockade from the West. Conversely, their leadership wants nothing to do with the West. This is probably why they are turning to the outmoded form of nuclear energy for their national grid, instead of harnessing wave, sun and wind power like most other developed countries are. The Ayatollahs don't want anything to do with the west, some of their followers don't, but in the main Iranians don't agree. Like the majority of Americans agree that abortion should be kept legal in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
If the embargo were lifted, techs from the West could meet with energy techs in Iran and draw up a national grid that marginalizes nuclear energy to the barest minimum.
Wow, look: no nukes to make the Israelis uneasy, America doesn't feel the need to flex its talons, war averted. - PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Saudi Arabia sends 15 people to attack the United States, and gets off scot free because Bandar Bush is a family friend? They also get to fly out of the country in FBI chartered planes while the rest of the nation is prohibited from flying, even people stranded thousands of miles from home who have to sit around and wait for days just to get home.
The middle east poses no threat. I can say that. At least not the way you think it does.
Israel's policies, and their control over our foreign policy, that poses a threat. Saudi Arabia spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year spreading the most radical and hate-filled verson of islam, wahhabism, around the world, including building the most radical mosques in all of islam all over the United States, that poses a threat. Invading the most secular nation in all of the islamic dominated lands, and creating an environment where terrorists can not only recruit but also train their recruits in real world situations like planting bombs and attacking US Military personnel, that poses a threat.
But hey, What about Iran! They took some hostages back in1979. I say we nuke the bastards! (right? I haven't been watching Rupert's news channel like I'm supposed to, so I don't know the mantra I'm supposed to repeat over and over again.) - Murdats, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1@gemfinder.
china is currently building a massive amount of nuclear plants among any other energy production they can, europe is building more nuclear power, most developed nations are.
wind, sun and tidal power are supplemental forms of energy production, they can not efficiently generate enough power to satisfy needs, only help add to it. - PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1murdats, China is currently building COAL powered plants, at the rate of one new plant every 7 to 10 days.
And wind and solar are not "supplemental" as you believe. They certainly can efficiently generate enough power to satisfy needs.
Germany already produces .3% of their electricity needs from solar. That might not sound like a lot, but they are on track to making 3% in a few years, and it will grow to 20% by 2015. That's just solar.
Other countries have substantial wind power generation capacities.
You might say they "cannot EFFECTIVELY generate enough power, CURRENTLY", but saying it isn't EFFICIENT is intellectually dishonest. I already have an entire home designed that I hope to build in about 5 years that will be completely "off grid" using solar panels, wind powered micro turbines, geothermal heat exchanges and passive solar and cooling methods. It is only going to cost about 15 to 20% more than building a comparable, conventional 3,000 sq. ft. home, and I will have no utilities to pay, ever. In fact, there's a chance I'll be getting a check every month from the electric company for the electricity I sell back to the grid.
- Gemfinder, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4I hope so too. Sun Tzu said that armed conflict must be left as an absolute court of last resort and only implemented when all other avenues have been exhausted.
- algaeturd, on 09/12/2008, -0/+12How is this getting dugg down?
Because a huge portion of the right (despite every ***** fact and truth known to man) still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
OUR OWN ***** IGNORAMUS GOVERNMENT ADMITTED HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT FINALLY?
That's the power of stupidity and disinformation and the power of the republican idiots. Facts, logic and reasoning all have NO place in their camp. It's all fantasy, made up news.
Bush wanted to help pay back Saddam for making his daddy look like a fool during the Gulf War. Bottom line. There was NO evidence linking Iraq to 9/11.
ABSOLUTELY NONE.
But again, truth means nothing to a bunch of toothless rednecks and rich, old white men who don't give a ***** about facts. They just want someone to shoot. The mentality of a ***** Neanderthal.
*****, Neanderthals are smarter than that, actually.- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Well, Saddam didn't make George H W Bush look like a fool. The Gulf War was probably one of the only things in Bush Sr's presidency that he could truly be proud of.
The reason a lot of morons still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is because they heard it once, and all new information cannot erase that initial imprinting in their minds. Propoganda 101.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Well, Saddam didn't make George H W Bush look like a fool. The Gulf War was probably one of the only things in Bush Sr's presidency that he could truly be proud of.
- Gemfinder, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4It wasn't all Bin Ladin and the Taliban. Bin Ladin had Mullah Omar over a barrel by marrying one of his sisters, so he prevailed on him for protection.
But most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Bin Ladin originally.
I remember a heated e-mail battle I got in a week after 9/11. I said it was ironic in that Afghanistan, whose national animal was the dove, was harbouring Al Qaeda. The guy I was contesting with shot at me, "Ironic in what way? Are you saying that the Afghani people don't deserve peace? Or are you suggesting they're about to get blown to Kingdom Come?"
I said, "Neither. It's ironic because the man they were protecting had intentions that were everything BUT peaceful."
Yeah, it shut him up pretty good.
- gotacalc, on 09/12/2008, -6/+2Some of your points are ok, and I hate McCain. You can't say that the Middle East poses no threat, though. What about 9/11? What about Iran (I really, really hope that we don't do anything about Iran, but still)?
- algaeturd, on 09/12/2008, -6/+24AMERICA FIRST!
My ass. War FIRST, Dead American soldiers second.
ALL military families and friends need to unify their voice and speak clearly and loudly on election day. These people are 100% for continual war to make money for their crony, contractor friends. American blood for cash...that's the game.
And WHO would be ***** stupid enough to ASSUME anything on the morning of 9/11?
McCain and company. And they were so ***** wrong it almost destroyed our OWN nation.
Do they give a *****? Hell no. More war, more threats, more big stances.
Put McCain back in his cage where he belongs. Honestly. - BotchaMcCoola, on 09/12/2008, -3/+14Don't forget he supported the Vietnam War. Being shot down after 22 missions of roasting SE Asians is no pass for me. That "war" was a ridulous gift to US and Chinese War Industries. And never forget the kind of bad economic effects we got after that. While he may want to be a patriot he is an abject failure twice now.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Isn't it funny that the two sitting presidents not invited to their party's national convention were the two presidents who started wars with nefarious intentions that didn't turn out so well?
- vault, on 09/12/2008, -18/+3thinkspam = buried as spam
- caramba420, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- digjam, on 09/12/2008, -2/+21America...do a favor to yourself..dont elect mccain.
- houndeyex, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4**Reelect Bush.
They're practically the same person. They don't call him McSame for nothing.- lisaawesome, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1I saw a bumper sticker that said McCain 08...Bush's Third Term, Sounds Good To Me! I'm pretty sure it was serious and that I cried a little inside when I saw it.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4I wish we could do ourselves and even bigger favor and just finally get rid of this false dichotomy two party system.
Duopolies are no better than monopolies. Concentrated power is always a destructive thing for freedom, progress and the good of all people. They only serve those who benefit the most and control things behind the scenes.
- houndeyex, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4**Reelect Bush.
- jshooter1377, on 09/12/2008, -2/+18"Do you know what Osama Binladen is going to be for Halloween?
Dead."
Seven years later...
nothing. No one has a real clue where he is. Its shameful. Its truly shameful.- malignatius, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4I think the correct answer is "Still Dead".
We're hunting a ghost, and the people in charge of the hunt are aware of it.- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Even if they are not aware of it, they sure as hell don't want anyone to think he's dead. At least not until they've cashed out.
- malignatius, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4I think the correct answer is "Still Dead".
- muckemuck, on 09/12/2008, -2/+16Funny how the GOP can overlook the liberal stands McCain takes on issues ( http://www.gunowners.org/mcdisguise.htm ) so long as he tows the line for them and promises more war.
And for that.. I filled out a GOP survey that came in the mail today begging for money.. and I'm sending it back with no money. They won't get my vote this year either. They decided the losses in 2006 weren't enough so they stayed on that neo-conservative side track. I'm still over here on the conservative main line. Buh bye GOP.- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Was that survey the "Critical Issues Survey" from the "Republican National Committee, Victory 2008 Committee"? I got mine about a week ago. I'm still on all kinds of Republican mailing lists for my activities helping Tom Davis in his campaigns and for my contributions to other republican candidates over the years.
I hate to break it to you, they aren't doing any survey. They are simply trying to get money. No survey has ever told the respondents to include $20 (or more if you want) to tabulate the survey. This is a slick money-raising technique.
Did you actually read the questions? Talk about loaded questions, here's question 5 from the "National Security" section:
"Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field?"
Come on! This is a question designed to appeal to their base, and keep up the lie that democrats want to surrender to the terrorists and hate our troops. A less biased question would be "Should the US Military have a date for withdrawing?" But by putting all these hot-button words and ideas in the question, you can elicit a specific emotional reaction.- muckemuck, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2yep! That's the one, and I realized it was a fundraising tactic and totally geared towards getting the responses they're looking for.... and I do think they'll tabulate the responses (sort of.. I bet they'll lose mine) so they can report back to their base "98% of the Republicans surveyed support our staying in Iraq until we win".
I liked how they had a big list of issues and said "Which party will best handle these issues: Republican, Democratic, Undecided" .. wtf? Neither. - PhilLesh69, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1I agree. all 14 of the issues they listed, from the war in Iraq to Protecting Traditional Values have been screwed up by both parties, or at the very least, they can't be making the argument that their party is doing so hot with them.
What I find the most intriguing is that most of the questions, especially in the "Jobs and Economy" section (section 1) are the same questions they've been asking for 25+ years, and it is obvious, if you are a good conservative, what the answers should be.
#7: Do you think the government should reduce regulations and provide tax incentives to encourage small business growth?
Obviously the answer is YES, but why hasn't any republican legislature done so? Why hasn't any republican president signed any such bills into law?
or #8: Do you feel the U.S. Tax Code should be made simpler and fairer?
Again, obviously, YES. But again, why hasn't any past legislatures or administrations done anything towards that goal?
#9: Do you agree that the government should aggressively rein-in spending?
Umm, what's the national debt currently?
- muckemuck, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2yep! That's the one, and I realized it was a fundraising tactic and totally geared towards getting the responses they're looking for.... and I do think they'll tabulate the responses (sort of.. I bet they'll lose mine) so they can report back to their base "98% of the Republicans surveyed support our staying in Iraq until we win".
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Was that survey the "Critical Issues Survey" from the "Republican National Committee, Victory 2008 Committee"? I got mine about a week ago. I'm still on all kinds of Republican mailing lists for my activities helping Tom Davis in his campaigns and for my contributions to other republican candidates over the years.
- DuggDowner, on 09/12/2008, -5/+6McCain never had the judgment to be president.
- chronically420, on 09/12/2008, -2/+3anybody else notice him talking about us being the "world power" and "the most powerful kid on the block" at the end? that kinda scares me...
- mrtymcfly, on 09/12/2008, -2/+0alright, the US should start taking orders from countries like zimbabwe and venezuela...
- chronically420, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1no, don't be an idiot. do you even REMEMBER learning about hitler? make a couple connections and im sure you'll see what im talking about.
- Tyrghast, on 09/12/2008, -9/+4And again we see that the Obama is the lesser of two evils....
Why can't someone with honesty and integrity, who actually wants to help his own country rather than harm or 'aid' other countries run for the office of president? The name 'Ron Paul' rings a bell...- redleviathan69, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2YES!
- batkins, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1Ron Paul has no chance of winning this election. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for McCain. Obama may be the lesser of two evils, but that is exactly the point! No matter who you vote for Ron Paul is not going to win this election. You know it, I know it, even he knows it. So why don't you make your vote count and vote for someone who might actually be able to do the country some good, Obama. Remember what happened in the 2000 election with Gore/Nader? Nader was one of the big reasons why Gore lost that and look what's happened to our country since that. If Nader had just shut the ***** up maybe we wouldn't have had to put up with Bush ruining this country. Look, I like Nader, I've seen him speak and he was great but there's no denying that he helped put Bush in Office and if you can't see the similarities here between that situation and this one then you are blind.
- superkendall, on 09/12/2008, -12/+3"To be honest with you, Dan, I never thought that an operation of this sophistication and size would take place. I just never did. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others — who we know engage in proliferation of — of capabilities and, from time to time, involve themselves in state-sponsored terrorism. But never did we imagine on a scale such as this."
Odd to see a pro-McCain story here on Digg - but all that is true. It might be true that Saddam didn't have much to do with Al Quida at that time, but right then and there none of us knew much about them either.
And what is true is that Saddam sponsored various forms of terrorism, even if it wasn't branded Al Quida at that time. The brand hardly matters when it's all to the same end.
This article shows McCain had an incredibly astute grasp of the situation even then. Who knew?- ajames01, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Let them keep jerking each other off
- Wartyboskfapped, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3By your logic, the IRA are part of Al Qaeda.
Let me spell something out for you (that you already know, but can't admit because you are dishonest): Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda.
Saddam's regime was exactly the sort of secular regime that bin Laden hated and the hardcore Wahabi Moslem fundies wanted to destroy. He had both Christians and women in his government. Women were given all the rights in his regime that they get in the West. There is no way in hell that Al Qaeda would side with or take aid from Saddam. Saddam actually imprisoned extremist terrorists - mainly because they were a threat to his regime, but nevertheless, the invasion of Iraq ended up empowering those Moslem fundamentalist jihadis. Thanks for that, idiots.
If your understanding of world politics is so simplistic that you cannot comprehend the complexities & many layers involved in these social and religious conflicts, then you should stay the hell out of these conversations. At worst, you damage your own country, because the blundering foreign policy resulting from such ignorant world-views has made America *less safe* than before (Iraq is now a training ground for terrorists) due to Bush's utterly incompetent handling. At the least, it makes you sound like a fool.- mrtymcfly, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0?
warty, you missed on that one. You didn't read superkendalls post correctly. of course on sept.10th and everyday prior to that, the US had a shortlist of countries that intelligence agencies and national security advisers deemed hostile. McCain, like many senators who are well informed on national defense, was privy to this list. Fact: Republic of IRELAND -- not on the list...
Here is the list as follows (not in any particular order):
Iran
Iraq
NK
Syria
Pakistan
- mrtymcfly, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0?
- SenorCardgage74, on 09/12/2008, -9/+2YOU CANT HIDE FROM THE INTERNET, ANCIENT *****!!!!!
IT IS FOREVER!!!!!!
Bwahahaahahahaahahahahahahahha!
/sorry. Red Bull + Deadlines + Red Bull and possibly also Redbull. - KillaJazzBass, on 09/12/2008, -9/+2A lot of people wanted to bomb any arab country hostile to us. I will give him a free pass because a lot of people said that. Ex post facto, most got thier head straight by the time the dust cleared.
- digerz, on 09/12/2008, -11/+3why do you morons only use sources that tell you what you want to hear?.
you are no better than fox news viewers, why do you even criticize them?.- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2You mean provide evidence John McCain is a quick-to-bad-judgment senator from Arizona? I'm happy to hear some substantive arguments from the republicans, but there just haven't been any.
The "teaching sex to kindergartners" ad was just about all I could take from these liars. - batkins, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1Because Fox News is a major news network despite the fact that on countless occasions their stories have been proved unethical and / or false.
- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2You mean provide evidence John McCain is a quick-to-bad-judgment senator from Arizona? I'm happy to hear some substantive arguments from the republicans, but there just haven't been any.
- insanebrain, on 09/12/2008, -4/+4Off course. . he already knew what was gonna happen.
- RRJackson, on 09/12/2008, -9/+4Get ready to address him as, "President McCain."
- Wartyboskfapped, on 09/12/2008, -3/+3Not unless he can miraculously pull ahead in the Electoral College votes, by which he still trails Obama by a large margin.
- RRJackson, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2Really? I didn't realize the polls had opened yet.
- batkins, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1If he gets elected it will be more like "President *****"
- Wartyboskfapped, on 09/12/2008, -3/+3Not unless he can miraculously pull ahead in the Electoral College votes, by which he still trails Obama by a large margin.
- rawnzilla, on 09/12/2008, -2/+2Dan Rather AND John McCain? The dogs must have been going CRAZY in that town. I heard McCain earlier and thought my tea was finished!
Disclaimer: I don't drink tea. - Fun4Two, on 09/12/2008, -4/+2Come on. No political ***** on 9/11. Leave that up to the politicians.
- digerz, on 09/12/2008, -10/+6%100 ***** tittle, mccain said on 9/11 morning....
"-----------Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others-------------"
why can't you morons just use reliable sources?.
I bet its the same people criticizing fox who are digging up this crap...***** hypocrites, your not any different.- Narcowski, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1If anything, your bit of quote disproves your point -- How is wanting to go to war with 3+ more countries after Iraq any better?
- Thorlord, on 09/12/2008, -3/+6wait, didn't it take like 2-3 days before we figured out who it was?
how did he immediately know who to blame?
I'm not suggesting conspiracy, I'm suggesting that he is a liar.- Soave, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1If you RTFA, he said (on 9/11): "But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others — who we know engage in proliferation of — of capabilities and, from time to time, involve themselves in state-sponsored terrorism."
He didn't single out any country (i.e., Iraq) until October 9th.- Thorlord, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1i did RTFA. it was piss poorly written.
- Soave, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1If you RTFA, he said (on 9/11): "But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea and others — who we know engage in proliferation of — of capabilities and, from time to time, involve themselves in state-sponsored terrorism."
- radioactivekt81, on 09/12/2008, -8/+2Wow digg has become so left; how come no one ever disses Obama in here? I think we should have a debate and not just criticize the crazy right wingers. there are plenty of crazy left wingers....so WHO is the Bill O'Rielly of the left?
- zombies187, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Some guy no one has ever heard of, because liberals aren't assholes? Crazy maybe. But not so much with the shouting and name calling and ambushing...
- CourtesyFlush, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1A lot of people were talking about Iraq in 2001.
The Unfinished War: A Decade Since Desert Storm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinish ...
Airstrikes routine in no-fly zones
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/no. ...- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1A lot of people were talking about the Ravens in 2001.
Superbowl XXXV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXV
So what? I am sure that there was talk about China, North Korea, and Russia too. What's your point?
- uu2b, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1A lot of people were talking about the Ravens in 2001.
- takasito, on 09/12/2008, -10/+0Morning of 9/11 attacks, Hussein Obama started to protect the terrorists.
- oilcan, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2how about the bush family who shuttled out of the country members of the bin Laden family without any interrogation whatsoever, right after the attacks? oh wait that never happened cuz their name isn't funny sounding enough and I didn't hear about this on fox news...
go back to sleep you stupid little bitch. go back to sleep and let the smart people in the government worry about all the important things. - Bologner, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Obama was in the Illinois senate, you dumb, racist *****.
- takasito, on 09/12/2008, -4/+0Yes all non-Hussein Obama supporters are racists, only according to silly Moonbat horde.
What is there anything between calling "Hussein Obama" and being a racist? I do not get your stupidity. - wampalord, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4"What is there anything between calling "Hussein Obama" and being a racist? I do not get your stupidity"
You obviously know the implications you are making, just like anyone who calls McCain "McBush" knows the implications they are making. You accuse him of protecting terrorists? Show me one shred, one iota of proof that Obama is somehow pro-terrorism.
He is an American and a patriot, just like John McCain. You can't say one of them is "more American" or "less American" than the other.
- takasito, on 09/12/2008, -4/+0Yes all non-Hussein Obama supporters are racists, only according to silly Moonbat horde.
- zombies187, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Source?
- oilcan, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2how about the bush family who shuttled out of the country members of the bin Laden family without any interrogation whatsoever, right after the attacks? oh wait that never happened cuz their name isn't funny sounding enough and I didn't hear about this on fox news...
- TheMachine1, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Saudi Arabian government's funding of extremist interpretation of the Koran probably can explain the sequence of events that lead to Bin Laden and his mostly Saudi terrorist attacking the US on 911.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3If you haven't already, you should read "Hatred's Kingdom" by Dore Gold.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kSjgflRJPQoC&dq=h ...
Saudi Arabia spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year spreading their extremist version of Islam around the world, including here in the US.
This is the same version of Islam that Osama Bin Laden uses to justify his international jihad against the west. This is the same wahhabist ideology that Osama's second in command, Dr. Ayman Al Zwahiri, learned in Egypt, when he was a member of the muslim brotherhood.
This is the hatred being perpetuated by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3If you haven't already, you should read "Hatred's Kingdom" by Dore Gold.
- ExplosivesWTC, on 09/12/2008, -15/+169/11 was an inside job. Watch Loose Change Final Cut.
- Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -11/+7Prove it, idiot, or STFU.
- Waiting2awake, on 09/12/2008, -5/+9Herk - once again forgets that prove comes from a court of law - all that is required to get to said court would be evidense. Is there evidense? You bet.
Is it a slam dunk? Certainly not as much as the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction was....but certainly enough to get them to stand trial.- AresDiggs, on 09/12/2008, -7/+7Yea loose change final cut.... you know its called final cut for a reason... they had a few versions before that but their evidence kept getting debunked... so they had to change it and remake it more then once... yea that shows how accurate their piece of ***** movie is...
but i'm not gonna argue with you... because we both know that no matter how many FACTS i give you.. you will still never believe me - Waiting2awake, on 09/12/2008, -6/+5Ares - I agree that there were other version, then they were edited and changed as new information came available. That is what happens everywhere - you reassess what you think when new stuff happens....
For example - On Sept 11, 2001 it was reasonable to assume that OBL did it just as the Admin said.
Then the lies, then more lies, then their evidense gets shown to be manufactured, then we find out they planned it all, then the Anthrax, then, then, then, then......
So here we are 7 years removed, more information is available about how this entire debacle went down - and here you are, claiming the same version of reality that was reasonable 7 years ago, but clearly appears to be faulty now....
I really don't know what happened on that day because the only version we have received is from people that are known liers, and instigated a philosophy that even to question what they have said about it, regardless of all the evidense, is anti-American....Now why do you suppose that was?
Was it part of the PNAC?
You have no right to use the term "facts", anywhere in relation to this Admin, especially how they controlled the information. I won't believe you - but I might believe an transparent court - funny how the same people that told you OBL did it, and then closed the books, forgot about him, and decided that questions regarding that day are anti-American - ALSO refuse any other investigations....
Real funny indeed. - AresDiggs, on 09/12/2008, -3/+2Uhhhh BS is BS no matter what you say... I'm not watching Pres. Bushes press conference about what happened on a loop.. I'm talking about facts from scientists who write peer reviewed papers about what happened, papers published by NIST, Popular mechanics, and countless others... and thats not counting the fact that it takes 5th grade level physics to understand what happened and realize that the 9/11 truther BS is just that - BS
I understand its good to question what the government does and says... but this truther ***** is so off the wall bat ***** insane... i wonder wtf you guys think sometimes...
- AresDiggs, on 09/12/2008, -7/+7Yea loose change final cut.... you know its called final cut for a reason... they had a few versions before that but their evidence kept getting debunked... so they had to change it and remake it more then once... yea that shows how accurate their piece of ***** movie is...
- Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -6/+5Once again Waiting2Awake believes that he and his fellow cultists can make whatever claims they want without have to provide evidence to support those claims. Is there evidence? Yes. And all of the credible, verifiable evidence clearly indicates that the theories put forth by the Cult of 9/11 are wrong. No, not just wrong but completely, absolutely wrong. Is it a slam dunk? Yep. There's no doubt that Waiting2Awake has no idea what he's talking about.
FYI: They found WMD's in Iraq. You either don't keep up with the news or you are being deliberately disingenuous. Care to let us know which one it is?- BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7Show proof of this 'cult' or STFU.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
Imaginary cults are not a threat to you or anyone. - Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -10/+3I'd say that you just provided the proof, Brappie.
- BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -4/+9I'd say that your opinion is not proof of anything but your opinion, lamer.
- BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7"Once again Waiting2Awake believes that he and his fellow cultists can make whatever claims they want without have to provide evidence to support those claims."
I say again, please provide evidence of this 'cult'-- "credible, verifiable evidence", of course-- to support your claims...or STFU. You can talk the talk, but otherwise seem to just sit there, Sparky. - Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -8/+3cult - noun
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
Substitute conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 for human sickness and that is a fairly exact description of you and your cultist friends.
Now how about you stop trying to change the subject and answer the question. Either produce credible, verifiable evidence that supports your idiotic claims of STFU. - BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -4/+9Yes, yes, you proved some of those definitions support your OPINION. Let's see:
"5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols."
Fail.
"6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."
'a religion or sect'...obviously a fail from the start
"7. the members of such a religion or sect."
Likewise, a fail based on a fail.
"8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific."
Okay, this is getting stupid. You proved nothing. You attribute me as being a member of a cult you have imagined. If you were a man, you'd pony-up and admit that you are grasping at straws to prove YOUR ***** OPINION.
"Now how about you stop trying to change the subject and answer the question."
Now, I didn't change a single subject and have been exactly right here on the same one. Arguing with you is like making waffles out of bubblegum. Why don't you *ask* me a ***** question, you lamer? Not once have you done so in your addressing me above. - Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -9/+3Sacred symbols: Alex Jones and Ron Paul. The two leaders of your little cult who we are not allowed to criticize without provoking a loud, ignorant response from someone like yourself.
You believe in your theories without the benefit of proof. That sounds a lot like faith to a sane person. Of course I can understand how that would escape the likes of you.
You people band together to share your faith in junk science and misinformation. Sounds like a religious sect to me.
Your methods for proving your idiotic theories are completely unscientific and, in fact, are anti-scientific. You reject science, mathematics and engineering in favor of your belief system. Sounds like the people who reject evolution in favor of creationism. In short, a religious sect.
There's no doubt that you idiots have grown this in to a cult.
Now answer the original subject. Prove that your faith based views are accurate or STFU. If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then vanish. Your presence is as irrelevant as your postings. - BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -3/+9"Sacred symbols: Alex Jones and Ron Paul. The two leaders of your little cult who we are not allowed to criticize without provoking a loud, ignorant response from someone like yourself."
***** you. I don't worship anyone, including these two. Stop projecting; you follow them around like they feed you. Also, how, exactly, is someone 'loud' in here? I am starting to suspect that you actually fail at English.
"You believe in your theories without the benefit of proof. That sounds a lot like faith to a sane person. Of course I can understand how that would escape the likes of you."
Calling me crazy does not make you right, no matter how many times you try it.
"You people band together to share your faith in junk science and misinformation. Sounds like a religious sect to me."
Um...'Bury Brigade' anyone? STOP PROJECTING. Hellloooooo?!?!?! Anyone in there?
"Your methods for proving your idiotic theories are completely unscientific and, in fact, are anti-scientific. You reject science, mathematics and engineering in favor of your belief system. Sounds like the people who reject evolution in favor of creationism. In short, a religious sect."
Dude, you just quoted a dictionary and then said 'but read it like THIS' as proof. Then you seriously have the gall to question *my* sanity and *my* grasp of science?!?! Yeah. Me so stoopid. U sew smrt. Get a life, lamer.
"There's no doubt that you idiots have grown this in to a cult. "
I doubt it. My views on this issue were formed that morning and no person, nothing, NADA has been the reason for it. I was reborn as a 'truther' on September 11th, 2001 at about 7am PST. Your attributing this to a cult that I do not lead nor follow is ***** imaginary and completely lame. It's a downright fabrication, this 'cult' of yours.
"Now answer the original subject. Prove that your faith based views are accurate or STFU. If you can't, and we both know that you can't, then vanish.
Can you please state that as a question? I'm really tired of asking. Oh, and I will not 'vanish', no matter how many times you flick that stupid little wrist at me.
"Your presence is as irrelevant as your postings."
More opinions. Oh my, my surprise is overwhelming. I feel faint. - Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -9/+2"I don't worship anyone, including these two."
Then why so defensive, Brappie? Is there something that you don't want to admit? Not even to yourself?
"Calling me crazy does not make you right"
It doesn't make me wrong, either. Nor does your denial of the obvious make me wrong.
"Dude, you just quoted a dictionary..."
Well, I figured that you'd never seen a dictionary before so I thought I'd give you a little treat.
"Then you seriously have the gall to question *my* sanity and *my* grasp of science?!?!"
I never questioned your grasp of science. Clearly you have none. I think the question about your sanity answered itself by the way you chose to respond.
"I doubt it."
But you have no doubt that the government is spraying mind-control chemicals in to the air in chem-trails. It's very telling what you doubt and what you accept as the truth.
"My views on this issue were formed that morning..."
Speaking of a telling comment, you just admitted that you made up your mind with absolutely no evidence to support your beliefs. Sounds like a faith based belief to me.
"I was reborn as a 'truther' on September 11th, 2001 at about 7am PST."
So you're a born-again truther? Who else claims to "born again"? Anybody?
"Your attributing this to a cult that I do not lead nor follow is ***** imaginary and completely lame."
And yet every comment you've made in this thread supports the fact that you are a member in good standing of the Cult of 9/11.
"It's a downright fabrication, this 'cult' of yours."
Speaking of fabrications, have you read the idiotic theories that your cult has been posting?
"Can you please state that as a question? I'm really tired of asking."
Just because you are too dense to follow the conversation, Brappie, I will do that just for you. Please provide even one shred of verifiable, credible evidence that supports the conspiracy theories of the Cult of 9/11. As I said before, we both know that you can't because there is no credible, verifiable evidence which supports the dogma of your cult but sometimes it's fun to watch you idiots try.
"Oh, and I will not 'vanish', no matter how many times you flick that stupid little wrist at me"
I know. It's like trying to get skunk smell out of your tires. You try to clean the stink away but it lingers. - kemp34, on 09/12/2008, -3/+6Herkimer, what do you have to say about a Murdoch property reporting on this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/significant- ... - BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7"Then why so defensive, Brappie? Is there something that you don't want to admit? Not even to yourself?"
You lie, I correct you. You know the circle VERY well, dumbass.
"Well, I figured that you'd never seen a dictionary before so I thought I'd give you a little treat."
Oh contraire. I was one of those kids who read dictionaries. Why cut the rest of the comment off? Your dodge has been noted, lamer. This is why i use screen shots, myself. It's more *honest*.
"I never questioned your grasp of science. Clearly you have none. I think the question about your sanity answered itself by the way you chose to respond."
I think you are still not a psychiatrist and simply stating childish opinions, yet again. As for science, I asked you a year ago if you have read 'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart. Have you? Unless I can gauge where you are in your understanding of new science, there is no discussion possible.
"Speaking of a telling comment, you just admitted that you made up your mind with absolutely no evidence to support your beliefs. Sounds like a faith based belief to me."
Two pieces of evidence set me off: 1) the path of most resistance was taken by not one, but TWO buildings that morning, and 2) George Bush's face in that classroom. I have seen you argue the first many, many times. I do not think your grasp of Newtonian physics is very good at all. The latter is a subject much bigger than can be argued with you, entirely based upon my own feelings and perceptions. But the physics don't lie. I know you will, though.
"So you're a born-again truther? Who else claims to "born again"? Anybody? "
Oh, get over it. The joke was obviously beyond you, twit.
"And yet every comment you've made in this thread supports the fact that you are a member in good standing of the Cult of 9/11."
Serious delusions you have there.
""It's a downright fabrication, this 'cult' of yours."
Speaking of fabrications, have you read the idiotic theories that your cult has been posting?"
What the ***** is with all this dodging? You are NOT any good at it, you know.
"Just because you are too dense to follow the conversation, Brappie, I will do that just for you. Please provide even one shred of verifiable, credible evidence that supports the conspiracy theories of the Cult of 9/11. As I said before, we both know that you can't because there is no credible, verifiable evidence which supports the dogma of your cult but sometimes it's fun to watch you idiots try."
Not a single question mark. Not one. You are a freaking idiot, you know that?
"I know. It's like trying to get skunk smell out of your tires. You try to clean the stink away but it lingers."
Yes. Yes, you are! Thank you for the wonderful description of yourself! That's a keeper.
No, I won't go another round. You have had enough of a chance at twisting my words for one day. I appreciate you taking the time to show newer Diggers how dishonest your methods are. Better that they learn young. - Rogue7, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Wow... what a long sub topic.
Why did I even come down here. - batkins, on 09/12/2008, -3/+8Regardless of whether there is some sort of imaginary cult or not the fact still remains that you, herk, are a *****.
- somedirtbag, on 09/12/2008, -8/+2It's so cute watching you two flame each other. You two should just bone and get it over with.
- Herkimer56, on 09/12/2008, -9/+2"You lie, I correct you."
But I wasn't speaking about you in particular but you assumed that I was. Freud would have a field day with you.
"I was one of those kids who read dictionaries.'
I guess nobody liked you when you were a kid, either.
"Why cut the rest of the comment off?'
Because it was right there to be seen, dolt. That was an incredibly stupid question.
"It's more *honest*."
Nothing about you is *honest*, Brappie. Why don't you tell us all again about the State of California trying to kill you with moth hormones. That one was a scream!
"I think you are still not a psychiatrist and simply stating childish opinions, yet again. "
Well, that's just your opinion.
"Unless I can gauge where you are in your understanding of new science, there is no discussion possible."
I prefer old science that utilized things like mathematics and provable results. Obviously, you don't.
"Two pieces of evidence set me off: 1) the path of most resistance was taken by not one, but TWO buildings that morning,"
Again, it's that whole mathematics, engineering and physics bugaboo that you obviously are still not capable of understanding.
"and 2) George Bush's face in that classroom."
And his reaction proves what scientifically? I mean, besides you're obvious suffering from BDS.
"I do not think your grasp of Newtonian physics is very good at all."
I think that your grasp of Newtonian Physics is non-existent.
"But the physics don't lie."
That's the only true thing you've ever said about physics. Pity you don't really understand what you're saying.
"The joke was obviously beyond you, twit."
You're not beyond me, Brappie. I understand you perfectly. You said something telling and now you're trying to explain it away as a joke.
"What the ***** is with all this dodging? You are NOT any good at it, you know."
Says the man that keeps dodging when I ask him to provide credible evidence to support the dogma of his cult.
"Not a single question mark. Not one."
Good. You're familiar with punctuation marks. Now if you could only puzzle out basic mathematics. So if you like you consider it more of a demand than a question. Feel better now?
"Yes. Yes, you are! Thank you for the wonderful description of yourself! That's a keeper."
Wow. That's just an incredibly lame comeback. That's bad even for you, Brappie, and you really suck at this.
"You have had enough of a chance at twisting my words for one day."
No one has to twist your words, Brappie. You suck so badly at this that you don't need anyone's help.
"I appreciate you taking the time to show newer Diggers how dishonest your methods are."
Says the man that has TOTALLY failed to ever prove even one of his theories might even possible be correct. You are a loser on Digg just as you are a pathetic loser in life, Brappie. Go find someone else to beat up on you for a while. I'm getting bored with your inanity. - BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Wow, Tink. You really are as goofy as two poodles screwing. I am not even going to bother.
- BrapAllgood, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7Show proof of this 'cult' or STFU.
- tyronejvauf, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2he is not all there
- ralph12c41, on 09/12/2008, -8/+1Watch the left go down the tubes this election cycle. The 2006 elections have established that they can't govern. A small fringe including you digg moonbats is controlling the party and you are not in step with mainstream American.
- deepthot42, on 09/12/2008, -1/+22 years... that's hardly enough time to wipe up after the Repubs
- Calinthalus, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1Apparently it's not time enough to do jack or *****...which is what Pelosi has accomplished in her "Draining of the Swamp".
- normalkid0615, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2The REAL reason that Democrats have done nothing in two years...
George W Bitch is still president and will Veto anything in his sight
Republicons have filibustered a RECORD number of times since then.
I win, you lose. Vote Obama.
- kristov, on 09/12/2008, -3/+6I know most of you 'head-in-the-sand republicans' dont understand why this matters- but its because Iraq did not attack us.
- slantyeyed, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2he also made a case for war with iran, syria, libya, north korea, etc. what that's the hubbub?
- SheilaNoya, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2The "hubbub" is that McCain still thinks it's 1945 and that our military is the ONLY solution to every problem in the world.
This also carries over into other areas. Look at what Bush has done to our technology industry. Instead of investing in technology that betters our lives and makes us more energy efficient, Bush only invests in technology that goes *BOOM* and blows things up.
McCain's ideology revolves around military intervention and war. He's spent most of his life playing "war hero" and he will continue the same bully tactics and war mongering that Bush has done. We can't afford any more of this crap. It's time to move in a NEW direction.
- SheilaNoya, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2The "hubbub" is that McCain still thinks it's 1945 and that our military is the ONLY solution to every problem in the world.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 