Digg - Most IMPORTANT Point EVER Made by Bill Maher!!!

459 Comments
Who Dugg It?

GlassAgate, on 09/21/2008, -11/+172Well said.
- ExplosivesWTC, on 09/22/2008, -55/+13I just hate the way people actually think Al Qaeda exists. 9/11 was an inside job and the evidence is overwhelming. 430 Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org have put their names and careers on the line to get the word out. Two 110 storey buildings don't get turned to dust in 10 seconds. Sorry not physically possible from fire, only EXPLOSIVES!
  
  There are many films about this, Loose Change 2nd Edition, Loose Change Final Cut, 9/11 Mysteries, Painful Deceptions, September 11 Revisited and many others all show how they were controlled demolitions and how the whole thing was a staged inside job.
  
  While I agree with Bill Maher's statement, let's get to the root of it all and expose it and have a real independent investigation, not a sham like the Bush appointed 911 Commission.
  - spaceshipsix, on 09/22/2008, -16/+17Give it up *****. You're not convincing anyone with this *****, we have more important things to spend our time doing.
  - csw1342, on 09/22/2008, -8/+9Look, we get it. I'm sure you have great dreams of being a revolutionary or such, but practicing for this role on the internet is not going to make it reality. Matter of fact, wearing a bill board and walking up the interstate is not going to make it a reality either. While its nice to see such enthusiasm possibly efforts could be directed in a manner that might feasibly make a difference in the short/long term for example you could help teach kids to read or teach the elderly to use a computer. Spreading one of your personally held beliefs is not education its a sign of a fascist. If you want to make a difference in this world then go be involved in your local community. I could be wrong.
  - Rheic, on 09/22/2008, -6/+11http://www.911myths.com/
  - NateTheGreat7, on 09/22/2008, -14/+15im sorry, im normally a very nice person... iv just gotta say... YOU SIR, ARE A MORON!
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -11/+10Lots of insults, no evidence. This is why they *knew* they could perpetrate 9/11 *and* get away with it.
  - Mujokan, on 09/22/2008, -6/+10Please explain to me exactly what the advantage was to the perpetrators of demolishing the buildings rather than just flying planes into them.
    
    What did they accomplish by taking the enormous risk of planting HE through the building that wouldn't have been accomplished by wrecking the buildings using planes alone and leaving them to be demolished by hand?
    
    Imagine if one of the planes had missed, or been taken down by the passengers! Then all the explosives would have been found still in place.
    
    Whatever goals the Bush Administrations (or the shape-changing lizards from space) wanted to achieve from this stunt would have just as equally been reached by having the planes alone, at about 0.01% of the risk of getting caught and executed for treason.
  - Pssdoff, on 09/22/2008, -14/+3Those jets were remotely controlled, there were no occupants. The perpetrators took steps to keep loss of life fairly minimal.
    Those buildings were full of asbestos, needed expensive remodeling, and were losing money.
    Did you know that multiple requests were made to obtain a controlled demolition permit for the two WTC buildings, but were all denied? That is why a large terrorism insurance policy was also taken out just months before the attack.
    
    If the WTC towers did not collapse entirely, it would have cost a fortune to bring the remnants down in a safe manner considering that they were still full of asbestos. The tower's debris was all collapsed in a neat pile, all the steel was cut just short enough so that it could be loaded onto trucks.
    
    Those planes could not miss. They were on an autopilot system that has been in use by the military since the 1980's. You could fly a 757 into a dartboard if you want to and there would be no brave passengers that could stop you.
    
    I'll just say one thing: The 9/11 Truth people are the only ones with facts and logic on their side. Its always the 9/11 happened exactly as the government said people who have the emotional insults, but no details or reasoning to back their viewpoint.
  - rowjimmy, on 09/22/2008, -2/+4@Mujokan - *shape-changing lizards from inter-dimensional space
  - raitchison, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Your troll-fu is weak.
  - Mujokan, on 09/23/2008, -2/+0Thanks rowjimmy, you are right.
    
    "Did you know that multiple requests were made to obtain a controlled demolition permit for the two WTC buildings, but were all denied?"
    
    Source?
    
    "That is why a large terrorism insurance policy was also taken out just months before the attack."
    
    You're saying a new policy specifically about terrorism was taken out? Source?
    
    As for the rest of it, it's invented ad hoc. The beneficiary from not having to demolish the buildings would be the Port Authority. I can't see them having the incentive or the means to pull off such a scam. They were so concerned about losing public NY money that they destroyed a big chunk of NY?
- worldpeacenow, on 09/22/2008, -27/+4Everybody digg this up. And Vote on it!
  
  POLL: Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as VP?
  pbs.org — PBS Poll...cast your vote now! No ID required
  
  http://digg.com/political_opinion/POLL_Do_you_thin ...
- CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -25/+13"Terrorism should not control our lives" he says, yet the truth remains hidden in plain sight. "controlling our lives" is the very reason the 9/11 FAKE TERROR and the "Patriot" act (which was written and signed long before September 2001) was foisted upon us in the first place.
  
  These monsters have in mind to create the "perfect" police state and their plan is clearly working. The "perfect" police state is one against which it's inhabitants do not rebel because they don't know they are imprisoned. Sound like a movie you've seen?
  
  The link between Bush and Hitler is well documented as is Bush's grandfather's financing of Hitler and attempting to take over the US with corporate power. How different is that from the Bush we see today? The only difference is that this one takes control while *saying* that he's "protecting freedoms".
  
  Why do all you suckers allow the lies to pacify you when the truth of the coup is so very obvious?! 9/11 is the key--investigate it or shut your uninformed mouth.
  - btschul, on 09/22/2008, -17/+20911 was not an inside job.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -22/+10@btschul said
    
    "911 was not an inside job."
    
    Very well developed--not. Didn't I tell you to shut your mouth? Yes, 9/11 was an inside job and Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, either. Controlling history is a key to a "successful" police state this goal is easily accomplished by "truth through repetition". Seems to be working on you.
  - curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -8/+17You stupid *****. You actually think the Bush administration has the foresight, skill, and knowledge to pull off an inside job on 9/11 without any mistakes, leaks, or actual proof coming to light? They aren't that smart. Just look at their planning on the Iraq war for evidence.
    
    In order to pull off a 9/11, you would have to involve thousands of people who would all have to keep quiet about their part in the most horrific attack ever on the US. They would have to sneak tons of explosives into one of the largest buildings in the world. All of the rent-a-cops who guard big buildings at night must be in on the crime as well. How can they sneak explosives into a building that has people in it 24/7?
    
    Furthermore, the planning that goes into blowing up a building requires extraordinary detail, precision, and time. 9/11 happened 9 months after Bush came into office. Assuming he decided to do it his first day in office, it would take more than 9 months to plan and execute something on that scale. Just finding the people willing to kill themselves to do it is a problem of epic proportions to any 9/11 inside job plan. And if there are any people like that, they would have to ask a tremendous amount of people to do it before they found someone.
  - btschul, on 09/22/2008, -6/+12CrazedLeper: Hmm.. No, you didn't tell me to shut my mouth. And no, 911 was NOT an inside job. I believe curtisag provided a perfectly acceptable explanation of why. The first part of your name seems to be entirely accurate, however as I have never met you, I can't attest to the second part.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -17/+9@curtisag said
    
    "You stupid *****."
    Very intelligent. Whatever follows will most certainly be reasonable, well thought-out and researched.
    -----------------------------
    "You actually think the Bush administration has the foresight, skill, and knowledge to pull off an inside job on 9/11 without any mistakes, leaks, or actual proof coming to light?"
    
    No, I don't because there were mistakes, leaks and A FRACKIN' MOUNTAIN OF PROOF that you refuse to look at. The destruction of the 4th plane over PA, was a MISTAKE--it was intended for the capitol building. Had NORAD not shot it down first, they would have killed any number of congressmen and declared martial law.
    
    NORAD was not "brought in" but rather, deceived into standing down with phony drills. As for the LEAK, go to YouTube and search "Norman Mineta" and listen to the testimony he gave on video before the 9/11 cOmmission.
    
    As for the PROOF, Physicist Dr. Steven Jones proved that there was thermate in the dust from the towers. Finished being wrong? No? No prob; I got more.
    ---------------------------------------
    "They aren't that smart. Just look at their planning on the Iraq war for evidence."
    
    Yes, they are that smart--you are not. They had help from smarter people, too--Israel. The Iraq war is going exactly the way they planned, Sadaam is dead and they're stealing his oil. Soon they'll be doing the same in Iran. All the rest of the "failures" is just talk, they don't care about the people or Iraq or the US soldiers that volunteered to die for lies and oil.
    ----------------------
    "In order to pull off a 9/11, you would have to involve thousands of people who would all have to keep quiet about their part in the most horrific attack ever on the US. "
    
    "Involve" does not mean "inform". Compartmentalization means that only a select few at the top need know the *reason* they were doing what they are doing. A very few who actually planted the bombs knew what was going on but they may have been foreign nationals (again, Israel). The rest were blindly following orders--like you do.
    --------------------------
    "They would have to sneak tons of explosives into one of the largest buildings in the world. All of the rent-a-cops who guard big buildings at night must be in on the crime as well. How can they sneak explosives into a building that has people in it 24/7?"
    
    Security for the Towers *and* Dulles airport was handled by "Securacom" headed by none other than Marvin BUSH. They closed and powered down the entire complex the weekend before which is when the bomb-sniffing dogs were, mysteriously, withdrawn. The buildings were there for 40 years, they had plenty of time.
    --------------
    "Furthermore, the planning that goes into blowing up a building requires extraordinary detail, precision, and time. 9/11 happened 9 months after Bush came into office. Assuming he decided to do it his first day in office, it would take more than 9 months to plan and execute something on that scale. "
    
    The planning began when his daddy didn't get re-elected. They had 10 years (which included stealing the election) unlimited funds and all the best connections. It would be challenging, audacious, evil and unprecedented but not, technically, impossible.
    ---------------
    "Just finding the people willing to kill themselves to do it is a problem of epic proportions to any 9/11 inside job plan. And if there are any people like that, they would have to ask a tremendous amount of people to do it before they found someone"
    
    The planes were remote-piloted. Al Qaeda doesn't exist anymore. At least 5 of the so-called hijackers (who by all accounts, couldn't fly single-engine planes) are known to be alive and well. Do your homework while you still can.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -14/+6@btschul said:
    
    "...No, you didn't tell me to shut my mouth. And no, 911 was NOT an inside job."
    
    Yes I did and yes, it was.
  - btschul, on 09/22/2008, -7/+10Well, actually, you said "shut your uninformed mouth". And seeing as how my mouth is not uninformed, you couldn't have been talking to me. I have a close friend who makes his living as a structural engineer, and in his professional opinion, two planes brought down the towers. I'd say I'm pretty well informed. Where did you get your information? "Teh interwebs"? I'd say YOU are the one who is ill-informed. In fact, I'd say that anyone who thinks that the US government would put in place a conspiracy so massive it is bound to be discovered that involves the murder of 2000 US citizens in plain sight is dangerously ill-informed.
  - btschul, on 09/22/2008, -7/+7CrazedLeper: I was just reading through your post, and you said "As for the PROOF, Physicist Dr. Steven Jones proved that there was thermate in the dust from the towers. Finished being wrong? No? No prob; I got more." Thermite is used for welding. Like when you want to weld metal beams when building a large tower. It is not an explosive. You can't execute a controlled demolition with thermite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding
  - GawtMilk, on 09/22/2008, -4/+4Stop being such an idiot. A police state wouldn't be achieved through the legislative branch.
  - geekoid, on 09/22/2008, -7/+7@btschul, TherMATE, not TherMITE. There's a very distinct difference between the two. Firstly, if you use Wikipedia as your source, you should search properly. On the very page you quote, Thermate is mentioned, and it says that Thermate burns hotter than Thermite.
    
    Secondly, if you say your close friend is informed, where is his proof? There is photographic and video evidence that columns of the WTC towers were diagonally cut with a high heat compound. If it can weld metal, it can most certainly melt metal, since that's what welding is!!! It is the melting of two pieces of metal so a bond is formed... wouldn't that same process also melt the metal and permit it to sever, if that metal was under weight pressure?
    
    Look at the link here: http://valis.gnn.tv/B15947
    
    This shows a clearly diagonal cut beam with melted metal and sulphur residue present. A key sign of THERMATE use.
    
    "Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). The addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature."
    
    Check your FACTS, before blindly believing it is not possible.
  - solid12345, on 09/22/2008, -4/+7After 50 years of Islamic terrorism, to say 9/11 is an inside job is ridiculous. Hell, even if 9/11 WERE an inside job, why would the government go through all this work to digitally fake Bin Laden videos, use remote control guidance systems on planes and fake the panicked calls of passengers on planes when all they'd have to do is send some undercover ops down to the local Mosque and they would find a dozen radicals ready to commit themselves to such an attack.
    
    Remember when all the so-called "moderate" Muslims were in the streets of Europe and America calling for "death to the infidel" Salman Rushdie? Why is it so hard for Muslims to admit they have a whacked out fringe culture of martydom? Instead they make up conspiracy theories about Jews, Israel and America to put to rest what their extremist lunatics do.
    
    Is it so hard to ask for a group of thousands of Muslims from Cairo to Islamabad to gather out in the streets after Friday prayer and demand an end to terrorism as it is easy for them to gather in the streets and chant death to Israel?
    
    And don't for a second condemn me of racism, bigotry or whatever you left-wingers will use against me, I have spoken out my fair share against Christianity, if you can attack Scientology, Christianity or whatever religion, it is fair to attack Islam.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1@btschul said:
    
    "Well, actually, you said "shut your uninformed mouth". And seeing as how my mouth is not uninformed, you couldn't have been talking to me.
    
    Here, let me spell it out for you: Y O U A R E U N I N F O R M E D.
    --------------
    "I have a close friend who makes his living as a structural engineer, and in his professional opinion, two planes brought down the towers."
    
    So your friend is informed? Where is *your* knowledge? Why don't you hear from a couple hundred architects and engineers who disagree with the 9/11 cOmission ? http://www.ae911truth.org/
    
    -----------------
    "I'd say I'm pretty well informed. Where did you get your information? "Teh interwebs"? I'd say YOU are the one who is ill-informed. In fact,
    
    I get my information from a variety of sources and I can think for myself, too. You can mock the "interwebs" all you want but it is the best source for *uncensored* information. Television k`news is completely locked down and censored. The American press is "free" in name only.
    --------------------
    "I'd say that anyone who thinks that the US government would put in place a conspiracy so massive it is bound to be discovered that involves the murder of 2000 US citizens in plain sight is dangerously ill-informed."
    
    Here is a short list of some of the dirt the US gov't has done in the last 200 years (that we *know* of):
    
    * Genocide: Native Americans
    * Genocide: African slaves
    * Kidnapping: African slaves
    * War crime: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    * False flag terror: Gulf of Tonkin
    * False flag terror: USS Liberty incident
    * False flag terror: Oklahoma city bombing
    * War crime: Iraq
    * War crime: Iran -- oh, sorry, this one is upcoming
    * Subterfuge: any number of nations where the US has overthrown democratically elected leaders replacing them with cruel and violent dictators.
    * Post 9/11 anthrax attacks -- proven to be from the US military's supply.
    * 9/11. Your government did it.
    
    I could go on but what would be the point? You're not listening and you're not going to change your mind.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1@Mujokan said:
    
    "Please explain to me exactly what the advantage was to the perpetrators of demolishing the buildings rather than just flying planes into them."
    
    Shock and awe.
    ---------------------------
    
    "What did they accomplish by taking the enormous risk of planting HE through the building that wouldn't have been accomplished by wrecking the buildings using planes alone and leaving them to be demolished by hand?"
    
    The reason the Towers were selected was because they were a "white elephant".
    
    1) the towers were losing money. Tenancy was low due to the dearth of high-speed internet which could not be cost-effectively upgraded.
    
    2) A court had ordered removal of asbestos from the towers (which, by the way, is most likely the cause for all the illnesses in the first responders since then). It would have been too expensive to remove the asbestos ($1 bn). Not only did they solve the whole problem by destroying the building for a few million dollars but Larry "Pull It" Silverstein got paid $7+ bn to do it.
    
    If they had just let the planes crash into the buildings, people would have been in favor of repairing rather than demolishing the towers. That would add another billion to the cost and they would still have had the internet and asbestos problems. Demolishing the towers after plane strikes would have been expensive, dangerous and time-consuming but forensic examination of the impacts would also have become possible. As it was, they illegally cleaned up and disposed of the steel and the BONE FRAGMENTS FROM THE TOPS OF NEARBY BUILDINGS. It was simply more cost effective (and spectacular!) to have the buildings completely destroyed with a single effort.
    -----------------------
    "Imagine if one of the planes had missed, or been taken down by the passengers! Then all the explosives would have been found still in place."
    
    Yes, you are correct, that's why the planes were remote piloted. There is no way of knowing *exactly* what happened to the passengers of the planes. They could have been dead already; we can't know now. You can assume they were on board but there is no evidence that they actually were and the fakers knew that there didn't need to be any evidence. No body parts (or plane parts) were found at the "site" in PA. Google "Operation Northwoods".
    ------------------
    "Whatever goals the Bush Administrations (or the shape-changing lizards from space) wanted to achieve from this stunt would have just as equally been reached by having the planes alone, at about 0.01% of the risk of getting caught and executed for treason."
    
    The risk of prosecution is negligible since *they* own the courts, media, Department of Justice, CIA, FBI, NSA, Department of Homeland "Security", all state and local police forces, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, NORAD, National Guard and any other branch of "defense" you can think of.
- frazier428, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5dugg this for bush clip at end
- maj0rm0j0, on 09/22/2008, -2/+4Republican Campaign Plan - Be very scared and look at the pretty Mayor of Icansee, Russia!
  
  Terrorism, Terrorism, Gay Marriage!!
- Liquiflux, on 09/22/2008, -6/+2More hurricanes because of global warming??? Maybe she should read this: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
- Nathrat, on 09/22/2008, -8/+2This is absurd. They basically said, "Hey, terrorists are going to be attacking and killing us, there's nothing we can do about it, it's as natural as a hurricane, let's give up." Great attitude.
  - alecks, on 09/22/2008, -0/+8No, they didn't say there's nothing we can do, the point was that we shouldn't give up our liberties and constitution for the false belief that that will save us.
  - zeitgueist, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Way to miss the point, *****.
    
    He's pointing out that we should not be freaking out and passing laws of questionable constitutionality, in a panic, for something that's not nearly as big a deal as we make it out to be.
  - Nathrat, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1"Way to miss the point, *****."
    wow, way to use your words zeitgueist, you're very clever. Grow up.
  - zeitgueist, on 09/23/2008, -1/+2Well I assumed you were being willfully ignorant, so I used strong language. Since it's now clear that you may actually be that ignorant, maybe I should retract.
- OwdenBowden, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!
  - Tomchei, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Well, don't GIVE me death, just come and try to take my life.
- arcanesmile, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2well said?.. i like the thing that will.i.am said.... er, wait?
- JettaMan, on 09/22/2008, -4/+2Naomi Klein, go away! We are done with Communism and Socialism. The next wave is Libertarianism. Her "Progressive" beliefs are the ultimate in double speak because they are actually regressive policies.
- EscapeTheTruth, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Translation of what Bill Maher said:
  
  Its all part of the plaaaan.
- razorsedge555, on 09/24/2008, -0/+1And thank you, Naomi Klein, for making a completely irrelevant statement about global warming.
JenniferInMO, on 09/21/2008, -5/+510Excellent perspective. Our Constitution is more important than our safety. People have died throughout history for our Consitution and all that it provides for us. Why now are we so willing to throw it away one piece at a time?
- ConanMayerFan, on 09/22/2008, -24/+25capitalism
  - ErickStevenson, on 09/22/2008, -8/+14Don't know why you're being dugg down, it is what we are fighting for, the constitution is old news.
- reed311, on 09/22/2008, -6/+23The Constitution is far from a perfect document. I think it's just that some people today don't like the all of the clauses of the Constitution. Some people don't like the 2nd amendment, some don't like the separation of church and state, etc. In times of crisis, it gives people an excuse to ignore certain parts.
  
  Just look at slavery and segregation. They were both perfectly legal under the Constitution; and those who were against equal rights for blacks would claim that it was unconstitutional to end slavery or segregation.
  
  My point is, if the Constitution allows itself to be so easily subverted; then it is time for a new Constitution.
  - PabloMac, on 09/22/2008, -27/+7Where exactly is that "separation of church and state" phrase in the U.S. Constitution?
  - Speed, on 09/22/2008, -3/+39Included with the first amendment. The bit about congress making no law in regards to free speech or religion. Kind of sad when an American needs a Canadian to explain the constitutional amendments.
  - SonicRift, on 09/22/2008, -4/+17Sadder yet that we Canadians are so well versed on the American constitution.
  - dickybrown, on 09/22/2008, -19/+3good point, maybe Obama can get a new Constitution through the Senate?
  - oldgal, on 09/22/2008, -0/+22It is not written, it is implied by the 1st Amendment as quoted in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
  - regeya, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7Bonus points for bringing in the Danbury Letter. Bravo.
  - kevinhall11, on 09/22/2008, -7/+1Tommy sounds like he's trying to guarantee that the government won't get in the church's business, not the other way around.
  - fireburner23, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1Ignore this man! Move along! Nothing to see here!
  - elhaf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Um, the constitution was amended, according to procedures contained in the constitution itself, to outlaw slavery. You are correct that the original constitution was only adopted after anti-slavery provisions were stricken by South Carolina.
    
    Tommy, on the other hand, is indeed trying to guarantee that the government won't get in the church's business, such as by publicly displaying the ten commandments of one particular religion on public property, to the exclusion of all others. Suppose it was desired by wiccans to display a pentagram on the courthouse. Should it be allowed?
- kaelyiesta, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14"Our Constitution is more important than our perceived safety"
  
  Fixed.
- curtisag, on 09/22/2008, -13/+3It all started with liberal judges saying the constitution is a living, breathing document that is open to interpretation and can be ignored when we wish. Right to bear arms means don't ***** with the people's guns, because the Government loves to govern a defenseless population. If you throw out one part of the constitution, it opens the door to more and more. If you want to ban guns, change the constitution, but no, that's too hard.
  - rpayne656, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4If you want to spy on your citizens, steal their property, or force them into involuntary servitude with a draft, change the consitution. It's not that hard.
    
    "ZOMG LIBERALS!"
    You're just playing their game, man. Neo-cons aren't that great either.
    
    The constituion IS a living, breathing document, and it should be changed from time to time. However, it must be done with the consent of the people, not at the whim of either current major political party.
- MercedRocks, on 09/22/2008, -16/+2You're retarded. Our constitution HAS NOT BEEN nor EVER WILL BE changed. It'sonly changed by (as Curtisag said) "...liberal judges saying the constitution is a living, breathing document that is open to interpretation and can be ignored when we wish."
  
  Precisely. Bush HAS NEVER TRIED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION HE CANT, only Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (vis a vis interpretation of what Congress says) can.
  
  Bush is a dumbass, but hes only one man, theres 2 other branches of govt that CHECK HIS "POWER."
- smitty1e, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0Because FDR told us to, that's why:
  http://slashdot.org/~smitty_one_each/journal/19692 ...
- kaliphonia, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1http://www.bobbarr2008.com
- dtm1017, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1We follow the constitution?
- basye, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Cowboy Politics.
Olon97, on 09/21/2008, -12/+619Give me liberty or give me death! Don't throw away the Constitution for the illusion of security.
- ConanMayerFan, on 09/22/2008, -30/+1capitalism
  - Kajarago, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5potatoes
  - elhaf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2shipping containers
- Gimjee, on 09/22/2008, -55/+2Security isn't an illusion you hippie. There are real threats, and they have attacked us, and if it wasn't for us going over there and whooping some terrorists, they'd do it again and again. They do it to other countries also.
  - Mononuclear, on 09/22/2008, -1/+55You honestly think the TSA and the war in Iraq has prevented any terrorist attack in the US? You know the whole point of terrorists is to instill fear not to actually kill people. It just so happens that killing lots of civilians instills fear but it is only one way to make people afraid. Now that everyone is living in fear and and giving away their freedoms the terrorists don't even need to kill anyone. They can just sit and do nothing while the US loses every value it stands for.
    
    In my opinion the terrorists are winning the war on terror. If most American's are afraid of terrorists then they are winning. If they can use simple fear to cause American's to give up their freedom then they are winning.
    
    The government is taking advantage of this fear to gain more control creating larger government and giving itself more power taking away basic constitutional freedoms in the name of false security. It is false security because nothing they are doing has stopped or will stop a terrorists attack. Again the terrorists don't even need to attack because we are already terrified.
  - Me1000, on 09/22/2008, -0/+27Have you ever actually thought about what you are saying?
    
    The word "terrorism" is used to describe someone who uses force and violence to pursue political aims (according to the Oxford American Dictionary)
    
    You are living in enough fear right now that you believe that we should sacrifice our liberty. They are kicking our ass! They have put us in enough fear that we feel a need to ignore the constitution.
    
    Wake up sir!" Those who would abandon liberty for temporary security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin
  - Rikkochet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6http://digg.com/political_opinion/Conservatives_Sc ...
    
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...
  - Tiak, on 09/22/2008, -7/+1Yes yes, despite what U.S. intelligence reports actually state, we have actually gained security in Iraq. The illusion is that our pre-emtive invading of a foreign county without a valid reason has rallied those with anti-Western sentiments. In reality, the terrorists were all hiding in Iraq (despite Sadam's oppressive regime singling them out for said oppression), and we've killed almost all of them by now.
  - BossKey, on 09/22/2008, -0/+16One of Bill Maher's points was excellent...we have a fear of terrorism out of proportion to the threat.
    
    Terrorism has *never* been one of the top causes of American deaths in any year. Sept 11, 2001 did not even put terrorism into the Top 10 causes of death that year, not even close! Therefore, the cultivation of a society based on fear of terrorism cannot be justified on the grounds of the number of lives lost or property damage. It is being done for other purposes.
    
    Andrew is correct. The right reaction is to not fear, and to not allow terrorists to win through intimidation or to allow ourselves to become irrational reactionaries. We should let the terrorists claim that ground if we have any self-respect or integrity at all. Don't become one of the cowering, cowardly neoconservatives, forever afraid, untrusting and threatening, and lacking true faith in our people.
  - BulletsforRingo, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10does it hurt being that ignorant?
  - regeya, on 09/22/2008, -0/+9If you live in FEEEEAR the terrorists will lose!
    
    Wait...um...aw, *****.
  - MixMastaKooz, on 09/22/2008, -0/+15You sir, are a coward.
    
    I'd rather die a free man in a terrorist blast, then live to an old age as a slave to the state.
  - refugeechris, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2"whooping some terrorists"
    
    get er done eh?
  - elhaf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1You know, if we searched every house on every block, we'd probably catch more druggies too. Are you ready for daily searches of your house by potentially corrupt police? Ooops, look here, I found some cash. Oh there's traces of drugs on it (as there is on all circulated cash), I guess we'll have to keep it. As Plato said, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
- slaizer, on 09/22/2008, -1/+27The fact is, you'll never be safe. Ever.
  
  All it takes is a few sticks of dynamite and a couple of crackpots to kill a lot of people. Both which are abundant everywhere. It's, in a way, just like a force of nature, just like hurricanes.
  
  Don't give up your basic human rights to freedom for a false sense of security. Yes, life is, and will always be dangerous. No amount of bureaucracy will ever change that.
  
  If you want to fight foreign terrorism, cut the underlying reasons that are driving desperate people to give up their own lives in such acts. If you wanna make the world a safer place, wage your war on poverty and economic imperialism instead.
  - IphtashuFitz, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4Hell, it doesn't even take that much. One disgruntled or mentally unstable individual with access to a gun is enough. Or have people forgotten about Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the assorted workplace rampages that seem to pop up in the news every few weeks?
    
    Also don't forget that prior to 9/11 the largest terrorist act carried out in the USA, which resulted in 168 deaths and over 800 injured, was perpetrated by Americans. The Oklahoma City bombing was only 6 years before 9/11 and a lot of people had already forgotten about it prior to 9/11.
  - Euph0rik, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0Agreed.
    
    Security is mostly a superstition.
    It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.
    Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
    Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
    - Helen Keller, 1957
- chevyorange, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14You are a fool. We have hurt ourselves so much more by invading Iraq, not least of which is spending money like crazy - which America NEEDS right now. We haven't "killed almost all of them by now". We're creating more everyday by continuing this flawed fight against extremism.
  
  We have our own extremists right here in the White House and those who would say they can give us comfort and security by invading our privacy and spying on Americans.
  
  That is WRONG! Give me Liberty or give me Death.
- thereisnostate, on 09/22/2008, -8/+3Especially considering that 9/11 was an inside job.
- Mauricio17, on 09/22/2008, -9/+0illusion of security? So when was the last terrorist attack? something has to be working if they haven't been to attack us in the past 7 years...
  - mesasone, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14When was the last major terrorist attack prior to September 11th, 2001? The Oklahoma bombing in 1995?
    
    Don't get too excited over your false sense of security. It took Khalid Sheikh Mohammed eight years to attack again after the 1993 WTC bombing, which he at the very least financed. We're not exactly in an unprecedented time of peace here buddy.
  - Speed, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10I'll let you in on a secret: it has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. After 9/11, I started drinking Pepsi instead of Coke. I like to think that's what stopped the terrorists.
  - SpeedSteamBoat, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10Correlation does not equal causation.
    
    From 93 - 2001 there were no foreign terrorists attacks on US soil. Does that mean we were more secure in those years than in the ones immediately preceding and following them? No, it merely means there were no attacks.
    
    Security is an illusion. The fact is that any nut job with the right information and access to a hardware store could blow up a building any day of the week. You can't stop them all no matter how many rights you give up, so why give up any? That, as they say, is the whole point.
  - tocsy, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6That, Mauricio, is EXACTLY what he means by the "illusion of safety." You think that just because there haven't been any large scale attacks in 7 years it has something to do with what the current government has done. As has been mentioned above, there have been many lulls in terrorist attacks that were not due to action by our or any other government, but inaction and planning stages of the terrorists.
  - emmeron, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4Considering the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if people were doing their jobs (aka BUSH) in the first place, and considering the attacks were retaliation for over 10 years of bombing the middle east, I'd say we've only hurt ourselves since then.
- XanderDee, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Same here but I am not sure if I a brave enough to choose death. I hope I am.
  - elhaf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I tell you what, if the terrorists get ahold of a nuke, or if the government decides to nuke one of our own cities for a false flag operation, I volunteer my own city. I don't want to live in the world created by such an act.
dedknedy, on 09/21/2008, -50/+34Reminds me of those assholes at Greenpeace saying we shouldn't build any Nuclear Power plants because they might be targets of terrorism. Does this mean we should shut down our airlines, and stop building skyscrapers, and running our subway system because the terrorists might attack? Should we shut down out amusement parks and cancel out sporting events because the terrorists might attack? No! Because the moment we start living in fear of terror, the terrorists have truly won.
- bradhart2, on 09/21/2008, -3/+59You mean like letting Bush, McCain and Palin terrorize us with the notion if we fail to elect them we will be killed by jihadists? Those are three of the biggest terrorists in the country, when we allow them to be.
  - mooseontheloose, on 09/22/2008, -27/+1The first thing you thought about when seeing this article is "OMG HOW CAN I SPIN THIS TO MAKE MY SIDE LOOK GOOD?"
    
    ***** partisan *****. You people are ruining this country. Stop voting like ***** lemmings.
  - DarthKozy, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2pointing out that Bush, Cheney and consequently McCain have and will use "Terrorism™" as a means to control people through fear is spinning the topic?
    
    hope you had fun living with liberty and rights - they will soon be gone, because the TRUE lemmings will come out and ***** this country over for a THIRD consecutive time and put McCain in power.
- KableKiB, on 09/22/2008, -2/+5That's stolen from Penn and Teller!
- zeitgueist, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Interestingly enough, quite a few Greenpeace assholes support Nuclear power these days.
- gandhii, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3I'm not seeing how dedknedy and bradhart2's comments are saying anything different on the subject at hand. They are both obviously against the fear mongering. Could it be that so many are that sensitive of other's opinions of "Greenpeace" that they would dig down a comment they essentially agree with just for that reason?
RikkiTikki, on 09/21/2008, -38/+9We deny insurance to people who have cancer -- a disease that has killed a lot more people than terrorism in this country. What it really comes down to is another country and cultural group threatening United States power, not its people. Sure, we don't have the highest life expectancy in the industrialized world, but at least we don't look like wimps in Foreign Relations High School.
- bradhart2, on 09/21/2008, -3/+20Actually we look like the bullies at Foreign Relations High. Of course being the popular bully used to mean you could get away with harassing the weirdos, geeks, and weaklings, but Columbine should be a reminder than even weirdos can get revenge on the bullies.
  - GBPACKGB, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1well said
- ConanMayerFan, on 09/22/2008, -11/+2capitalism
  - btschul, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4Stop saying that.
  - ConanMayerFan, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1capitalism?
  - Tiak, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3catapultism
  - ConanMayerFan, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1you can't spell "catapultism" without T-I-T lol
- birch25, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6actually we don't have the highest life expectancy in the industrialized world. we are ranked 49th in life expectancy.
  - poet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Learn to read.
    "Sure, we don't have the highest life expectancy in the industrialized world"
- LiberalKid, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3How are the terrorists threatening our power exactly?
  - bradhart2, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1How did Iraq threaten our power? Either time...
saejinn, on 09/21/2008, -9/+197Give me liberty or give me death.
- CraigCarlyle, on 09/22/2008, -0/+49Preferably liberty.
  - chevyorange, on 09/22/2008, -1/+9Of course, but right now we have neither.
- Asshate, on 09/22/2008, -8/+8I ***** my pants in fear and wiped my ass on the constitution!
- goshdang, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3have it your way
- CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2Your coffin is ready:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fema+c ...
  - elhaf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I'm not too worried about it. FEMA has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence.
- CarStan, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Cake or death
  - stretch611, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Cake AND Death (from diabetes)
thewhits, on 09/21/2008, -8/+267Andrew Sullivan seems like a rational conservative. He's definitely in the minority, from what I've seen.

Might get dugg down for this but whatever
- cattletracks, on 09/21/2008, -2/+62http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
  
  Yes, he is a rational conservative that supports Obama. Bless you, Andrew Sullivan!
  - mparker21311, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Here here! I was for Ron Paul originally.
- tcbishop12, on 09/21/2008, -1/+71I know a little bit about lifelong rational conservatives who support Obama (I am one). Andrew Sullivan puts principles before party, truth before ideology. He is a fact finder and truth-teller.
- Zlorp, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14yeah i saw that episode of real time, and i found myself agreeing with him most of the time. especially on the fact that this financial crisis is part of an even larger issue including irresponsibility by some of the citizens of our country. people dont want to live within their means.
  - oldgal, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5Agreed, however, if we had not let the national debt get totally out of control, if we had let the fed rate rise (this would have been inflationary, but inflation takes care of excess credit), and we hadn't lowered taxes (which caused the debt to go even higher) there would have been a whole lot less credit and it would not have been so easy for people to live beyond their means. Everybody gets a piece of the blame on this one. But wait if there was less credit then the economy wouldn't have expanded. On the other hand, people living beyond their means is a lot of what made the economy expand...
- dmanmax99, on 09/22/2008, -1/+18I don't agree with Sullivan on many issues, but he is the type of conservative to which debates, discussions and new ideas can be formed. If all conservatives were like him it can only make the liberals better and make America a better place to live.
  - chevyorange, on 09/22/2008, -12/+1WTF? Make liberals better and America better? As in, the Conservatives are perfect, have the right idea and are leading us down this yellow brick road? More like Yellow brick roadkill!
    
    I agree we need debates... but we're too busy trying to dig out from under the ***** like "He's a Muslim" or "He's not really American" or "He's gonna raise taxes on us and turn us into communists" or "He's elitist"... yes, this man that was raised on foodstamps by his grandmother is an elitist.
    
    Let's talk about healtcare, the economy, the environment, education!
    
    But NOOOOOO!
  - dmanmax99, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7I have no idea what you're blabbing about. If two intelligent people with different ideas about the same subject go into a room, then sooner or later a hybrid idea will be formed that should benefit everyone. And I mentioned that if all conservatives were like Sullivan then that would mean rationality will prevail over inane rabble about terrorists and gay sex.
- emotecontrol, on 09/22/2008, -13/+4If you don't perceive the words "rational conservative" to be an oxymoron, then you're using conservative in a way that does not resemble the standard American usage of the term.
  - regeya, on 09/22/2008, -0/+8I realize the modern Neocon definition seems that way, but believe me, there are people here in the United States who know what conservatives are, and realize that they are few and far between.
  - asurroca, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Rather, there are very few true conservatives in the Republican party.
- bobjrn2, on 09/22/2008, -13/+5I think I'd categorize him as a Libertarian. And to be honest, Obama advocates socialism. Why Andrew is voting for Obama is beyond me. Both of these candidates will ruin our country with their "economic" plans. McCain will spend too much money on the military and Obama will spend too much money on socializing. We are ***** either way...until someone with a Libertarian mindset makes it to office.
  - pbol01, on 09/22/2008, -2/+7You are clueless. Look to Europe, and especially Scandinavia, and see how well that they are doing, and they haven't got a Libertarian system.
    The only economic policies that can succeed is the policies that takes everybody into account. We have to lift the burden together and together we shall rise. If you put money int he hands of the regular people they will spend it and create new jobs. Bu if you let the rich keep it, they will just get more greedy. The history should be enough proof of that. And just to clarify, Scandinavia is in no way Socialist but social democratic meaning that we care for everyone, but also let people have their own success.
  - Mujokan, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2He's generally considered to be a "Goldwater conservative", I believe. Which these days is pretty close to being Libertarian, given the role neo-cons and the Christian right play in the modern Republican party. (Take a bow, Sarah Palin!)
    
    The Republicans have just "socialized" Wall Street, if you hadn't noticed. Cost way more than "socialized" health insurance would. The Republicans are for welfare for the rich.
    
    Obama is much the same as Bill Clinton in terms of economic policy. McCain is much the same as Bush. That's the objective assessment I read on Bloomberg, not just my opinion. You'd only call Obama's position "socialism" if you actually believe what you hear on talk radio -- and ignore what Bush has done in office in terms of budget deficits and corporate welfare.
    
    America will be further in debt before all this is done. But what matters is whether we're left in a position where we have some shot at getting out of debt, of making real money again. McCain just means wasting more money on the rich and their solid gold bidets, in the vain hope they'll drop a few crumbs from the table. Real productivity comes from the middle of the economy.
    
    Compare the economic teams of the two candidates.
- Doughboy1917, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1It's good to see a conservative who's *thinking* instead of marching in lock-step with the neo-cons and the republicans.
bradhart2, on 09/21/2008, -59/+1I sense an upcoming post at http://www.bradstinyworld.com on some of the questions raised in this... stay tuned.
RastaBot, on 09/21/2008, -3/+451They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
- Benjamin Franklin
- Jedakiah, on 09/22/2008, -3/+29That quote reminds me of V for Vendetta. When that movie came out it was an intriguing idea to me that people would vote their rights out of power. It's ironic that many Americans find themselves half way there now.
  - lamiaconfitor, on 09/22/2008, -1/+16Actually, V for Vendetta should remind you of the quote...
  - Shedoblyde, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=349
    
    Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security...
    
    ...are eligible for a tax refund!
  - bookon, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4>> When that movie came out it was an intriguing idea to me that people would vote their rights out of power.
    
    The Germans did. Hitler was elected.
  - tyzent, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2my favourite comic, one of the few that has actually changed the way i view the world.
  - MattFid, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
    -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
- Visual77, on 09/22/2008, -25/+9Yeah...I haven't seen that quote since the last digg article even remotely skimming politics...
  - xsquirrel378x, on 09/22/2008, -4/+5yeah it's almost starting to lose its meaning
  - smurfsahoy, on 09/22/2008, -2/+9Totally. Liberty is so STALE and BORING.
- MattFid, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Whenever I hear that quote I am amazed with the forethought our founding fathers gave to the challenges this democracy would face. The Constitution truly is a magnificent document and should be cherished as well as protected at all costs.
- jsd8cc, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3The most often mangled quote on the internet.
  
  It's actually:
  
  "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
  
  http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader ...
  - Abomonog, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, and there are those who would attribute the quote to Jefferson and not Franklin.
    
    Who said it and the exact wording are not the point. Either way the meaning that counts.
peheimbach, on 09/21/2008, -0/+204Andrew Sullivan's comment "The president, his oath of office, is to defend the Constitution of the United States, our liberties -- not to defend the security of the country." makes a couple of things very clear:

1. The average American couldn't recite the Presidential oath of office.
2. I can say this with confidence because if we did, the question we'd be asking about presidential (candidates') fitness for office would not be "would he be a good Commander-in-Chief" but instead, "will he balance well the -- potentially competing -- duties of defending the Constitution and allowing the generals he directs to do their jobs?"
3. How appropriate that at this juncture of history, we have two Constitutional scholars running (as a team) for a job which demands that, above all things, they defend what they've studied.

4. Why not a COMMERCIAL on this subject? (Voice-under reading the Oath of office -- maybe even George Bush reciting it -- while text and images of how it's been destroyed in the last eight years -- only a few so it doesn't become a documentary -- roll. Then, a simple comment of the sort I make in point 2.)
- kebinusan, on 09/21/2008, -0/+12I had a similar thought watching this friday night
- thespiff, on 09/22/2008, -0/+57Man, did you see what McCain said on 60 minutes tonight?
  
  Pelley: You have called for the firing of the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal government organization that oversees the markets.
  
  McCain: Yes. You know, and by the way, that technically he can't be, quote, fired. But I'll tell you, when I'm president, if I want somebody to resign, they resign.
  
  That sentence was punctuated with a distinct rattling in the background that I'm fairly sure was several founding fathers rolling over in their graves.
  - chevyorange, on 09/22/2008, -0/+21And when McCain wants the economy to get better he'll just tell it to and it will come back up out of the toilet.
    
    When John McCain wants to create jobs, he'll just tell the corporations to do it and it will happen.
    
    I had no idea it was so easy to make stuff happen.
  - oldgal, on 09/22/2008, -2/+5A while ago I researched and put together this assessment of management styles - everything I have seen since supports it:
    Before retirement I managed technical teams responsible for trouble-shooting critical 7/24 online financial systems - I consider this crisis management- project management and problem management in compressed time. When I first started researching McCain's management style, I identified with him as a crisis management type. At that point I had a problem because good crisis managers tend to be instant gratification types. Although I can do a good job of managing a development project, over the long haul I get bored and lose effectiveness. One of the keys to good management is putting the right people in the right places. It became apparent to me that McCain has a problem doing this in that he turned over his management and staff twice - once when his primary campaign was in serious financial trouble and then when he switched to the Rove-acolyte team. A good crisis manager needs to understand process inside out in order to cut the quickest path to resolution. The process used by John McCain to select Palin as VP nominee shows a total lack of process. Also required of crisis management is the ability to rapidly consider and evaluate new methods and ideas - you are generally confronting stuff you haven't seen before, because you have fixed the stuff you have seen. I have seen no new campaign strategies or ideas incorporated in McCain's campaign. I no longer believe he is a crisis style manager, I now see him as a loose-canon style manager. I have also researched Obama's management style and find it solid (note: it is much easier to research than McCains, just google). One of the things I like best about Obama's style, which is rare to find, is that he empowers people - his staff, his advisors, and his grass roots supporters. At several points in my career I worked for GE. One of the keys to Jack Welch’s success was the culture of empowerment and open communications he created - the management training I got at GE was worth every bit as much as my degree. Imagine where we could take this country with an empowered citizenry.
  - jezsik, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Do you get the feeling he's going to bring in Chuck Norris as Secretary of State?
- Tarl, on 09/22/2008, -0/+11I am speechless and in total agreement.
  
  Your first point really hits home.: 1. The average American couldn't recite the Presidential oath of office.
  
  I don't know the full verbatim oath of office. But I *do know* the president swears on the sacred book so many ***** hold dear, to uphold The United States Constitution.
- CarStan, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4lets ask the guy who made the 'Thank McCain' ad, he has a good ad voice.
  Sadly most people today wont understand the great points you made without them being compressed into 40seconds of neat soundbites
- skyz, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- StanMcMurder, on 09/23/2008, -1/+0Isn't one of the lines about executing the office of the President? And isn't one of those duties of the office of the President to be commander-in-chief and command the Army that defends our country... I believe he has both duties... Unfortunately they sometimes conflict.
Kizilbash, on 09/22/2008, -6/+104Not a big fan of Maher, but this is very, very good.
- gottobekind, on 09/22/2008, -7/+5Not a fan either, but very well said. Most intelligent thing i've heard from him in some time.
  - chevyorange, on 09/22/2008, -0/+16Actually, Maher is consistently intelligent. You just have to go in with an open mind, not with an American flag lapel pin and belief in Democrat or Republican.
  - yacks, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1@chevyorange:
    
    I find it amazing how many people think Bill Maher is Anti-republican.. but always fail to see that he is anti-democrat as well.. If you watched him long enough, you'd understand.. though he may lean more to the anti-republican side though.
- thespiff, on 09/22/2008, -10/+11Yeah, I'm a big fan of Maher, but he does spout a lot of ***** too. Right before this clip he was making some seriously bigoted comments to Andrew Sullivan regarding religious beliefs. And don't even get me started on the fact that he's a big time PETA supporter.
  - compulsive1, on 09/22/2008, -0/+16Those comments on religion were not bigoted. Sullivan got all upset because he took them personal when Maher was making light of people who take the Bible literally. It's an easy target and maybe that's what set Sullivan off.
  - revisrev, on 09/22/2008, -3/+8@compulsive:
    I'm a somewhat hostile atheist, and I gotta say, the things he was saying were pretty bigoted. When you group people together and collectively insult them, that's pretty well bigotry. I don't necessarily disagree with him, and I think that there are two types of people who practice a religion: the totally deluded and those who are able to fool themselves part of the time about some of the stuff, but those are bigoted thoughts.
  - nextekcarl, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14@revisrev:
    
    True, but that's like saying you're bigoted because you don't like people in gangs. Sometimes there's a good reason to dislike an entire group (especially when it is a entirely voluntary association).
  - PabloMac, on 09/22/2008, -4/+9"When you group people together and collectively insult them, that's pretty well bigotry."
    
    All bigots suck.
  - TBombadil, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4you can't be bigoted towards a religion...... they believe some pretty out-there ***** .....and if your a normal person that doesn't, then that give you pretty good grounds to say "HEY! you believe some pretty out-there *****" and then throw in one or two generalizations for good measure to remind the religious people what kind of crazy people are on their team.
  - metaliq, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4@PabloMac
    
    It's bigoted comments like that that make people think bigots suck.
  - thespiff, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Look, I don't believe in God. I like to refer to my religious beliefs as Darwinian.
    
    But I'll make 2 points.
    a) Religion is an important part of human society which has, throughout history, had both good and bad effects.
    b) The thought of a world with no higher power and no afterlife is ***** scary, not everyone can deal with it, and many people really value the ability to answer those nasty questions with religion so that they can then go about living their lives. We can't PROVE that they are wrong, and if we could it would be pretty damn cruel to do so.
    
    Knowing the above, it's very hard to feel good about yourself when you make fun of people for believing in an invisible man.
    
    Or another way to look at it is like this. You've got a 5-yeard-old daughter who goes missing. An obnoxious christian is the guy coming to your door insisting that she's still alive and well and will be found soon. An obnoxious athiest is the guy who shows up and says "the kid's dead, give it up already." Obviously one of them is right and the other is wrong, and without more information we can't tell which. But which one sounds like more of a jerk?
    
    Let people live their own lives, and hopefully they will do the same for you. The golden rule, "love your neighbor as yourself" is a good one regardless of whether it was first spoken by God or man.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -5/+4He did make a respectable point but with faulty knowledge. He clearly sees that the pursuit of "safety" at the sacrifice of "liberty" is not right but he refuses to acknowledge that the people taking the liberties are the same ones putting us in danger.
  
  http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Most_Expensi ...
  
  9/11 was an inside job and the hardest part about proving it is convincing the emotional, non-thinking, uninformed majority to even *look* at the evidence. It's really not that hard, c'mon, take the challenge:
  
  Put your irrational, patriotic feelings aside and look at "Loose Change" or "Painful Deceptions". If it proves to be false, you lose an hour or 2 of internet viewing time but what do you lose if it's true?
  - nhprm, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2a: my sanity
    
    to believe in a conspiracy of such stature would leave me appaplectic.
    
    I'd prefer to live in darkness.
    OR
    The truth is out there; let it stay there.
  - bosoxrock, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2maher got kicked out of the MSM for his 9/11 views; that's one area where we cannot criticize him for holding back.
  - macweirdo42, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2The conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever. If the government was gonna use explosives, why would they invent a cover story about planes? If they were gonna use planes, why the explosives? You see, it just doesn't seem logical.
  - thespiff, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Two weeks ago Maher really pissed me off. I have always applauded him for dismissing the idiotic 9/11 truthers and their absurd conspiracy theories. Yet a few weeks ago Maher kept commenting on the garbage tabloid rumors that Sarah Palin's downs syndrome baby is actually Bristol Palin's baby. It was conspiracy theory at it's finest, completely based on speculation with no real evidence. Basically just as absurd as the 9/11 crap.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2@nhprm said:
    
    "to believe in a conspiracy of such stature would leave me apoplectic. I'd prefer to live in darkness.
    OR The truth is out there; let it stay there."
    
    First person ever to admit it. It's still a frightening position to take on so important an issue.
  - CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1@ macweirdo42 said:
    
    "The conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever. If the government was gonna use explosives, why would they invent a cover story about planes? If they were gonna use planes, why the explosives? You see, it just doesn't seem logical."
    
    You don't seem logical. They couldn't *just use explosives* because they couldn't explain how so many explosives got planted without free access to the building--which "terrorists" could not have had. They couldn't "just use planes" because the buildings were specifically designed to absorb impacts from jet aircraft, that's why they didn't collapse in the first minute. Planes alone wouldn't have brought the buildings down; explosives alone wouldn't make a salable lie.
  - ophello, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Any thorough investigation into the "evidence" proves their falsehoods. Loose Change is not investigative reporting. The points it makes are not supported by science.
    
    Try doing a little more research instead of stopping when you find something you want to believe.
tufftugg, on 09/22/2008, -19/+27 No..take away my freedom, bug my phones, monitor my e-mails, I'm a scared American Republican!....so glad I'm not an American.
- HtomSirveaux, on 09/22/2008, -14/+5The last thing the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) ever needs is smug foreigners' arm-chair analyzes of politics they don't understand. At least self righteous Americans (myself included) are too ignorant to make an ass out of themselves by making smart ass comments and over simplifying problems completely dissociated from them, unlike you.
  - Gutterpunk, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6One one for you : Glass Parking Lot.
    
    Did you see Digg and Fark's thread about Muslims? Don't tell me that Americans keep their uninformed positions to themselves.
  - KyleGoetz, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3At least our Muslims don't walk around preaching death to their own country (cf. France, UK).
    
    See? I can oversimplify things, too!
gravityPersists, on 09/22/2008, -16/+165Can't wait for Maher's new film, Religulous.
- nytel, on 09/22/2008, -7/+15***** YEA
- KyleGoetz, on 09/22/2008, -14/+8I can. In the trailer, he acts like such an *****. This is why Christopher Hitchens isn't persuasive to Christians, and this is why fundamentalist Christians aren't persuasive to others. If you act like an *****, people don't want to listen to you.
  - fictionalOne, on 09/23/2008, -1/+1How is that different from a devoted Christian automatically believing that one who does not believe in Christianity is doomed to an afterlife in hell? Whenever I don't agree or refuse to be "saved," I feel the "I am holy-er than though" attitude from that person. While I don't agree that this is the attitude to take if you really want to convince somebody, too many confrontations have made me an ***** as well.
amdahlj, on 09/22/2008, -1/+65Live free or die.
- Neoneverus, on 09/22/2008, -0/+84Hard.
  - PabloMac, on 09/22/2008, -0/+164.
  - Tiak, on 09/22/2008, -2/+5Can't I do both?... It just seems like a good way to go.
  - Aerandir, on 09/22/2008, -0/+18Yippie kay ye...
  - isaaciaggard, on 09/22/2008, -6/+2That's what she said
  - damian7, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10*****!
  - YogiWanKenobi, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Plot summary for Die Hard 5: John McClain runs for President. Joining forces with a Lancome rep from Alaska, he fights an Islamic Terrorist (TM) sleeper cell that has managed to get one of their own on the Democratic ticket. Lots of ***** gets blown up, evil is vanquished, and ultimately the Constitution gets shredded. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 100 because political dissent is a form of terrorism.
- rdas7, on 09/22/2008, -6/+1Harder?
algaeturd, on 09/22/2008, -4/+42God forbid someone come in an rationally put things into perspective for the republican cowards in this country. I single the republicans out because they're the first to throw up their arms and offer up their privacy and freedoms to be protected and hugged by the government in times of crises. Nanny state through and through. The hypocrisy involved with these people is mindboggling. They want to demonize anyone who supports abortion but they're all for carpet bombing civilians of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
I'm still dizzy over the fact that somehow Americans bought into the idea that somehow attacking Iraq was justified by 9/11.
- MrWhite7, on 09/22/2008, -5/+9***** generalizations... Do I get to keep my guns even though you're apparently afraid of them as a Democrat? See, I can do it too. Fools.
  - BossKey, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6Obama says you can keep your gun.
  - regeya, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3"Obama says you can keep your gun."
    
    He better; he taught constitutional law.
    
    He has, however, supported bills which would further limit the ability of the general public to purchase firearms, and favors allowing states to ban guns if they wish.
  - oldgal, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2I know very few liberals who want to take away your guns (you can always find a few people for any side of any issue). I do believe in licensing. Whereas folks who grow up in rural areas understand maintenance, safety, and the law as pertains to guns, folks in the city are for the most part ignorant. Since I live close to a large city, I like knowing that the folks who own guns can at least pass a test. Much the same is true of cars, but I don't hear people screaming about taking their cars away because they have to have drivers licenses.
    
    And if we are talking national defense, I believe this is precisely why we should be able to responsibly own guns. No foreign country would have a chance of invading and occupying this country because of our ability to form armed militias in an emergency. On the other hand, if we don't get our economic act together, China may buy us outright.
  - MrWhite7, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1I don't recall seeing cars mentioned in the Constitution...
- louiemantia, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2I didn't buy into it.
- DangerCollie, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3"I'm still dizzy over the fact that somehow Americans bought into the idea that somehow attacking Iraq was justified by 9/11."
  
  Or that voters had a choice between a genuine war hero and drunken Connecticut frat boy pretending to be a religious fighter pilot from Texas and put their faith in the fraud as a better war time leader.
  
  Sometimes I wonder if we deserve George Bush and Karl Rove quality leadership. If that's all smarter we are, we wouldn't appreciate or deserve more intelligent leadership. I think about how many people did nothing but complain...still complain...about Bill Clinton and he was a better president than either of the Bush's or Regan.
NightVortez, on 09/22/2008, -1/+40I'm glad someone in the media actually has balls, as tragic as 9/11 was it didn't nearly warrant the sacrifice of liberties we've took years following it, what happened to being the strongest country in the world? Why are we willing to budge something as sacred as property rights for a small group of terrorists half way across the globe? How is it that we came from fighting people who wanted to take our liberties to having people with the same intent govern us? I honestly never liked Maher, he has plenty of his own bias, but this is without a doubt the greatest point he's ever made.
- imightbewrong, on 09/22/2008, -12/+2Which loss of rights have you personally been affected by?
  - MrWhite7, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10redress of greivances doesn't require standing.
- flyingclutchman, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2"I'm glad someone in the media actually has balls" To bad to talk like that you have to be on HBO where no one really hears it, if some one talks like this on some of the big networks they would get killed.
commentposted, on 09/22/2008, -17/+1The digg upcoming beta version is bloody annoying. They need to change a few things.
joshwehatetech, on 09/22/2008, -3/+17Sadly neither party is going to do anything about this. Nanny state or welfare state, still they will strip our freedoms away and continue on with the current foreign agendas.
- person425, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Wow, thanks John Titor for your insights. For all we know, John McCain could get elected, unite our nation, then unite our world.
  
  It's pretty lame to have no faith in our future.
  It's worse to let that fear sedate you into inaction.
  It's even worse to go online and attempt to get others to join you.
  
  Making the world a better place is a 4 step process
  1. Imagine what an ideal world would look like.
  2. Determine the current state of the world.
  3. Calculate what needs to be done to bring #2 to #1
  4. Get off your ass and do it.
  - CarStan, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6Hitler, Stalin and Mao would totally agree with your 4 step programm. Dont lot anything get in your way of your vision of a perfect world.
- poet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4All Republicans and Democrats have their hands in each others pockets.
DroppedGT, on 09/22/2008, -2/+10Get your priorities right, nuff said.
hagfish70, on 09/22/2008, -19/+72001 and one called. They want their realization back.
- Haecceity, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Almost 3,000 Americans dead on 9/11. More than 200,000 killed since then in car accidents. Should we monitor all drivers? It's feasible. We could put monitoring devices in every car and watch out for poor steering, erratic lane changes, speeding, etc. You up for that?
  - hagfish70, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1What the ***** does this have to do with the fact that Americans are gratuitously afraid/obsessed with terrorism?
  - Haecceity, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1What the ***** does "2001 and one called. They want their realization back." have to do with the fact that Americans are gratuitously afraid/obsessed with terrorism?
Wryly, on 09/22/2008, -0/+39We got 44 days to figure out that America deserves better than this.
- StormCommander, on 09/22/2008, -11/+12And vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin
  - ConceptJunkie, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1It would help if the Republicans and Democrats wouldn't each nominate people that scare everyone into voting _against_ one or the other, as opposed to saying "Well, Candidate A isn't so good, nor is Candidate B, I'll vote for Candidate _C_!" what we have is "Candidate A is so horrible I _must_ vote Candidate B just to keep him out of office." where A == McCain or Obama for many people.
    
    As it is, I feel my duty as an American to keep Obama from office may be more important than voting _for_ anyone. I think he's that bad. . Yes, even if that means voting for McCain, then . That's the choice I'll consider.
  - rv361162, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Just vote 3rd party, who ever's on your ballot that doesn't have a (D) or (R) next to their name.
bearebel, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14Abso-*****-lutely!
jasdf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10I actually agree with this, wow!
MediaShipper, on 09/22/2008, -3/+21Read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". Bill is right, this financial mess and bail out is what her book is about.
- fatfonzie, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5I read her book and thought the same when he introduced her. Nice timing! and yes... I think Bill nailed it when he compared the current disasters to terrorism. Wake up people!
- aroedl, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3The book of this decade!
Stwo, on 09/22/2008, -0/+18I was thinking exactly the same thing, that this is one of if not the most profound statements Bill has ever made, as I was watching the show last night
gjvrieze, on 09/22/2008, -3/+30The Revolution: A Manifesto
- acroyear2, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2Agreed. But don't let McCain win.
  - richIsBored, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5All we can do is vote for who we think best represents our interests. If a majority of this country wants McCain they'll have him and deservedly so.
    
    Please don't tell me your best attempt to draw votes to Obama is to say "Don't let McCain win". The last 8 years have left this country in need of a tourniquet and Obama is nothing more than a band-aid.
    
    Quite frankly after all we've dealt with under Bush, it's an embarrassment that McCain has any support at all. And although a McCain presidency concerns me the number of people who support him concerns me even more.
    
    I say vote for someone who stands for something and let the cards fall where they may. If we haven't learned anything from the last 8 years then we need to let this country bleed itself dry and start with a clean slate.
  - acroyear2, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3You're stating the obvious. I repeat though, DON'T LET MCCAIN WIN.
zerton, on 09/22/2008, -4/+6We really need to start focusing on car wrecks. completely unnecessary deaths
imightbewrong, on 09/22/2008, -18/+3The British guy is right, but I don't really think Americans have sacrificed much.
- samyoungguitar, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7Wow. Yeah.. ***** Habeus Corpus.
  - emmeron, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2That's been mostly dead for decades -- ever since the "war on drugs" began we've had the rights of Habeus Corpus crumbling away.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2That's just because you are not aware.
c010rb1indusa, on 09/22/2008, -4/+59Bill Maher always seems to be on the logical side of things, whether is bashing the right or going after Obama, dugg for Bill Maher
- afruff23, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Not really. He supports the death penalty. You can't justify that logically.
  - TBombadil, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1yes you can. bad people + death =fewer bad people seems fairly logical to me. it's probably more humane than jamming them in a ***** hole where the most they have to live for is gang warfare and rape.
  - afruff23, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3So how do you objectively decide who is bad? Logic exists independent of people. It cannot be formed from opinions.
  - flyingclutchman, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3using your logic aruff we wouldnt be able to put people in jail for life, which is essentially a death sentence
  - herbiehancock00, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2@TBombadil
    
    If a person is sentenced life in prison, wouldn't that equate to "fewer bad people"?
  - infection0, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3better than giving them the chance to kill again. better than us paying to support their miserable existence forever. what's your logic?
Gimjee, on 09/22/2008, -23/+5Frankly, we didn't give up our constitution. And security can be there while the constitution is also.
- akula89, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2no *****?
- solidcube, on 09/22/2008, -2/+12Yes, actually the constitution and bill of rights have been gutted in the last 8 years. They have almost no teeth now. If you believe otherwise, forgive me for saying it this way but you really need to get your head out of your ass.
  - Gimjee, on 09/22/2008, -5/+3Yeah, before you go on to continue making fun of me and more so just so you can prove you're not a total band wagon rider here and total hypocrite, elaborate on what you said.
  - MrWhite7, on 09/22/2008, -0/+8The Constitutions been gutted since the day it passed... Study some history.
- mnpilot, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2Idiot Troll Alert
- Luciapalooza, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4uhh...two words: Patriot Act
- bowens44, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3I guess you been living in a cave since 2001.
adougy, on 09/22/2008, -2/+58wonder what george washington would think of george bush
- badnewsblair, on 09/22/2008, -1/+31"You voted for this guy? Twice?" - G. Washington
- goshdang, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Washington would hold Laura's hand...in a jar of acid...at a party
  - Tyrghast, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2Washington, washington, twenty stories tall made of radiation, opponents beware, opponents beware, he's coming, he's coming, he's coming.
  - poet, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1Brad Neely is a genius.
  - KyleGoetz, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1I met him here in Austin. He's a pretty cool guy; eh makes hilarious cartoons and doesn't afraid of anything. (Yeah, I know I paraphrased.)
- MageeMC, on 09/22/2008, -1/+51If George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be in Guantanamo...
  - regeya, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14You might not be too far off. Just take a look at the average right-wing pundit's website, and see what they say about the Founding Fathers.
    
    Neocons, had they been around in the days of the Revolution, would have been Loyalists, and had they gotten their way, we would owe our allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and the Union Jack would fly at the Colonial Parliament. Note to English readers: It wasn't necessarily England our country split from, but King George and excessive taxation. Considering the political climate of your own country and the general attitude toward the United States, I'm sure we can all agree that the imperialistic expansionism and excessive taxation of those days wouldn't set well with any of us.
    
    So you're probably right; more than likely, they'd have formed a militia group and attempted a coup by now, and ended up in Cuba by now.
  - TBombadil, on 09/22/2008, -5/+3they were terrorists after all. in fact our whole nation was founded by a bunch terrorists. why isn't that discussed more often? The main reason the Puritans were aided in their journey to the new world was because of the crazy jihadi-esk ***** they were doing in the UK.... and the King was all, "hey, so Puritans, I hate your crazy ass's, but i wanted to know If you want to go to the New World where you can practice your crazy conservative Christianity in peace, and more importantly...away from sane people?" and the Puritans were all like "sure" ....then they burned some witches and everyone lived happily ever after ......THE END
- kubedawg, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2George Washington would kick the ***** out of GWB.
- rollerblader, on 09/22/2008, -4/+0hmmmm a slave owners thoughts
- addiktion, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1George Washington would pull out the ole can of whoop ass. Unfortunately W. Would pull out his brain ray and make George W. an Elitist brainwashed hellion.
gospe1337, on 09/22/2008, -1/+30Somebody just made the terror watch list.
- TBombadil, on 09/22/2008, -6/+1y
- yacks, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1I'm sure he has been on that list for ages.. along with every single Democrat.. Not saying Maher is a democrat though, he can be very anti-democrat as well as he is anti-republican.
btschul, on 09/22/2008, -9/+12He's a smart guy. That's probably why he's a Libertarian.
- compulsive1, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7No he's just a guy with strong individual opinions on different things. Some of his views happen to be Libertarian, but others are either very Liberal or just way out there- like his belief that all drugs are bad and that he'll stay healthy because he doesn't "polute" his body. He is also for world-wide coordinated inter-governmental effort to stop global warming.
  - jocknerd, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1He has called himself a Liberal Libertarian.
- Bartboy919, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_ ...
  
  Go down to comedians.
  - Richandler, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1Watch the video before posting please.
  - MooseOfReason, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1BartBoy, I think btschul was talking about Andrew Sullivan being the Libertarian. Not Bill Maher. Though Maher is good on civil liberties.
  - copypastry, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2***** yeah, Geordi LaForge supports Obama!
  - Bartboy919, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_ ...
- goosegoosegoose, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1So is Tommy Chong, and I'm sure I'm smarter than him.
ryanonfire, on 09/22/2008, -4/+6You didn't Will I Am a chance to speak :(
- d03boy, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6cuz he black yo
  - poet, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1whitey always hatin on us thugs
- blaired, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6it wasn't on purpose...they just accidentally Will I Am.
- swordphish, on 09/22/2008, -5/+1Will I Am is probably the only person on there with an original thought of his own. He just has a career to look out for.
- poet, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1ryanonfire, why don't you Will I Am a chance to speak? Just go Will I Am a chance to speak, okay?
- CarStan, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5this sentence no verb
- bigtimslim, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3I watched this whole show on hbo. The few times he spoke, it was ***** painful
- YogiWanKenobi, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2You accidentally the whole fleshlight
  - ryanonfire, on 09/24/2008, -0/+1There's a religion named after me you know :P
FolkTheory, o

Most IMPORTANT Point EVER Made by Bill Maher!!! watch!

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Most IMPORTANT Point EVER Made by Bill Maher!!! watch!

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Debunking Congressman Kingston's HBO attacks on Obama

Drive Thru Health Care's Strange Specials Finding Success

Cavs 18-0 at Home This Season