digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at washingtonpost.com

Obama: Judge Him by His Laws

washingtonpost.com — An examination of bills championed by Barack Obama uncovers impressive evidence of his character and ability.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • HopeMonger, on 05/11/2008, -20/+85Sending this to everyone who questions his exp :)
    • hittnrun, on 05/11/2008, -58/+20I judge him by the mentor who he let his young daughters listen to every Sunday, The Great Reverend Wright.
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/11/2008, -20/+14You send the kids to Sunday School during the Sermon, Dumb Ass.
        • hittnrun, on 05/11/2008, -40/+11It's become very obvious that Michele was there, taking notes. That is one b!tter, elitist b!tch.
          • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/11/2008, -7/+22Since you obviously hate women, you should support Obama over Clinton anyway, right? Or are you more of a racist than a sexist? Must be difficult hating black women so much....
          • Stochio, on 05/11/2008, -25/+4People burying hitnrun haven't been paying attention.
          • TopherT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Whats up with the trolls these day? I can't imagine that this much vitriol is natural, I suspect a conspiracy of partisan operators spamming digg with hate.To what end I'm not sure, though sidelining a quite interesting social forum that could otherwise become useful in organizing resistance to the status quo seems a likely reason as any.
          • MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You suspect partisan operators? What color do you suspect the sky is?
        • hittnrun, on 05/12/2008, -22/+5I love black women in general. They are sexy and very down to earth ad generally happy. Ms. Obama is none of those things. Condi on the other hand...sweeet!
          • TopherT, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4/sarcasm?
          • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If he says Condi pumps his nads it has GOT to be sarcasm or W is posting here :)
          • dOOBiEx213, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Condolezza and Hillary are a trap!
      • bphicke, on 05/11/2008, -25/+15Or by the Patriot act which he voted to renew.
        • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -11/+32He voted for a redone patriot act after he took out a lot of crap from the original.
          • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4So, he still voted FOR the Patriot Act II. And are you telling me that it was only HIM that "took out a lot of crap"

            Come on!

            Oh, and the whole "Judge him by his laws".... they only picked ONE LAW to demonstrate his entire career............
          • KidFlash2, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Digger, please.
        • Erich100, on 05/11/2008, -22/+7Let's not forget the global poverty act. The one the senate has tabled for now so that it would not interfere with his presidential campaign. The one that would tax Americans 845 billion dollars to be paid to the UN. The one that takes away our guns through the UN's Millennium Project. That's what he is. A globalist shill.
        • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -7/+19Obama is the most qualified to keep terroists out of your house. You need to straighten up and respect that.
          • bphicke, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5Was this a joke, or a serious comment?
          • rex84, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7The Patriot Act allows the terrorists to come into my house without a warrant.
          • patch6, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Look at Zbigniew's history. The mujahideen mercenary networks he helped create during the cold war -became- Al Qaeda.
      • MikeSD34, on 05/11/2008, -11/+38Because you know everything about reverend wright and his view points based on the small clips they show in the news.
        • PabloMac, on 05/11/2008, -16/+11Do you really believe those few clips were just isolated sound bites?
          • MikeSD34, on 05/12/2008, -3/+18How many times has an inspiration speaker said something drastic that we may not agree with, just to make a point which he then expanded upon? It happens very, very frequently. If you just play the dramatic part, but don't broadcast the explanation, you distort the point of the speech.
          • PabloMac, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4Yeah, that's what was going on. What was I thinking? Want some Kool-Aid?
          • MikeSD34, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Yes, I'm a sheep for trying to make an informed and complete decision instead of just accepting what's being spoon fed to me by others.
          • gwolf, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Since when do Americans agree with what their Preacher's, Pastors, Fathers and Rabi's say, particularly when we publicly disagree with them. That's the problem with the devout followers of the world, your not suppose to question what the man on the pulpit or in the mosque says. You have a duty to question them and tell them when they are wrong. At the very least ignore them.
          • PabloMac, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1@ MikeSD34: Please share here what you learn from personally attending Mr. Wright's sermons, since that's the only way to make a complete decision.

            @ gwolf: Of course one has a duty to question what one's minister says. And if and when you reach a point where you are convinced that minister is speaking untruths, it's your job to try to either bring that minister back to the truth, or move along to a different church. There is no way in heck I would allow my family to be barraged with the junk Obama exposed his family to, not to mention himself. That's why there is a question as to his true loyalties and beliefs regarding his faith and patriotism, not to mention his ideas on race relations.

            I'm not saying Obama IS a racist, traitor, or even non-Christian, but simply pointing out that he has exposed himself to serious questions by many people.
        • hittnrun, on 05/11/2008, -13/+10No, basically by the interviews he gave recently.

          Should I believe you or my lying ears????
          • MikeSD34, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4You didn't state that in your original post, just that we should just his character based on the view points of his reverend. While this does have some weight, your post doesn't go into any sort of depth as to your viewpoint. We don't know how you came to your conclusions and whether or not we agree with those methods. It just doesn't stand up on its own.

            If you want to make a change in peoples opinions by describing yours, you have to go in depth. Describe not just your opinion, but why you believe that, and how you came to your conclusions. Otherwise you're just a raving nut. These are basic writing techniques taught in any basic public school.
          • MoofTheStoof, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4It's not your ears that are malfunctioning...
        • Bouncybanana, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1those clips i saw were pretty f-ing scary...if my pastor said that the us government created aids to suppress black people it'd be kind of a dealbreaker...
        • bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4@Bouncybanana
          Well from the point of view from the black community. There is a lot of distrust in the government. If you remember the Tuskegee syphilis, they let black men die of the disease all the while they told them they were treating them, just so they can see the progression of syphilis.

          Although extreme and probably not likely, it not as irrational as it sounds given the historical events black communities have gone through.
          • Bouncybanana, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2i see your point, i just wish he'd have a more positive message, such as urging black people to raise themselves out of poverty instead of bashing white people.
          • bruce86, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1He does do that, that is how Obama initially met Wright. Obama was working on programs to help the black community, fighting unemployment, poverty and homelessness through faith based initiative like the ones Reverend wright's church sponsors.

            I hope you read this, because i feel like the black community is being misrepresented here. The community while having problems, does alot to lifts it self out of poverty. Also that most of their anger isn't irrational, maybe misguided but has a place in a dialog.
      • DustinHill, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3"Great" is not part of his title and if you listen to the whole sermon that was taken so far out of context, only the part about the CIA selling drugs to blacks doesn't make sense. While that is a large faux pas in a personal sense, I could never control some wild theories that my pastor put forth such as "MTV will kill you children". I'm now an atheist and detest organized religion, but you followers should at least be open-minded enough to listen to the whole sermon and form you own opinions. As a small side note: Fox News is not fair and balanced, nor does it report and let you decide.
    • dreamweaver1984, on 05/11/2008, -25/+9wow thanks hopemonger, u totally changed my mind,, NOT
      • MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -3/+19hey, dreamweaver1984, the whole "not" thing hasn't been funny since around 1984 or so.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2i thought it was funny on borat.
    • unpluggedboy, on 05/11/2008, -22/+16From this article all I see is the following: 1 bill in the state, passed by sucking up to the police, nothing in the senate.
      • floorman56, on 05/11/2008, -0/+18Senate Record ...Just the facts
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=4006 ...
      • Erich100, on 05/11/2008, -11/+9The Global Poverty Act is waiting to be voted on in the Senate. It's one scary piece of legislation if you care about America.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/12/2008, -6/+12Really? Why is that? Because you have believed all of the right wing crap made up about it would be my guess. Try this link & then come back & respond:
          http://www.bread.org/take-action/ol2008/gpa-fact-s ...

          Because I know you won't bother(because FACTS are unnecessary for those like you) here is the 1st paragraph:
          MYTH: The Global Poverty Act would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid. This would require a new tax on all Americans.
          TRUTH: The legislation neither authorizes nor obligates the federal government to spend more money. Rather, it seeks to put our current foreign aid programs into a comprehensive
          strategy involving trade policy, debt cancellation, and private sector efforts to ensure that existing U.S. programs
          are more effective and efficient. The legislation calls for a strategy to determine the right mix of aid, trade and debt policies and investment. The strategy also includes the private sector, civil society organizations, and the developing countries themselves as critical components in global development.
          The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the bill would cost less than $1 million to implement.
          • ncairns, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Don't bother - he's a Ron Paul supporter. He thinks isolationism is a viable foreign policy.
      • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3fta: "Consider a bill...." It was an example given to illustrate the author's point, not an encyclopedic accounting of every bill he has worked on. It was a newspaper article, what did you expect?
    • jbenson2, on 05/11/2008, -20/+10Great, let's bring it on and take a look at his 130 "present" votes. He would not commit to an Aye or a Nay, just a wimpish "present".

      We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

      For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -11/+7Why do you hate black people?
        • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7Why can't someone judge Mr. Obama on his bills/merits and no be called a racist?
        • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -8/+5Why do you hate logical comments?
        • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You forgot the /s

          I still buried ya, though ;)
      • slearwig, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4A wimp is someone who cloaks his/her true intentions in false arguments instead of telling the truth.
        • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Change and Hope? The O-man gets up every morning with three things on his mind: more taxes, more regulation and more litigation.

          Barack's sights are set on European-style socialism for America.

          No wonder why the Democrats like him.
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5As opposed to McCain that wants to continue the Bush economic plan which is to incur huge debts on credit, promising our grandchildren's potential earnings to those countries. If you want to actually have a responsible fiscal budget, perhaps you should consider paying for what you are buying.
          • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Raise taxes 25% and trash the economy - Great f'n plan.
          • OralCavity, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Talk to Bush about his reckless spending spree. Don't blame the guy for wanting to be responsible for paying off the national debt. If you don't like what the country has bought (the Iraq war), stop supporting it and don't accuse politicians of not supporting troops if they don't vote for money to support those troops.
      • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10Sometimes neither "aye" nor "nay" are good choices. If you don't agree with the premise of the question, or if you agree with part of the bill but not some pork that got added on, what do you do? One option is "present", another is skipping the vote altogether. On the controversial votes Obama has stated why he voted present - he didn't do it to hide as you are implying.
        • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1"Sometimes" is the operative word.

          Sometimes, but not 130 times as a junior senator who claims he has the needed judgment to be President of the United States.
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3thanks for taking the time to understand why he voted the way he did instead of jumping to conclusions about something which you have no idea about at all.
      • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Hmm... vote yes on bills that don't take into the account the health of the mother and be attacked as a hypocrite, help endanger lives and risk losing some support on the left, or vote no on it and be condemned by the right and still help endanger lives...


        Why vote definitively on something you do not fully support or oppose? It is stupid and could even be considered disingenuous in some cases. Sometimes the wisest and most honorable course of action is inaction and the truest form of expression is silence - a truth way too many people refuse to consider/observe these days...
        • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2Read his vote. He was opposed to protecting the child after it was born.
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4source?
    • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -17/+7How does passing laws, however effective they may be, do with a person's ability (or inability) to bring about the kind of massive, unprecedented change Obama claims he's going to achieve?

      A better gauge of his ability to achieve change would be to see how he has been at bringing about change in his other elected offices, the U.S. Senate and Illinois Senate. As far as I know, he hasn't achieved change in either body, or even attempted to do so.

      What is there to make anyone believe that this person with less than 5 years' experience in national governing is going to bring massive change to a large government bureaucracy that fights change at every turn?

      Jimmy Carter made a lot of great speeches about bringing about change back in the '70s, and he was not at all successful as a president.
    • 4d669, on 05/12/2008, -10/+6Patriot Act.
      /obamafanatism
    • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -12/+5Man I wish I could get paid to do absolutely nothing related to my job. In the last year, he's spent far more time outside of the senate campaigning for president that he has been doing his ***** JOB! Hell, in the last Quarter he's missed nearly 95% of the votes.

      Oh, and two of his 690+ sponsored bills have been passed and enacted. Yeah, great fighter there.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=rol ...

      2007-Q3 119 67 56.3%
      2007-Q4 85 76 89.4%
      2008-Q1 85 31 36.5%
      2008-Q2 37 35 94.6%
      • egossett, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I guess this would be true of Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, McCain when they are off campaigning for a new elected position.
        • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Well, considering only two of the people you listed are/were active senators when they campaigned for the presidency.... I think you got two out of 5 right.

          However, here's an interesting tidbit:
          Barack Obama missed 243 of 1208 votes (20%) since Jan 6, 2005.
          Hillary Clinton missed 214 of 2516 votes (9%) since Jan 23, 2001.

          Barack has missed MORE votes than Hillary has, and Hillary's been in office for a full Four extra years!
      • mrASSMAN, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Probably because he is dedicating a full-time effort into getting a new job, idiot. Maybe if Hillary left the race he would have more time to spend in the senate. Also, most bills are not passed or enacted, that's just how the system works.
        • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1You know, if I spent 90% of the time I'm supposed to be working looking for another job..... I don't think I'd have my current job very long.
    • DYNAMICENTRYYY, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3How about to people questioning his intelligence?

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

      57 states huh? And people think bush is an illiterate baffoon?
      • bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I know you may have Asperger syndrome, a mild form of autism. But please understand not everything said is taken for its literal meaning. There are a myrad of forms of speech such as jokes and satire and expression, that have more meaning that what is said.

        If this confuses you ask your ABA therapist or special education teacher for a better explanation.
    • known, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power --Abraham Lincoln
    • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2One bill in the Illinois state senate and he's got the experience to lead the country?
  • redcolumbine, on 05/11/2008, -10/+39Whoa, he doesn't like easy games, does he?
  • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -4/+71Dear MSM: "The media should compare [the other candidates] legislative records to Obama's, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law."
    • TokenBlack, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3MSM: "Oh, ok."
    • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -12/+7There's a big different between proposing and passing laws and being the leader of a superpower, especially when a candidate is promising to make major changes in how that government works.

      Obama is far from the first presidential candidate to say he is going to "change politics," "change the way Washington works," etc. Few of the previous efforts have come even close to success.
      • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13"Few of the previous efforts have come even close to success." You're right, why even try? Let's all vote for someone we KNOW won't change anything.
        • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -9/+6Let's all vote for someone we KNOW has absolutely no experience in making the major changes he's promising... that's what your saying, in other words.

          I'm all for reaching for goals, even difficult ones, I just hate it when politicians lie to get elected by promising things they know full well they can't deliver.

          He says he'll provide national health care, a $160 billion program for new green-collar jobs, a higher minimum wage, big investment in infrastructure, and more... while not raising taxes on 95% of U.S. taxpayers. If that's change you can believe in go right ahead. It sounds like snake oil to me.
          • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8How can you pretend that he has no experience while commenting on an article that documents that experience?
        • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Did you read the article? It talks about ONE law, which had to do with taping interrogations. If Obama was campaigning on a platform of reforming interrogation procedures, I'd say he has experience on that issue.

          But the "change" Obama is claiming he will be able to achieve involves extremely ambitious goals in the areas I've mentioned above (health care, etc.) What laws has he passed or championed in those areas? Has he gotten them passed? What specific experience has he gained in health care, labor relations, etc. in the short time he's been in the Senate?
  • Jambi, on 05/11/2008, -17/+179With all the pro-Obama spam peppering Digg (vote Obama for change, only he can save us!), it's nice to come across a submission that actually gives some very good reasons for supporting the guy. We can only hope that should he be elected, he'll stick to his guns on certain issues.
    • NoDrama, on 05/11/2008, -20/+37The Obama folks have NOTHING on Ron Paulbots when it comes to spam.
      • Akaji, on 05/11/2008, -5/+16had*
        The Paulbots have died down a lot since McCain became the Republican nominee.
      • lava, on 05/11/2008, -12/+10Actually, since there are far, far, faaar more Obama supporters, just the fact that they're compared has to say something about the Paulbots.
        • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -16/+3As an Obama supporter, it's my duty to tell everyone on digg how good Obama is. At most times of the day, there are at least 2 pro-Obama articles on the front page and 2 anti-Hillary articles on the front page. We are Obama. We are proud. We purposely bury Paul articles, which is why you no longer see them.
        • ligyron, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3You're confusing Obama supporters with Obama cult followers. You see, the difference is, the cult followers chant Obama all day but either don't end up voting or vote for someone else

          After Ron Paul disappeared, they clinged onto Barack Obama. After Barack Obama is gone...I don't know...maybe Iron Man?

          Obama 08! (Disclaimer: I'm Canadian)
        • ohplease, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Iron Man 2012! (I'm Canadian too, but we can dream)
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4In defense of the Paul supporters, it was largely a reaction to the lack of media coverage that he got.
    • g00dETH3R, on 05/12/2008, -14/+8It's sad to see people are fooled by this fluff, but what would you expect from the post. The article talks about 3 bills and each one is pretty much a no brainer framed with language like "unique ability to deal with extremely complex issues”, what complex issues? This is why the US in trouble, when one of its main publications spends a whole page writing about how a politician is so great and able to solve complex problems, yet what are the issues -
      1 Police need to video tape interpretations
      2 Tax refunds for poor
      3 Lobbying reform
      Why wouldn’t any publication write about how bad things are in the US when politicians get praised for voting for common sense, no brainer laws, yet this is not the norm but the exception?
      • Joeyrev, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4"There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it."

        Getting a bill passed that has such high opposition...sounds like a complex issue to me.
        • g00dETH3R, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly, read over the quote again and ask yourself whats wrong with this picture. The focus shouldn't be on Obama (i agree he did the correct thing), the focus should be on how ***** the system is.
    • patch6, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9Stick to his guns on gun control, for example.
      His gun-related policies clearly lean towards his bias of regulating the second amendment out of existence, and it would be consistent with the Millennium Declaration's disarmament section, a document he clearly aligns with (at least evidenced by his inclusion of its goals within the Global Poverty Act).
    • brad3378, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Hopefully he'll stick to his guns when it comes to laws funding the Iraq war.
      That ***** is going to bankrupt us.
    • DavidGX, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Spam? Stories that are brought to the front page by digg users who voted them there.. that's not spam. Learn what spam means.
  • isparadiselost, on 05/11/2008, -59/+34He's one more globalist shill ready to torch the Constitution. I guess most of you won't understand until it's too late. Enjoy the continuation of the Police State and the systematical reduction of every right that was bestowed upon you by those who died to do so. I guess that's a bit deep for people who just wonder which channel American Idol is on.
    • nblsavage, on 05/11/2008, -16/+34**translaton** Blah, blah, blan Ron Paul! Will save us all! Blah, Blah, Blah.
    • BabushkaBlue, on 05/11/2008, -13/+30Did you even READ his record or are you just spamming whatever you can for your hero Ron Paul?
      • SilverStandard, on 05/11/2008, -13/+17People have read his record and they've found that he voted for a UN global tax, gun control and continued funding for the war. Nevermind that, he's gonna bring change!
        • jgzman, on 05/11/2008, -8/+17Gun control has it's place. I am pretty damn 2nd amendment friendly, but there is a time and a place for gun control. What, specifically, did he vote for? Do you even know, or are you just throwing the phrase around?
          Voted to fund the war? Can you be more specific? Are you referring to one of those bills that contained lots of necessary items, and had war funding shoehorned into it? Remember, there is no such thing as one-topic bills. What else did he vote for in the same bill?
          • senatorpjt, on 05/12/2008, -8/+5As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
          • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8@senatorpit: You have combined some very different positions in your comment. Everything prior to the last sentence makes sense and has popular support. Can you provide evidence that "he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns"? I don't believe such a bill was ever voted on in Illinois and I know there wasn't one that extreme in the US Senate.
        • Erich100, on 05/12/2008, -15/+12He wrote that legislation you are referring to, The Global Poverty Act. The Senate has tabled it so it doesn't get publicity and screw up his campaign. They will vote on it when the election is over. You are 100% correct about MR Obama. He's a globalist piece of garbage just like his wife.
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4845 Billion dollars/300 million people.. That's just $2,816 per man woman and child... Why wouldn't everyone vote for that?
          • DDRSkata, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2We pledged, in writing, along with all other developed nations, to give 0.7% GDP annually in aid. Obama just wants to actually go through with it instead of making liars of ourselves and breaching a written agreement.
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3So why am I getting dugg down for pointing out the actual cost?

            As I support 4 people in my house, plus me. That's 5 * $2,816 which equals $14,080. Hmm. Perhaps I should get a second job to pay for something for someone else?

            Why do people not like numbers here?
          • niczar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3So why don't you complain about the trillions of the US budget that are spent into BLOWING people up instead of helping them? US foreign aid is nothing compared to its military budget, which by itself is larger than all other countries COMBINED.
            Ignorant, egoistical fool.
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@niczar,

            I actually complain about all the waste. I want fair value for my tax dollars.
        • ironhide, on 05/12/2008, -8/+10heh, rant on Paulites. You will have as much of an impact during the presidential election as you did in the primaries.
        • userperson, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Dude, Obama's about optimism, just repeat "Yes, we can" over and over to yourself, never you mind about the details. /s
          or maybe it's "Yes, HE can." I get confused.
    • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -6/+27Globalist shill? What is that even supposed to mean?

      And as far as torching the constitution and supporting a police state? The whole article was about Obama passing a bill which would protection people's 5th amendment constitutional rights and LIMIT police abuses.
      • isparadiselost, on 05/11/2008, -17/+12A globalist shill is any member of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg group, etc. Pretty much any group who has their sites set on the eradication of US sovereignty for "the greater good". Or, better yet, they're doing it for "the children." Check Michelle's credentials? Yep, CFR.

        Honestly, I want him to win so you nutcases see just how bad socialism is. At least with him we know what we're getting. McCain is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I'd even prefer Billary to that piece of trash.
        • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -7/+14A Paulite calling someone else an nutcase? The mind boggles.
        • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -5/+17You right wing conspiracy theory wack-jobs are getting weirder by the minute. Just what's so horrible about the Council on Foreign Relations, a respected, non-partisan think tank that's been around since 1921? And how, pray tell, did you determine that Obama is a member of the CFR, since they do not publish their membership list?

          As to the Trilateral Commission, it, too, is a foreign policy think tank. And if you are a member of it, you give up your membership if you are elected to national office, so Obama could not both be President and a member of the Trilateral Commission. Obama is not now a member of the Trilateral Commission and I see no evidence that he ever was a member of it.

          The Bilderberg Group... This snippet from Wikipedia should answer a lot about that:

          _________________

          Conspiracy theories

          Critics say the Bilderberg Group promotes the careers of politicians whose views are representative of the interests of multinational corporations, at the expense of democracy.[6] Journalists who have been invited to attend the Bilderberg Conference as observers have discounted these claims, calling the conference "not much different from a seminar or a conference organized by an upscale NGO"[7] with "nothing different except for the influence of the participants."[8]

          The group's secrecy and its connections to power elites has raised concerns for many who believe that the group is part of a conspiracy to create a New World Order. Radio host Alex Jones, a well known conspiracy theorist,[9] promotes the claim that the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union.[10] Madrid-based author Daniel Estulin, writing in the conspiracy theory magazine Nexus, claims that the long-term purpose of Bilderberg is to "Build a One-World Empire". He states the group "is not the end but the means to a future One World Government".[11]

          Reporter Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states "In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."[12]

          Denis Healey, a Bilderberg founder and former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, decries such theories as "crap." He was quoted by BBC News as saying "There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion."[12]

          _________________________

          Now stop skipping your meds!
        • Joeyrev, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Really? You believe that Obama is going to be a horrible president, but you hope he's elected just to prove us wrong? You must lead a pretty shallow life that you would rather see the country burn than be proven wrong on the internet.
        • ee80, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Lol at all the Dems who are too stupid to realize being part of the CFR etc is NOT A GOOD THING
          • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3and I've yet to see ANY proof that it isn't (and Alex Jones' paranoia isn't proof)
    • isparadiselost, on 05/11/2008, -12/+6Ron Paul?
    • Enasni1212, on 05/11/2008, -3/+17Argh... at least read the damn article before coming up with such an ignorant comment. The article was about Obama fighting for enforcement of the 5th amendment. I guess a candidate can't be good for America if he's popular. Some people seem to be so consumed by the idea that America is heading downhill that they stop trying to do anything about it, and try to convince everyone else that there is nothing they can do about it, either.
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -12/+10The great thing about Obama is that he wants to uphold the important ammendments. We don't need all of them, and he's smart enough to know it.
        • schnikies79, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5We do need all and each and every one should be 100% supported.
        • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5***** off you troll.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Anyone who says we should ignore an amendment because they don't think it's important is my mortal enemy.
          • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4psst...WillamDavis is a troll and you grabbed the line.
        • InnerRayg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I support Prohibition :)
    • petrodollar, on 05/11/2008, -3/+18Does your constitution include the 5th Amendment? Perhaps you ought to read the article?
    • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -4/+21Obama was a constitutional lawyer, I trust him with it more than I trust John McCain. And in case you haven't noticed, this was a protection of civil liberties. I don't know what the hell you are smoking.
  • Rotzooi, on 05/11/2008, -60/+13I thought this was an article about Ron Paul. Buried.
  • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -68/+13People need to be put in prison that don't believe Obama. Case closed.
    • ironhide, on 05/11/2008, -9/+21In case people don't bother looking at coffee's posting history, he's really an anti-obama troll.
      • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -12/+9Ahhhhh...prison for me!

        http://digg.com/users/coffee200am/gallery/6504271
        • nblsavage, on 05/11/2008, -7/+18Get over yourself douchebag. You're not important enough for martyrdom.
          • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -11/+9But Obama loves me! I just can't believe in him.

            I hate new religions...
          • caoimhinn, on 05/11/2008, -6/+8I don't think that he's a troll just because he's poking fun at the messianic treatment Obama receives on Digg and in the media.
          • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5I for one look forward to Coffees "letters from jail" since he is so intent on being jailed for disliking Obama. I will read it for the politics, not all the gay sex.
    • Wholekernalcorn, on 05/11/2008, -6/+7If obama makes to the big house anything bad said about him will surly be construed as "racist" and of course that involves law suits. One thing I worry about is the misconception that having a "black" president will somehow solve racism. It won't. Racism isn't just "white on black".
    • p0s3r, on 05/11/2008, -14/+4Oh they will. All White People will be put in prison camps once Obama becomes President.
      • nblsavage, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13The only way you'll wind up in prison if Obama becomes president is if they manage to push through anti-asshole legislation.
        • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -16/+6You mean his anti-White-asshole legislation. I'm sure black assholes like Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson will remain scot-free.
        • rex84, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3And they will, but it will be called a hate speech legislation.
        • scottc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4If p0s3r's attitude in real life matches his comments on Digg he's well on his way to prison just of his own doing. No need for any new laws.
  • flossdaily, on 05/11/2008, -20/+158But is America really ready for a President who believes in evolution?
    • isparadiselost, on 05/11/2008, -29/+14Who cares what the President believes outside of the fact that he/she strongly believes in government by the people for the people...(you know that pesky document called the US Constitution?) Go back to flossing, you have spinach in your teeth.
      • B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -21/+5What about the people he threw under the bus?
        • DDRSkata, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'd like to throw you under a bus.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Yah, which is why Im voting McCain... It is also the sort of sentiment BTW that makes Obama unelectable. But don't flatter yourself, its not from you or anyone in the netroots. Its Obamas America hating wife.
    • hittnrun, on 05/11/2008, -20/+14His preacher taught him evolution too??

      crazy
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11I guess that's evidence that his crazy preacher didn't have any amazing influence over him, as republicans (and hillary) imply.
      • malex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Okay, when exactly did everyone start going to their clergy for their science education?
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Malex: obviously hittnrun was educated solely by the wisdom and knowledge of their own spiritual leader; otherwise they'd remember a period of their life between the ages of 5 and 18 where they were attended by these people called "Teachers" that "taught" these "subjects" that included laughable ideas like "math" or "science."

        This reply brought to you with all seriousness as the parent (hittnrun) comment.
    • dsmx, on 05/11/2008, -13/+22You should vote for a president based on their policies and records on voting for bills in congress/senate not there personal beliefs.
      • dreamweaver1984, on 05/11/2008, -24/+7personal beliefs are important because he is supposed to lead our country, do u really want someone who does not believe what this country is founded on .. come on get real, evolution is bs, and so is he.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8Why do you think Obama doesn't believe what America was founded on? Why do you think evo is bs?
        • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13"evolution is bs"? Please stop reading your 2000 year old Christian fiction and just, for once, try to show some sign of rational thought. It's scary that people like you are allowed to vote. If you can't even understand basic principles of science and logic, you're not smart enough to participate in choosing our leaders.
      • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -3/+33Like Bush's personal belief that stem cell research is evil and must be stopped. Or Republican's personal beliefs that they could interfere with the Terry Schiavo case. Personal beliefs do effect their actions.
        • exomni, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14affect
          • ncairns, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1Eh, it could be either one here.
          • ncairns, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Yes, I'm right. No need to digg me down.

            "Personal beliefs do effect their actions."

            You could say that personal beliefs *impact* their actions (in which case 'affect' is the right word) or that they *give rise to* their actions (in which case 'effect' is the right word.)
        • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Amen.
        • known, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I hope Obama is a constant learner....
      • exomni, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9their
    • exomni, on 05/11/2008, -5/+32What the hell does that even mean? "Believe IN evolution"? You can't believe IN evolution, it's just a collection of facts, not a faith.
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Well, my comment was facetious. But you raise an interesting point about language. Is it improper to say you BELIEVE in science? For people who don't BELIEVE in evolution, its like saying they don't BELIEVE in gravity, but is it untrue? I don't have the answer to that.
        • Qeveren, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6I don't -believe- in science, I -understand- science. It's not about belief, it's about rationality.
        • expo1001, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Exactly. But that's something that many ignorant religious nutbags will never understand. They seem to think science or "evolution" are competing faiths.
      • ligyron, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2Do you believe in an education? I do. Some people don't. So by your logic, education is a religion?
        • isaactwito, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5You could obviously use some education. Belief does not equate religion.
          • ligyron, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If you hadn't noticed, I was replying to exomni, who was suggesting that very thing. I'm not sure how you could have missed that
    • Aerandir, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9People, Flossdaily is just kidding, for ***** sake. I believe his comment pours this thing called "Sarcasm"... maybe putting /s at the end next time? =D
    • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -6/+25A better question: Is America ready for a President who does NOT believes in imaginary people in the sky?
      • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12If that's the case, why did he go to church?
        • klischke, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7I don't believe deanlowe meant to insinuate that Obama was that candidate, instead merely posing the question for future elections/candidates.
        • deanlowe, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2I'm not saying Obama is not religious.

          Although, if he was in church more, he should've known what Rev. Wright was preaching.
        • Brad324, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3because you have to, to be a president. Hell - I grew up as a christian, and have since dropped my religious beliefs, and not even my family knows I'm an atheist. If I were to go into politics with any hope of success, I would pretend to still believe in God.
      • flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If only.
    • monoa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Eat the elephant in small chunks.
    • lazaruswws, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4If by evolution you mean communism and socialist values!
      • DavidGX, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Kill yourself, idiot.
      • lazaruswws, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You First, by voting for him you are an idiot and I am sure that you will vote three or four time in November as your dead relatives. This kind of response that Liberals are able to come up with, you are a puppet.
        How many Obama supporters would it take to come up with a rational thought?
    • bjs3171, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1::whoosh::
  • DuffyDirect, on 05/11/2008, -43/+18i would vote for him without any question if it wasn't for his wife. I'm not voting for that lady macbeth.
    • coffeebaby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+26that's great because she isn't running for president.
      • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -12/+4She'll be muzzled for sure...
      • DuffyDirect, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Guess you never read MacBeth, huh?
    • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -15/+9If you vote for Obama, you vote for his baggage too...
    • jbenson2, on 05/11/2008, -17/+4If the O-man can't even cure his wife of her perpetual bitterness, why should Americans have any confidence in him, especially when you analyze his 130 "present" votes. He can't even commit to an Aye or a Nay.
      • dh122, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Read up on Illinois politics. A "present" vote has its own special function.
        • jbenson2, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, right! It means that he was a junior senator who did not take a stand on 130 votes. This type of spineless judgment is not the characteristic Americans look for in their President.
    • zwaldowski, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8That's weird... I've seen presidents with bitchy wives before...
    • vision777, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10Is John's wife any better, she won't even let us see her tax returns. What's in them she doesn't want us to see. He's using her company's private plane but who is paying for it and where is that money coming from. His wife is the sneaky one.
      • DuffyDirect, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1A tax cheat I can handle, but not a pushy busy-body race card player.
    • DDRSkata, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Everyone in this election has a sneaky-ass spouse. Good thing they're not going to be the ones determining policy.
    • thejimmyo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If you can't vote for Barack Obama because of Michelle Obama, then can you vote for John McCain, given that Cindy McCain has stolen drugs from a non-profit organization in order to feed her addiction?
      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/22/ ...
  • ouzome, on 05/11/2008, -40/+19His wife thinks America is evil, she's never been proud of it before they started voting for her husband, and advises women not to get into the corporate world. Great role model!
    • Mechanicat, on 05/11/2008, -8/+17From the Black American pow America has been viciously evil for most of its history, Cut her some slack.
      • p0s3r, on 05/11/2008, -9/+7How evil do you think America has been to her?
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11Why does it matter? Your comment below indicates you don't appreciate the degree to which centuries of enslavement and subjugation has left a deep mark of suspision and animosity on the collective consciousness of the black community. People don't live in a vacuum, they adopt and inherit the values, attitudes and historical memories of their forebearers and community. Black folk have only really been allowed to participate in a level playing field in the last 30-40 years in the US, and that's assuming that any form of widespread latent racism doesn't still exist.
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Why aren't they angry at the black tribes that captured them and sold them? Is it because those african tribes can't be guilted into providing trillions of dollars in entitlements?
            News Flash: blacks weren't the only people enslaved. Whites have been slaves to blacks, blacks have been slaves to other blacks, brown people had black slaves, and white slaves. Every single race have been slaves.
          • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Your reply reads as if you're mentally unhinged and incapable of focussing on a singular topic. You're just flying off on all tangents so its difficult to articulate a sensible reply. Why are who not angry? I was talking about the black community IN THE US and their distrust of American society and the mainstream political process. Not only were they enslaved but after they were granted "freedom" they were severely oppressed as second class citizens until about 30 years ago. Your rant about reparations, African tribes and other races also being enslaved is just a pathetic diversion to cover up the fact that America has disgustingly oppressed its black (and other racial minorities) for most of its history and it is natural for them to still feel suspicion.Stay on topic please if you can.
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3Ok. Why aren't the blacks IN THE US angry at the african society that captured them and sold them into slavery? Why aren't the blacks IN THE US angry at the freed blacks that were slaveowners? Why aren't the blacks IN THE US only angry at the 10% of Americans that were slave owners?
          • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2I have concluded that trying to have a reasoned and mature discussion with you now would be a waste of my time, so I will wait until you actually grow up. Good bye for now.
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3You have concluded that you can't answer my legitimate questions. You've concluded that because I haven't bought into the PC dogma of eternal black victimhood that my questions aren't "reasoned and mature". Good for you. I'd hate for you to actually think outside of the talking points you've been fed.
      • Papajohn56, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2nice white liberal guilt
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1That's right, black people are bitter just to make whitey feel guilty and not because of the centuries of institutional discrimination and oppression they faced.
    • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -6/+20Yeah, she totally believes that America is evil...or not. I haven't been proud of the US government since 2000 (a little less then half my life), and Minorities have been shafted for a very long time. And I'm not sure where you got your last point, but I highly doubt that it is in context.
      • ouzome, on 05/11/2008, -13/+9It's this race card type mentality that will keep us racially divided....if you are black and want to be President, or want your husband to be president, you have to get over it. She has a bad attitude about America like most liberals do, you can't blame it all on the fact she's black. It's the future Obama always talks about...not the past, which I respect, but overall it's an empty message of hope, change, future, unity that makes me laugh at Obama supporters.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2She IS getting over it. And she's proud that the country as a whole seems to be getting over it as well,
        • Revlution4ever, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I laugh at you, cuz you have the ENTIRE internet at your finger tips. and are commenting on an article that in fact shows that he is NOT just an empty message, but a man who has made many INTELLIGENT decisions and has very intelligent plans for the future. Yet, people like you are completely unwilling to do alil reading, and instead loves to make naive observations. you think just cuz you can talk means you should give an opinion?

          do some research, and we will respect you. what a novel concept.
      • p0s3r, on 05/11/2008, -11/+9Please share with us what horrible things minorities have been subject to in your lifetime that led you to conclude they're being shafted.
        • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -5/+15The south side of Chicago. Read the book There Are No Children Here. Also the general experience of minorities as second class citizens. I don't know what race you are, but people definitely look at you differently depending on your race.
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -14/+7So, you claim that crime ridden projects are a result of White Oppression. Gotcha. And you're right about 2nd class citizens, like everywhere I go I see White People dragging around minorities on leashes.
        • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -4/+19I've heard black people called "nigger," "coon," "jungle bunny," "porch monkey," "spear chucker," and other racial epithets. I've talked to white people who say that they would never vote for a [black person]. I know one black man who was attacked physically in a bar because he went in not knowing it was full of redneck, white, country & western racists. I've heard cops using racial slurs against blacks. I've heard people claiming that the only reason that a black person got a job was "Affirmative Action." But none of that counts, does it? Because it doesn't fit into your alternative to reality that you've cooked up.
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -7/+6You're right, in all my life, the only racial epithets I've ever heard were only towards black people. Never against whites, asians or hispanics. And white people walking around Compton are perfectly safe! I swear us White People are so mean to blacks, and hispanics and asians live perfectly offense free lives!
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2I hear the word "nigger" a lot... Most of it comes from black people.

            I know many people of different races. I have friends that are black, brown, asian. My son is Polynesian.

            I think there is more "racism" towards mixed families than those of a single race. When my very pale wife was pregnant, walking around the grocery store with my "brown" son, people looked at her funny. She got stares. When they see me, they believe he is adopted or there is another story. From my view, I think most people see something different "white mother, brown boy" and look funny trying to understand or judging based upon assumed facts. Was she treated different? Not so much. And this was in Utah, land of a lot of white people.

            I haven't seen much racism towards people. But, perhaps I am a better person and have better friends.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2@p0s3r: So you've heard epithets against whites, Asians, and Hispanics. So what? I never claimed that such things did not occur or that any epithets were acceptable. But you have the option of never going to Compton or any inner-city ghetto if you fear for your safety there. They aren't the ones interviewing you for a job. They are not the people in power in this country. There is not some history of organized groups of black people analogous to the KKK lynching white people. It's like saying that Jews didn't really have it so bad in WWII because there were Germans, French, English, and other ethnicities and nationalities that suffered, too. You need to weigh the totality of what happened to the groups. Well, you don't. But people concerned with compassion, fairness, and rationality do.

            @mcquitty: "I haven't seen much racism towards people. But, perhaps I am a better person and have better friends."

            So victims of racism and their friends are not as good as you? You sicken me you disgusting, cowardly bigot!
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2You're right. My bigoted nature caused me to adopt a child who doesn't look like me. Why do you think I would do that?

            Yep. Perhaps race isn't an issue in my circle, which is diverse.

            Obviously you have, which raises the issue... who is the bigot?
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2The Race Industry is alive and well in you fmaxwell. Good job perpetuating the very thing you claim to oppose.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3@mcquitty: So you only observe people "in your circle"? You never stray outside of Utah and see how others live? You don't see footage from Philadelphia of black suspects being brutally beaten and kicked? Hate crimes rose by 52 percent against blacks and 35 percent against Jews in New York City last year, but you don't know anything about that. Maybe you need to pay more attention to people who don't live in Utah -- to people who are victimized and discriminated against because of their color.

            @p0s3R: Your last comment was totally nonsensical. I'm the white man voting for a black candidate for President. You're the one who uses terms pejorative terms like "gangstas" and "hos" while supporting old white guys for President. You're the one who wants to pretend that minorities are suffering no more from prejudice in this country than white people are (and idiotic claim, at best).
          • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3My my my. I'm sure you and your white liberal friends are so proud of yourselves for voting for the "black one". See, you're not a racist, you're a white guy voting for a black guy! That proves it!
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3No, I'm proud that I vote for the best candidate regardless of race or gender.

            You, on the other hand, can't seem to construct a rational argument against Obama's policies and record -- since your real reason for opposing him is his race. So you try to drum up prejudice in others, referring to his unspecified support for 'gangstas and hos'. You claim "all White People will be put in prison camps once Obama becomes President." and that "black assholes like Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson will remain scot-free."

            There are plenty of white supremacist, KKK, and neo-Nazi forums that would welcome someone with your anger and hatred towards blacks. Why don't you hang out there instead of trying to poison the discussions on Digg?
          • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well, if I still lived in Utah I could see that. But you see, I moved to Texas. I live in a suburb of Dallas now. Want to guess how diverse my neighborhood is?

            Hmm.. as for your statements. Yes, I have seen some uptick in anti-semite statements. Let's see.. where have I lived? Well, let me start with Alaska, Florida, Kansas, California, Washington, New York City, Texas and Utah. How many place do I visit on a regular basis? I travel related to my work and usually get over 100,000 miles a year visiting such diverse places as Oregon to Wisconsin.

            So, who is making assumptions based upon a comment I made about my life 5 years ago?

            Where have you been?

            As for my views on Mr. Obama, I am not against him. I don't like some of his policies. But, it seems if I mention them, it doesn't matter.

            If you look for something in someone, you will generally find it.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sorry for misreading your comment. That was my mistake. I thought that you had said that you still live in Utah.

            I note that you carefully dodged commenting on the racially charged excerpts from your postings on which I commented. I am not surprised.

            If you have a problem with Barack Obama's policies and positions, then articulate your concerns rather than resorting to race baiting with the kind of statements you made earlier (see quotes in my previous post).

            Don't denigrate me and the people with whom I associate because I have witnessed and heard instances of racial prejudice and hate speech (by people I don't associate with). Does your having heard anti-semitic statements mean that "perhaps I am a better person and have better friends" if I have not heard such statements? You seemed to think that you and your circle of friends was somehow superior to me and mine because I personally know people who have been victims of discrimination. Talk about blaming the victim! You should be ashamed.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You seem to give of the impression that the history of the world started when you were born.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I think the end of the world started when he was born.
      • DDRSkata, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I've been called a nigger many times. I've been prevented from dating girls because their parents wouldn't allow it. I've been followed around stored, harassed by cops, interrogated by teachers for things I didn't do every year I was in elementary, middle, or high school. I'm in college now, and none of this has gone away. And that's just what's happened to me, not what I've seen happen to other people. It is a fact; I have to work twice as hard as white kids half as smart as me to get half as far in life. Being black in America, especially in the south, is like walking through molasses with your ankles chained together. Yeah, it's possible, but it's way more difficult than people who don't have the same burdens.
        • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Thank you.

          Of course, p0s3r will claim that your experience and his are identical because there are black ghettos in which he's scared and mcquitty will claim that it's because you and your friends are not as good as he is.
        • p0s3r, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3So you're actually claiming at your university professors grade exams differently based up on the race of the student?
          • DDRSkata, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Some do, some don't, same as everywhere else. I'm not naive enough to think that every single person is out to get me, but enough people react negatively to my race for it to affect my life in a major way.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2He did he make that claim in any part of his post. I read it carefully several times and I've realized that you're just trying to stir sh*t by claiming he said something that he did not. If you say he claimed it, quote him, word for word, and show us.
    • SoulDrift404, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Drop dead.
    • zacharytelschow, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Perhaps Mrs. Obama has missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?
  • spamcrusher, on 05/11/2008, -18/+49How about his voting record on controversial issues? Seems Obama doesn't want to take a stand on issues that could hurt him politically speaking:

    http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/11/03/does-o ...

    or, since Digg loves Huffingtonpost so much,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-d ...
    • bmcnally, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3Thank you. A better article (and one that I really would like to see for every single politician) would be "______. Judge him by his votes"
    • Kegher, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8I think it's pretty funny they have a record of so many present votes and yet the ones they pick out, probably because they're the most important, are incredibly petty.
      Has it occured to you he may not have voted for bills like “Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces" because he didn't want to spend time on that kind of BS as he had better things to do? And if you don't look into a bill it's most honest to vote present.
      • CeeAyy, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Do you even read the articles you comment on?

        First, the two articles that you mention, in order to prove a point, are contrary to each other. One says that they are identical and the other talks of their differences.

        The first article is just ridiculous on its own merits. Its conclusion is dishonest at best. To say that someone is anti-military because the abstain from certain votes is actually ridiculous. Without understanding why Senators refuse to vote on certain bills, you have no standing to criticize.

        The second article you brought up is interesting as well. Keep in mind this was Huffington Post BEFORE she realized Sen. Obama is a better candidate than Sen. Clinton. Now... have you bothered to look at the update to the article? No... Have you bothered to research the subject further? I doubt it. You started with a preconceived idea, found what you thought were articles to support your argument and stopped there. You would make a terrible scientist. Michigan was a really good reason not to be present considering the current situation.

        There are legitimate reasons NOT to vote Yea or Nay. Either you are not all that familiar with politics or you are being sophist. The titles to these bills do not always match the content of the actual bills. Take for example the bill to "Express support for General...". The name of the bill speaks volumes about the politics involved. First, why is there a need to express support for the general as well as the military. The last time I checked he is a part of the military. It's redundant, therefore you have to wonder why it was named that way. It obviously didn't serve any legitimate purpose, and that's easy to figure out without even getting to the actual bill itself. The bill was about supporting the iraq war. In the end it was not really about supporting the troops. It was contrary to that purpose.

        I give you a lot of credit, you are very skilled in what you do. Use your "powers" for good and not evil. Lol.
  • dtaylor379, on 05/11/2008, -31/+33Gag, these posts are boorish and tiresome. Digg should charge for advertising.
  • dreamweaver1984, on 05/11/2008, -52/+14i wouldnt vote for him if he paid me get this obama is great crap of this good website. this is just plain dumb, obama has no right to be president of this country, neither does hillary,, Go McCain
    • jpete71chevmal, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14McCain is a toad. He was bought and sold years ago and will hand this country to Mexico on a silver platter. Try looking into his amnesty bill and see all the money he wants to commit south of the border for healthcare. He's a criminal from the word go. Can we say "Keating 5"?
    • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -3/+19Why doesn't Obama have a "right" to be president. You want to talk about people who didn't have the "right" to be president? Look at John McCain's policy maker - George W. Bush. There have been a ton of bad Presidents in our history, and quite frankly they sucked not because of qualification issues, but because they just don't get it. John McCain just doesn't get it.
    • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7We get it: You think women and blacks are second-class citizens ant that they should not have the right to vote, much less the right to run for President of the United States. Don't you have a Klan meeting you should be attending right now?
    • amirman, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12wow, you're an idiot.
    • SoulDrift404, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5What came after that paragraph? "Woo hooo, Eunice, get me a Bud!"?
  • 140Suffolk, on 05/11/2008, -40/+36Great. What about how Barack sponsored the Global Poverty Act that would take billions of new tax dollars and give it to...the UN? To relieve "world poverty"? Oh that'll work.
    And did you know that in Illinois Barack refused to vote for a bill called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? If a late term abortion fails and the baby is accidentally born alive, what they had been doing is putting that baby in a broom closet alone to die. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was to prevent that. Barack refused to vote for it. Three years in a row. When he left Illinois it passed straight off.
    Personally, I think Americans would vote for a black Ronald Reagon. Or a genuine black JFK. But not some phony never-did-nothing semi-socialist empty suit fake fraud like Barack Don't-Call-Me-Hussein Obama.
    • Wholekernalcorn, on 05/11/2008, -14/+5Obama might not get a second term.
      • floorman56, on 05/11/2008, -6/+3He may not get a first term or much of one if he does win and makes a mess of it the congress will just be turned back into a GOP on after 2 years
    • Elliuotatar, on 05/11/2008, -7/+19Yeah what a dumbass! We should be spending those billions dropping more bombs on third world countries! Not on futile attempts to feed poor people!
      • NightVortez, on 05/11/2008, -10/+10Because if you don't support Obama you support imperialism?
        • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -3/+12If you support John McCain, yes you do.
          • NightVortez, on 05/11/2008, -6/+9So by the transitive property of my previous statement, what you're saying is, if you don't support Obama you support McCain?
          • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2ostensibly, yes. you might not directly support imperialism (or McCain), but unfortunately there are only two viable candidates for the leader of the executive branch. if you believe that the system is not completely rigged and that there is a difference between the two candidates, then you can either support the one who you agree with the most (at least on major issues) or you can do nothing and let your vote either go uncounted or on a 3rd party candidate (who, at this point, know that they aren't going to win. their only reason for running is either as a defiant act or as a way to shore up enough support to show major parties that their perspectives are important to enough people and should be taken seriously. either way, they do not run to win the presidency and thus they do not directly shape policy). so, if you don't support Obama, you indirectly support McCain and thus imperialism.
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6You're against our war in Afghanistan? Or maybe you don't believe Al Qaida, based in Afghanistan, attacked us on Sept 11? We deserved it?
          • Elliuotatar, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Afghanistan? I'm talking about Iraq buddy. Where we're spending $341.4 million a day. Where we've already sunk $518 BILLION.

            And Al Qaida ain't there.
          • pyronik, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2and because your against iraq that means its a good idea to just hand our money to the UN, your retarded
          • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2wow... talk about a non-sequitur. not approving of the war in Afghanistan (furthering punishing the citizens of that nation for acts that they had nothing to do with and have zero influence over) is nowhere near giving approval for the terrorist acts on september 11th.
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2@pyronik.

          your beef with Obama wanting to honor the treaties that the government already approved of is misdirected and childish. Obama didn't propose that bill initially. if you don't like the fact that it got approved, then take that up with your representative, who is supposed to be your voice in Washington. if they are unresponsive to your concerns, vote him / her out. Continuing to blame Obama for that is a red herring and you are doing yourself a disservice.
      • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3In Iraq? Of course Al Qaida is there.
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Al Qaida in Iraq != Al Qaida. As they said themselves, they were people who took up Al Qaida's mission after the chaos and corruption of our invasion.
      • Papajohn56, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1cool so let's throw more money out the window right
    • sulthernao, on 05/11/2008, -4/+18Your post is pretty good until your last bit.
      First of all, there is no reason to bring up his race or his middle name if you are going to attack him on issues. Second of all, cut out this stupid socialist crap: it is a freaking ad hominem that has roots in the anti-union, big corporation, anti-Bolshevik, anti-communist, red scare era of the 1920s. Just cause your socialist doesn't mean that the world is going to end, or that democracy is threatened. If you really want to end "socialism" then go back to laissez faire and end all corporate regulation, affirmative action, social security, medicare/medicaid, public schools, police and firefighters, public libraries, US post office, FDA, FDIC, federal reserve, food stamps, etc - because they are all "semi-socialist", aren't they?

      Stop throwing words around. Stop throwing race around. Stop using petty ad hominem attacks on someones name (in case you haven't noticed, you can't control what your name is). And if you are seriously stupid enough to vote on someone based on their name...well I can't even respond to the idiocracy.
      • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -5/+8The reason I bring up race is this: I'm tired of reading diggers implying that anyone that doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. Or that if he's not elected it's because America is racist. America is NOT racist. And I think if a black Ronald Reagon or genuine black JFK were nominated then America would vote for him/her.
        Obama's middle name is very relevant. Whether you want to admit it or not, we are in a slow motion war with some elements of Islam. And the fact that Obama was born a Muslim, went to mosque sometimes in Indonesia and continues to deceive America by concealing this fact is fair game.
        It's also fair game for me to say he's a semi-socialist as he supports all kinds of things that fit into this category. Once said, if America still wants to vote for him, so be it.
        • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11So you think that a man who was born a Muslim should not hold office in the U.S.? So much for no religious tests for public office! Just what is wrong with being a Muslim anyway (not that Obama is/was)? Are you a Christian? That must mean that you support shooting doctors and nurses who work at abortion clinics, disrupting soldiers' funerals while carrying "God Hates Fags" signs, and blowing up federal buildings with fertilizer bombs.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Vast, seething majorities of the Muslim world support the extermination of Jews and Hindus, the subjugation of everyone else under a worldwide Caliphate, global imposition of Sharia law, polygamy and wife beating, and the justification of any form of violence, deceit, or oppression that would tend to bring these things to pass.

            Not one Christian in ten thousand supports the likes of Fred Phelps or Timothy McVeigh.

            Not only should Muslims be disallowed from public office, they should be expelled from all non-Muslim countries. We need tolerate this terrorist cult no more than we tolerate the Mafia.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Do I think Muslims should not hold office here? Well, yes I do. But more important, American voters have a right to know the facts and make up their own minds. The Obama campaign has consistently lied about his Muslim background.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3No, they have not "lied about his" background. You are a lying, scummy right-wing asshole who's sole interest is in keeping a liberal, black, Democrat from becoming President.

            Who lied? Tell us. We want names of who lied, when they lied, how you can prove they lied. And I don't want you dredging up some right-wing Swift Boat style scum as your "proof." I want answers, not links to right-wing web sites.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4@ShadowMerchant:

            Wow! If you honestly believe that U.S. Muslims, as a group, "support the extermination of Jews and Hindus, the subjugation of everyone else under a worldwide Caliphate, global imposition of Sharia law, polygamy and wife beating, and the justification of any form of violence, deceit, or oppression that would tend to bring these things to pass", you need either psychological counseling or your meds adjusted. Just how many American Muslims do you know personally? I know a few, and none of them support the doctrine that you're ascribing to them.

            And since when does being part of a religion mean that you give up the right to be judged as an individual and lose your rights as a U.S. citizen?

            Please don't vote.
          • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Well said.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1First of all, Islam is not just a religion. It is political party and legal system masquerading as a religion.
            Second, ask your Islamic friends if they would like to one day see Islamic law prevail in the US.
          • fmaxwell, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You mean in the way that Christianity is? Where right-wing Christians want to see scripture turned into law? Where they want creationism taught in schools, birth control not taught in school, abortion banned, gay marriage banned, stem cell research banned, and homosexual acts criminalized? I see a lot more effort in the U.S. by fundamentalist Christians (or the "American Taliban" as they have been called) to make their religious doctrine prevail in the U.S.

            I am still waiting for specifics on who, in Obama's campaign has lied about his religion and what proof you have that he is/was a Muslim. By the way, I'm an atheist, but I've been to church services with families and friends when I was growing up. If that does not mean that I'm "secretly" a Christian, then I don't see how Obama's having attended Muslim services as a child makes him a secret Muslim.
          • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Very similar to Judaism and even Christianity.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5We get it, America isn't racist (which is why racism is completely gone from America or American political discourse because we're so totally not racist)... it is, however, completely and unabashedly religionist (new word time!). He heard about the Koran (Quran) as a boy! He's tainted for life! He'll set us up the bomb.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+3American voters have a right to know the facts and make up their own minds. The Obama campaign has consistently lied about his Muslim background.
            Obama also is just too friendly with too many people that want to tear America down and rebuild it their own way. His childhood mentor, Communist Party member Frank Davis, William Ayers, Rev Wright. Then there's his murderous cousin, who Obama made speeches for...Raila Odinga.
      • 380ppm, on 05/12/2008, -6/+5welcome to america....where you can say anything you want as long as the socialists agree with it.
      • serif69, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5"If you really want to end "socialism" then go back to laissez faire and end all corporate regulation, affirmative action, social security, medicare/medicaid, public schools, police and firefighters, public libraries, US post office, FDA, FDIC, federal reserve, food stamps, etc"

        And what, pray tell, is so wrong about wanting to end most of those? Half of them are public utlities that are not socialist, but basic public services, so it's ridiculous to lump them in as "socialist". The other half are government hand-out programs, and yes, I do want to end those.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Basic public services are, by definition, a manifestation of socialism. You don't get to pick aspects of socialism you like and rebrand them as not really "socialist".
        • OralCavity, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3you do know that the firemen used to require payment before they put out a fire back in the day, right?

          it's as much of a public service as keeping dying and diseased people off the street and well fed.
    • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5I like the joke about "if a late term abortion fails and the baby is accidentally born alive, what they had been doing is putting that baby in a broom closet alone to die". Very funny.
      • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6It's not a joke. Google "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act" or BAIPA. Google "Jill Stanek" "... a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms in Illinois..." http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=2686 ...

        This is a disgusting fact. And Obama voted "present" three times so it would fail. When he left for Washington it passed.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Most of the results that came up on the first page of a google search were rabidly conservative sites that cannot be trusted to give an impartial and accurate account. This tell me that the right-wing, religious propaganda machine is at work here. I refuse to believe that any conscientious doctor or nurse would willingly let an infant die which had a real chance at surviving to maturity regardless of the fact that it may have survived an abortion attempt. And your link does not refer to this topic.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1The Catholic News Agency is not a conservative site. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=2686 ...
            "Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions."

            Do you believe a doctor would punch a hole in a infant's head and suck out his brains two weeks before he was born? You know THAT happens all the time.
          • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Your link still doesn't refer to any of that. And forgive me for being catious in suspecting that a Catholic news agency just may have a catholic agenda. And no, I don't believe at all that such late term abortions are commonplace. I'm afraid I'm having trouble taking you seriously now.
          • 140Suffolk, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Did I say late term abortions were common? And what's common?
            Why do you think this law was brought up? And voted on? And eventually passed? What do you think "shelved to die in a utility room" means? Of COURSE a Catholic news agency has a catholic agenda. But they're not making this up.
        • Mechanicat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Yes, you said it happens all the time, in other words its common. You're right that a Catholic news agency has a catholic agenda and everything they report should be taken with a grain of salt and scrutinised before being accepted. I think the law was brought up and passed to appease religious extremists who are running rampant in the US.
    • zwaldowski, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4You know, there is a reason why politicians have the ability to vote present. It's not they don't want to vote, but when it comes down to it,it's just politics.
      • bizen, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2And they are politicians. It's what they elected to do.
        • CeeAyy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2They are not elected to play politics. They are elected to get things done. When bills are put forth for purely political reasons it makes sense to vote present and leave it at that.
    • LJSeinfeld, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Silly rabbit, you know there would NEVER be a "Black Ronald Reagan"... Talk about voting against your own best-interests.
    • CeeAyy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4140Suffolk, you are incorrect. He didn't vote for it nor against it. Look it up. It was a catch 22 of sorts anyway. The bill indirectly defines the viability of a "fetus" regardless of the stage it is at.

      If you are pro abortion, it's a problem because now you are defining it as alive and that the only difference is whether it is now outside the body. Its viability becomes irrelevant. "Abortionists" argument is that it is not alive at all.

      If you are against abortion it is actually potentially a problem as well. Voting on it can put you in the category of being for abortion but against certain aspects of it. It was a poorly put together bill whose purpose was really politics. Read up on it.
  • calantus, on 05/11/2008, -20/+12Just because he runs on this stuff doesn't mean hes going to do it. Bush ran on a no country building campaign and look what happened.
    • humanerror, on 05/11/2008, -10/+4Hey no saying true things in an Obama Digg. You'll only distract the mob.
      • spencabt, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4It seems like the pro-Obama people are able to factually defend him. The anti-Obama people reduce their dialogue to ad hominem attacks and talking points.
        Someone should do a study of comments about Obama articles and see how the conversation breaks down.
        • humanerror, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Why not take this one as an example? Nobody replied with anything disagreeing with calantus's post. They just dugg him down so nobody else will see it. Why argue when you can censor?
        • CeeAyy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Humanerror... good name. :) Follow the math... if he was dugg down 10 or more times, he was not censored, he was just disagreed with more often than he was agreed with.

          As for his post... Bush did not do ANYTHING positive for this country. Nothing. His campaign didn't match the results in ANY way shape nor form. He delivered absolutely nothing as promised. Period. ...unless ruining this country is what everyone was hoping for.
    • floorman56, on 05/11/2008, -6/+49-11?
      • pauleku, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3wtf does that have to do with bush?
      • NightVortez, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I don't understand, are you saying Bush caused 9/11 or that once 9/11 happened he had the right to nation build? Either st