THIS MUST BE HEARD BY EVERYONE watch!
youtube.com — Watch how Olbermann puts it right in Bushes face
cageybee- 5371 diggs
- digg it
- sicilian890, on 12/25/2007, -30/+485Have you noticed how someone like 'LeftistsHateUSA', who doesn't know what they are talking about, resort to using words like '*****'', 'cum sucker', or '*****' to exemplify their argument? My advice to you is to grow up, and get educated. Then maybe people will stop burying your comments. Everyone look at this guys comment history, its almost funny that he takes himself seriously.
- swiftekho, on 12/25/2007, -8/+120It's funny, I am a staunch conservative... But I love Olbermann compared to dumbasses like Hannity or Blitzer
- zydeco, on 12/25/2007, -2/+63This current adminstration and mouthpieces like Hannity have wrecked the word "conservative" for decades to come.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -1/+33"conservative" hasn't meant financially conservative for decades. the term is pretty much means social conservative now.
- CoolWind, on 12/25/2007, -13/+6since Reagan lied his way into office and started a Republican trend that hasn't ended yet
- mcosmi, on 12/26/2007, -8/+1and hopefully the trend will continue to get Gulliani into office, and send clinton back to the ***** *****-hole she came from. This liberal dick-face should go suck a dick and make his mouth worth something
- swiftekho, on 12/25/2007, -1/+8Sadly...
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -1/+33"conservative" hasn't meant financially conservative for decades. the term is pretty much means social conservative now.
- Disease, on 12/25/2007, -36/+4They're all so poor and so black.
- cannarymburns, on 12/25/2007, -1/+11what the *****?
- bigsteve, on 12/25/2007, -1/+49When I call myself a conservative, I always have to preface it with "..but not a Bush supporter." And when people get that confused look on their face, I have to remind them that Bush is no such thing, and that in order to be a Conservative, you need to, you know, conserve things. Which Bush has done none of.
- jaynemother, on 12/25/2007, -0/+29so you say to people "....but not a Bush supporter. I am a conservative."
- rarson, on 12/25/2007, -0/+10If the person I'm talking to doesn't even know that Bush is not conservative, then it's not worth discussing politics with them. Why would they even care what I am when they obviously don't care what their president is? It makes no sense.
- zydeco, on 12/25/2007, -2/+63This current adminstration and mouthpieces like Hannity have wrecked the word "conservative" for decades to come.
- DeadRooster, on 12/25/2007, -6/+43He hates us for our freedom.
- reddcell, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1"Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me..."
- atmenterprises, on 12/25/2007, -80/+12I've noticed the same thing about libs on Digg. They resort to name-calling and hate to drive their point home.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/25/2007, -6/+63I'm a conservative republican, the only ones I see resorting to name calling and hate are the neo cons on this site.
- boombye, on 12/25/2007, -3/+27Agreed. Or people who call themselves Conservative and then follow the doctrine of Fox news, those are the confused zebras of the party.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/25/2007, -2/+7Its the same group of people in every article that bury anything critical of bush, the establishment, the war, 9/11, or anything featuring Ron Paul. They use the same formulated character attacks, insults and disinformation methods in every single comment thread.
- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Half of them are probably paid shills at a PR firm. I can't see a large amount of people remaining stupid enough to support Bush because they like him. They are intelligent enough to tap out words on a keyboard, so I would imagine most of them only do it because it is their job.
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1totally agreed... it is the fallacy of the stupid sheep of the neo-cons and neo-dems... none of them like thinking for themselves. Better to cry and insult others to help them think they are right.
- Mylonite, on 12/25/2007, -0/+28I think you'll notice that idiots in general use namecalling and hate in the attempt to prove their point. Idiots come in every size, shape, color, nationality, and ideology.
Biased and blind idiots make a point of only seeing that technique when it's used by folks they don't agree with. - TheReport, on 12/25/2007, -0/+11Umm no, people who resort to petty name calling are people who are without integrity and articulation whether they are liberal or conservative. What does party affiliation have to do with that? Some would even lump people who tend to generalize other groups into that catagory. The statement that Liberals Hate America is such a cop out statement and is a device to degrade the opposing party. Its like saying the terrorist hate us for our freedom. It is absolutely absurd
- atmenterprises, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0Because the libs are about tolerance and understanding. At least most Diggers see conservatives as heartless.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/25/2007, -6/+63I'm a conservative republican, the only ones I see resorting to name calling and hate are the neo cons on this site.
- lpcustom, on 12/25/2007, -2/+31He's obviously someone who doesn't actually believe anything he posts. He's just doing it to give you all someone to hate. He probably gets a good chuckle out of it. He baited his hook with a plastic worm and you guys just chomped right down on it. Congratulations on wasting your time. You are mounted trophies on his wall. I could be completely wrong though. It may be O'Reily himself.
- B3000, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Or Anne Coulter...
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1In either case... you're still right.
- xenuxenuts, on 12/25/2007, -5/+35he's a troll. More than likely, he's a left wing guy making fun of right wing nut jobs.
- lpcustom, on 12/25/2007, -7/+5Exactly. Sad that only two of us see it.
- FiringPin, on 12/25/2007, -29/+8Yeah because socialists on Digg never call people names.
- enri, on 12/25/2007, -3/+10True, but why is that justification? Take the higher ground and more people will respect your opinion for it.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 12/25/2007, -0/+11So by ovetrgeneralizing both groups into simplistic categories, anyone who identifies with either instantly becomes demonized by the other.
I'll stick to the mantra that the groups contain both good and bad apples alike and almost equally. - masterm1nd, on 12/25/2007, -2/+1It's not justification. But on digg anyways, it happens a lot more than the other way around.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 12/25/2007, -0/+11So by ovetrgeneralizing both groups into simplistic categories, anyone who identifies with either instantly becomes demonized by the other.
- enri, on 12/25/2007, -3/+10True, but why is that justification? Take the higher ground and more people will respect your opinion for it.
- SkittlesUSA, on 12/25/2007, -36/+43Just like it's hard to take diggers seriously when all they say is
"***** the RIAA"
"***** Bush!'
"Vote Ron Paul!"- iainc, on 12/25/2007, -6/+28***** SkittlesUSA :-)
- jon30041, on 12/25/2007, -16/+18Vote... Kucinich...?
I agree with the other two, but RP ain't my guy.- bluezinc, on 12/25/2007, -9/+6Uh oh, the Ron Paul mafia bury brigade is after you! Oh no... now they're after me, too!
Just because you don't agree with them, YOU MUST BE BURIED!!- jon30041, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4I think it all equalized. Pretty awesome that I'm still at +1 =D
- kuyman, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1Get on the digg down train! (w00t, w00t)
Nader all the way!
- bluezinc, on 12/25/2007, -9/+6Uh oh, the Ron Paul mafia bury brigade is after you! Oh no... now they're after me, too!
- CoolWind, on 12/25/2007, -19/+5agreed, but still dug down for mentioning Ron Paul
- GMProspect, on 12/26/2007, -1/+15I completely agree with all three of those statements, plus
"***** the MPAA!"
- jaqwuan82, on 12/25/2007, -12/+1Wait, wasn't the media whiner tossing insults
- Maverick0420, on 12/25/2007, -25/+2indeed Digg is overrun with liberal ***** heads who dont know what they want and continue to post liberal media ***** calling it the truth
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1yes,.. but they were true and well deserved. With plenty of evidence to back them up.
- felixleighton, on 12/25/2007, -20/+2Ever noticed how the first five minutes of Keith talking are just him calling Bush a stupid lair? I'm kinda lost as to why you don't hold Kieth to the same standards.
And as for a note, I'm pretty sure he's not a conservative--he's just a troll.- dood, on 12/25/2007, -1/+10It's apples and oranges. Calling someone a ***** or a ***** is purely derogatory. Calling Bush a stupid liar is truth, or at the very least, something that could possibly be true. (I could not, no matter what I do, ever be a *****).
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 12/25/2007, -5/+1Connotations, friend. Calling someone a ***** does not necessarily imply one is a female sexual organ.
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2That was the last 5 minutes.. the first 5 were more of a build up and explanation.
- dood, on 12/25/2007, -1/+10It's apples and oranges. Calling someone a ***** or a ***** is purely derogatory. Calling Bush a stupid liar is truth, or at the very least, something that could possibly be true. (I could not, no matter what I do, ever be a *****).
- barnseyboy12, on 12/25/2007, -0/+14This reminds me of the comment: "...The pentagon also admitted that it has groups of "Bloggers" that it uses to "engage" people on forums and chat rooms to spread a more positive message of whats happening. If you guys see certain words over and over again, words that we dont use in regular life. Words that sound like some 60 year old Colonel put together a manual based on what he and his friends used in the 50's. Words like tinfoil hat, or nutter. When you see different people saying almost the same comments with the same words. You can bet its Pentagon trolls. GET OFF THE ***** WEB. Its illegal for the pentagon to engage the citizens with propaganda and domestic spying...." which was a reply to the story "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'". Both well said.
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1First google response to "nutter" : http://www.nutter.com/home.php
A lawyer's website. ROFL!!!!
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1First google response to "nutter" : http://www.nutter.com/home.php
- Elizur, on 12/25/2007, -15/+4This guy is venom. It's either Bush is a liar or an idiot. One or the other. He just spews his malace like a broad sword. To him there is no way that something else might be going on. In 10 years I fear this youtube will haunt him as Iran appears with nukes. Anyone who doesn't think Iran is after nukes is the idiot. And i'm sure this will be buried by the liberal Digg community because it's just a leftist group now.
- notthemama, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9Is this a hunch or do you have intel that the rest of us don't?
- gandhii, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Either way.. why should I give a fuk? If they started anything we might lose a city... and they'd lose their whole country and the lives of every single citizen. Gotta be pretty dumb to be afraid of Iran. Or a pussy.
- seventoes, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13Olbermann is my new favorite person.
- jasz, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10i love Olbermann.. but what the ***** has this got to do with Ron Paul? he doesn't mention RP ONCE in his speech... WTF....
- kurtwinter, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1i don't know what comment - i block the neofascists. you should too. its bad for the blood pressure to know what ignorance is out there, and messing up my intrawebs.
- Juice7, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1It got deleted.
- swiftekho, on 12/25/2007, -8/+120It's funny, I am a staunch conservative... But I love Olbermann compared to dumbasses like Hannity or Blitzer
- WTC7WasPulled, on 12/25/2007, -170/+86We need Ron Paul.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -52/+59an evolution denier? no thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q
"evolution is a theory and i don't agree with it"- ghamal, on 12/25/2007, -22/+49i am not a fan of all of Pauls views, but keep some perspective. if he doesn't agree with evolution but agrees with ending the war immediately and scaling back drastically the size of government, ending the war on drugs, etc - i don't have a problem with his thoughts on evolution. he's not running for scientist in chief.
- gronne, on 12/25/2007, -16/+34No but he'll be appointing people in similar positions of authority. To disregard evolution as just "a theory" is to reject overwhelming and verifiable logic for old books whose authors can't be verified. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you have to reject common sense. Scientists aren't saying who's pulling the strings.
- PeppermintPig, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3The same thing that makes Paul want to get the government out of our lives concerning marriage is also the same thing that encourages him to get government out of regulating science and research: Principle.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -5/+22How about if he was a scientologist, but still had the same views about the constitution?
The two beliefs are equally wrong.
Aren't you tired of electing idiots?- CoolWind, on 12/25/2007, -15/+2like Ron Paul? yes
- jgrahamda, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Yeah ghamal...but because he doesn't believe in evolution I can only assume he needs at least another 4 years of education. Or maybe he should just talk to the top 500 scientists in the world, 100% of whom support evolution.
deny evolution = pander to religious right = zealot
- gronne, on 12/25/2007, -16/+34No but he'll be appointing people in similar positions of authority. To disregard evolution as just "a theory" is to reject overwhelming and verifiable logic for old books whose authors can't be verified. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you have to reject common sense. Scientists aren't saying who's pulling the strings.
- djbon2112, on 12/25/2007, -31/+22What the ***** does it matter if he doesn't believe in evolution? Is he going to ban the teaching of it in school? NO! So leave him the ***** alone. I'd vote for a flat-earth believer if it was the best choice for America (and Paul is).
- elsagacious, on 12/25/2007, -14/+23No, he just wants to ban the public school itself.
- MadOtaku, on 12/25/2007, -3/+11Are you stupid or just trolling? He wants the federal government to stop regulating public schools. When asked if he wanted to get rid of public schools (in an interview that was recently front paged), he said that he does not want to get rid of them.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -0/+13"The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources."
- Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/
- elsagacious, on 12/25/2007, -14/+23No, he just wants to ban the public school itself.
- sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -17/+7There's a bit more than physics, it is called metaphysics. It has to be once more explained, that the metaphysical theological understanding, as understood by traditional metaphysics and theology, of evolution is as follows:
We don't deny that evolution exists within certain limits, as is indeed evident enough, but we do deny that it is a universal principle, and hence a law which affects and determines all things, including the immutable; evolution and degeneration can moreover go hand in hand, each then occurring on a different plane. However that may be, what has to be categorically rejected is the idea that truth evolves, or that revealed doctrines are the product of an evolution.
Ron Paul doesn't deny Evolution outright.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -3/+17"I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…."
- Ron Paul.
Metaphysics died in the 19th century. - sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -7/+4"Metaphysics died in the 19th century."
Tell that to Martin Heidegger, Peter van Inwagen, Mahmoud Khatami, and A.N. Whitehead.
You really think that evolution categorically denies creationism, and visa versa? They don't, knowing that evolution explains it through physics, phenomenology, and epistemology. Creationism explains it through metaphysics and metaphor. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -2/+16Creationism is science fiction. It has no relation with science.
It's not about being mutually exclusive, it's about being factually and categorically wrong.
Also, all creationist ideologies of every single religion that ever existed in the world are equal. Equally wrong and unfounded.- sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -6/+1How is it wrong? According to facts of scientific discovery? You're not understanding how metaphysics and physics are not at odds with each other. Metaphysics is about universals and principles. Physics is about empirical observation. Science is wonderful, and scientific facts are all true in the area of what physics is concerned.
For example, as Richard Dawkins points out, when Albert Einstein or Prof. Hawkins make use of the word God, they are referring to the metaphysical understanding of the term, not the personal-god idea. Dawkins is rightly so attacking the notion, that the personal-god explanation is the final explanation. Most theological scholars understand that the personal-god explanation is provisional. - ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs ...
God doesn't exist. According to logic. According to the scientific method.
And in any case, which creationism are you claiming is correct? - sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -5/+1What logic, what scientific method? Existence = exo-stasis = becoming (in Buddhist terms: samsara) = tempo-reality. This has nothing to do with God as a metaphysical principle. You can substitute the word God with The Absolute. God surely doesn't have a white beard.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5Hahaha, in buddhist terms? How about in Action movie terms? How about fundamentalist Islamic terms? How about in Wizard of Oz terms?
WHICH CREATIONISM ARE YOU CLAIMING IS CORRECT? - sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -4/+1Yes, Buddhist terms. Are you saying that you haven't actually studied the world's religions first, before dismissing them ipso-facto with your grand-scale accusations of 'all creationist ideologies of every single religion that ever existed in the world are equal. Equally wrong and unfounded.'?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+4Answer the question, which creationism do you claim is correct? You avoided it twice already.
- sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -4/+1I take that as a no. Just as I thought. Nice talking to you though.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+7Haha you ***** coward. You don't even dare say it because you know I'll demonstrate how incredibly stupid you are for believing in a giant pile of logical vomit.
You completely avoided the argument in order to protect the stupid little fantasies you have about your pathetic and useless existence. - sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -3/+2Argumentum ad hominem = F in debate class. Good job.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3Still avoiding the question. And the ad hominem was not par of argumentation, I just decided to insult you because I have no respect for you. You proved that your arguments are so brittle that they can't withstand a simple contradiction. And if reason, logic and abstraction distinguishes us from the rest of the great apes, you are not human and therefore deserve no such civlities.
Which creationism are you claiming is correct?
And by the way, avoiding the question makes you unelligible to debate. You don't even participate.
You're a giant waste of skin.
I teach debate.
- sophiaperennis, on 12/25/2007, -6/+1How is it wrong? According to facts of scientific discovery? You're not understanding how metaphysics and physics are not at odds with each other. Metaphysics is about universals and principles. Physics is about empirical observation. Science is wonderful, and scientific facts are all true in the area of what physics is concerned.
- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Feel free to look up the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Neils Bohr and Einstein. Intelligent Design vs. Determinism is old ground.
Personally, I believe that the glorious order of the universe at both molecular and galactic magnitudes are the result of greater forces than myself. What you choose to call those forces is up to you, but attempting to mix religion and science does a disservice to both. Electing to believe that the origin of the world is based upon mythology is your right, but those busy studying quantum mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics aren't going to pity you just because you didn't bother to attend science classes.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/25/2007, -3/+17"I think it’s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory…."
- ruddy, on 12/25/2007, -34/+8*DR* Ron paul is absolutely correct. Evolution *IS* a theory. He stated there isn't enough proof on EiTHER side to make it a fact. Whats the big deal here? Even Dawkins doesn't know evolution is a FACT, he's stated it so himself. Although he still has the right to believe in it, it's still just a theory.
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+29So is Relativity. You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory means there is supporting evidence.
- jjb123, on 12/25/2007, -0/+9Let's also not forget gravity.
- smacksaw, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3Yeah, like Iran having a nuclear weapons programme. There's supporting evidence for that. But the theory they are making nuclear weapons...the conclusion that they ARE because of "supporting evidence" is a matter of opinion.
From a purely scientific standpoint, Ron Paul has a higher threshold of acceptance. I accept evolution, but only because it's the best theory I've heard with the most evidence, not because it's undeniable truth.
And by the way, a theory should lead you to a new hypothesis if it doesn't provide you with an irrefutable answer. That's how the scientific method works.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -1/+14http://www.notjustatheory.com/
- elsagacious, on 12/25/2007, -1/+23Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution is what's a theory. And most people who make a big point of calling evolution a theory don't really understand what a scientific theory is. Gravity is a theory. Yet this doesn't lead people to deny the existence of gravity.
- CoolWind, on 12/25/2007, -1/+4I don't believe in gravity. You know, as a theory.
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -0/+29So is Relativity. You don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory means there is supporting evidence.
- chewyrunt, on 12/25/2007, -9/+5the majority of americans (and their leaders) entertain fantastical beliefs. the question is whether their belief in the separation of church and state is even stronger.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -6/+16he doesn't believe in separation of church and state either:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."- chewyrunt, on 12/25/2007, -4/+8i was on the fence before but this is the straw that broke the camel's back - don't see how i could vote for him now
somewhat mysterious to me is why my prior comment got dug down... is it because my comment was somehow interpreted as being pro-Ron Paul? by people who don't like atheists? guess i'll never know... - Bhima, on 12/25/2007, -4/+6and *that* is why I will not vote for him.
- smacksaw, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4I think it's funny...you don't get him. First this evolution thing and now this. You are currently incapable of seeing the other side of the story, which is what he leaves unsaid which is implied.
He can say "I don't believe in evolution" and technically be right because it's not the truth, it's just supported by many facts that make it more likely than other competing theories. However, if we learn more and find we are wrong about evolution, his position allows him to be open to the truth. He is specifically NOT taking evolutionary theory on faith alone. That is hypocrisy because it makes him no better than the stupid creatonists.
The same goes for separation of church and state. You have to understand that many people use their ethics to guide them and their ethics come from their religion. The libertarian thing to do is to allow people to be guided by their conscience. The libertarian thing is not to allow them to legislate their conscience into law.
I have no problem with Mike Huckabee's beliefs and convictions. In fact, while I don't like him, I do respect him because he stands for what he believes in. The problem I have is when he tries to make others follow his beliefs. His beliefs should guide him, give him strength, wisdom and insight. Not a legislating agenda.
What you miss is that he is saying people can be guided by their convictions, but he doesn't say they should legislate them into law. In a thread about an editorial that says the elephant in the room is Iran is not developing a weapon, you miss the elephant in RP's room THAT HE IS A LIBERTARIAN. As such he would not legislate religion. Libertarians are not about making more laws!!! Don't you get it? - enjoiskaterguy, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1if you keep reading the article written by Ron Paul he explains the connections with the intentions of the 1st ammendment and moral views from religeous or state point of views. He was talking about Christmas and the "rigid" picky attitude people have succumed too and the "political correctness". If anthing he is talking about how the State is interferring with people's religous beliefs already.
- chewyrunt, on 12/25/2007, -4/+8i was on the fence before but this is the straw that broke the camel's back - don't see how i could vote for him now
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -6/+16he doesn't believe in separation of church and state either:
- otaku244, on 12/25/2007, -14/+3Yeah... and you wouldn't vote for me because I J-walk. No one is perfect, try picking your battles. The economy isn't changing nor have our soldiers died because OUR president did or didn't believe in evolution.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -4/+16denial of reality is cause for concern. he wants to run the country. if his literal interpretation of the bible causes him to deny reality, he is not a rational person. he is educated enough to get a medical degree, but doesn't seem to grasp the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. this type of belief does effect policy. because of his religious beliefs. he believes a zygote is a person and wants to let states tell women what to do with their bodies. it also causes him to deny the separation of church and state. these are not minor issues. the only thing that makes ron paul different than huckabee is his financial policy. while he is better than the neo cons, there are candidates who both want to end the war AND don't have a problem with reality.
- byronm, on 12/25/2007, -5/+7Yes. Kucinich is one of em. End the war, Keep medicine/healthcare private but not for profit based, get america back on track and not pretend that 200+ years of American evolution is a bad thing and want to "constitutionalize" the country back to the dark ages.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -4/+16denial of reality is cause for concern. he wants to run the country. if his literal interpretation of the bible causes him to deny reality, he is not a rational person. he is educated enough to get a medical degree, but doesn't seem to grasp the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. this type of belief does effect policy. because of his religious beliefs. he believes a zygote is a person and wants to let states tell women what to do with their bodies. it also causes him to deny the separation of church and state. these are not minor issues. the only thing that makes ron paul different than huckabee is his financial policy. while he is better than the neo cons, there are candidates who both want to end the war AND don't have a problem with reality.
- iainc, on 12/25/2007, -6/+13Regardless of Ron Paul's take on evolution, he appears to be one of the few principled and honest politicians left (along with Kucinich).
Isn't that a start?
(and I believe in evolution, BTW)- kronix2, on 12/26/2007, -3/+7His being an anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science, pro-indoctrination fundamentalist Christian worries some people.
- scubasteve377, on 12/26/2007, -4/+3I find it ironic that the people who attack anyone who does not believe in evolution, are some of the same people who deny the benefits of free market capitalism. Especially, since they operate much on the same principles (creatures must adapt to their environments to survive, those who are best suited to their environment will survive and flourish; businesses must adapt to the demands of their customers, those who are most responsive to these demands will survive and flourish; in both cases, those who fail to adapt, die off), and the economic benefits of the market are actually more easily observed. The point is, people who deny capitalism are every bit as ignorant of the empirical evidence, as those who deny evolution. Only one of these concepts, however, is in any way applicable to the duties of the presidency.
So, Ron Paul has a dumb position on a scientific argument that holds no bearing on anything the president has power over. Does this really matter? He is the only one from either party with a functional understanding of economics and monetary policy, which coincidentally, actually applies to the job he is running for. With the dollar plummeting, the economy in the toilet, and more socialism/corporatism than ever destroying the middle class, whether or not we see a return to sane economic policies in this country is going make us or break us within the next decade. We on track for a financial disaster that will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Every economist knows this, that's why so many are behind Ron Paul. He could believe that a giant lobster created the word out of bow tie pasta for all I ***** care, as long as he is still right on the economy. Get some ***** priorities people. - Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I dugg you up. I have a tremendous problem with leaders that ignore reality, and try to force their version of it upon the public. That leads to the same mess we are in now.
Save the religious debates for church, and let's stick to facts like "How are we going to dig our country out of the economic well Bush has shoved us down?"
And honestly, that is what we need to be worrying about, not the rest of this debate.- scubasteve377, on 12/26/2007, -2/+1In the video, Ron Paul was asked about a moment in one of the Republican debates, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. The man asking the question did not see Paul's response and was curious about his take on evolution. This was his response:
"Well, first, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think its a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, as a theory. But It probably doesn't bother me... Its not the most important issue for me, to make a difference in my life, to understand the exact origin. The creator that I know created us, every one of us, created the universe... and the precise time and manner, and all. I just don't think we're to a point where anybody has absolute truth on either side. So I just don't... If that were the only issue, quite frankly... I would think its an interesting discussion. I think its a theological discussion, and I think its fine. But if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."
Now as a Ron Paul supporter, and as someone who believes in evolution, was this the answer I was hoping to hear? No, not really. But this was not the flat out 'denial' that pintomp says it was. To me the response was more agnostic, than anything, and it was the response of a man who seemed more than willing to, as you said, "save the religious debate for church." He was asked a question and he answered it candidly. It told me what I already knew, his religious views differ with mine. It is important that people understand, however, that Paul is a libertarian, and as such, respects the rights of others to believe what they want to. He also disapproves of drug use, but defends the right of anyone to use them. The point is that he does not try to force his views on anyone, and believes most decisions should be left to the states and the people themselves. This is how he has voted consistently for 18 years as a congressman. These facts render the issue of whether or not he believes in evolution, absolutely moot. Don't base your decision on something so trivial. The fact is that Paul is an economic scholar and is the ONLY fiscally conservative presidential candidate running for either party. If you truly care about getting out of this economic hole we've dug ourselves into, it would be worth it to look further into Paul's policies and vote based on what really matters.- pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2his religious views do cloud his policies though. because of his religious views, he wants to over turn roe v. wade so that states could tell a woman what to do with her body. there is no other reason for considering a zygote a person. he is also against separation of church and state, believing that the "leftists" and "secularists" are at war with religion. whether or not you believe his financial policies make sense, his social views are no different that huckabee who gets made fun of on digg all the time.
- scubasteve377, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1*****. You don't have to be religious to want Roe v. Wade overturned. I'm not and I do. The decision was beyond flawed and was a blatant abuse of the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court. Regardless of their stated rationale, Roe v. Wade was not about privacy, or they wouldn't have left the decision up to the states as to whether or not to allow abortions in the third trimester.
"The decision [of Roe v. Wade] established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester 'in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health', and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_V._Wade#Abortion
If it was the position of the court that any medical procedure is a strictly private matter, there would be no exceptions (which would also be a ridiculous argument, since, if a statute considers a fetus a living human person, then abortion is still murder, even if it's done privately). In short, it was all *****. This decision was about usurping the states' laws and Constitutional powers by making abortion legal in all fifty states, plain an simple.
And the "tell a woman what to do with her body" argument is a straw man. Opposition to abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the mother, but rather stems from a belief that an unborn child is entitled to basic human rights. If you disagree with that, thats fine, that is what you should be arguing. But it is science that dictates that a 'zygote' is a living human being. To illustrate otherwise, I would ask you to demonstrate how a human embryo is A) not alive B) not genetically human and C) not genetically unique.
The fact that religion tends to side with the Pro-Life argument is irrelevant. Science is science and facts are facts. On the other hand, the Pro-Choice argument is completely dogmatic and devoid of any scientific justification. The argument that we can point to some arbitrary point in human development (whether it be viability, the third trimester, or even birth itself) as the point that life begins, is insane and has a complete disregard for science and human biology.
The paper in question, that supposedly outs Paul as some kind of radical theocrat, was a Christmas card to his constituents, from Ron Paul, a Christian, who, like many Christians, laments the fact that people never say "Merry Christmas" anymore and is disgusted with the way religion is being pushed out of public places. Read in context, and without an agenda, that is all it says.
The First Amendment protects us from a state religion (which Paul even mentions in the paper), but it also protects from the government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As I said, I am not religious, but I, like Paul, respect other people's right to believe what they want and, as long as they don't hurt other people, live their lives as they see fit. Apparently not a sentiment you share.
And Huckabee is a neo-con. That ideology is in sharp contrast to Paul's libertarianism.
- scubasteve377, on 12/26/2007, -2/+1In the video, Ron Paul was asked about a moment in one of the Republican debates, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. The man asking the question did not see Paul's response and was curious about his take on evolution. This was his response:
- jaradjohnson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Even if President Paul doesn't believe the theory of evolution, it doesn't matter, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FORCE HIS BELIEFS ON YOU like the current administration.
- ghamal, on 12/25/2007, -22/+49i am not a fan of all of Pauls views, but keep some perspective. if he doesn't agree with evolution but agrees with ending the war immediately and scaling back drastically the size of government, ending the war on drugs, etc - i don't have a problem with his thoughts on evolution. he's not running for scientist in chief.
- gronne, on 12/25/2007, -15/+23Two spams don't make a right.
- Ksg89, on 12/25/2007, -42/+37Ron Paul FAILS.
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -34/+21After seeing Ron Paul's assessment of the American Civil War, I think not. The man seems to lack a basic understanding of U.S. history - how can you endorse such a candidate?
- dmjarrington, on 12/25/2007, -7/+20ron paul is the man. stfu
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -15/+5Are you being serious, or sarcastic? I honestly can't tell.
- travishenrichs, on 12/25/2007, -3/+18You mean the fact that other countries settled their disputes over slavery without war?
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -5/+7Lincoln did not start the war to force slavery on the South. The war was started over the North's refusal to acknowledge the South's secession. The South itself seceded because of Lincoln's election, not because he had actually done anything. At any rate, Lincoln's plan was to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories, not to force abolition on the South. The fact that he said something that stupid indicates that he clearly has no concept of anything about what was going on in this country at the time.
- waterloo, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Ron Paul never said that the primary cause of the civil war was slavery, you are reading that into his statement. Most modern support for that war is based on the belief that it ended slavery, he opposes that war and is simply stating his belief that the good of ending slavery that came about as result of that war could have been achieved without war. I am certain (considering the publications he has written for) that he is well aware of the other causes behind that war, which are probably some of the reasons he opposes it. You do realize that a 20 second answer to a very specific question is not going to provide him with the time necessary to expound on the different reasons the war between the states was fought. He simply took the most common moral justification for that war in modern times (it ended slavery) and rejected that justification. IT took courage to go against conventional wisdom regarding the civil war on meet the press- and he may be right that slavery didn't need a war to be abolished.
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -2/+5@waterloo
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the rationale behind his statement. Why not just say the war was not about slavery? It makes no sense to say that it was wrong to fight a war over slavery when the war was not fought over slavery. Maybe it's true that the war wasn't necessary to end slavery, but that's completely beside the point.
- dmjarrington, on 12/25/2007, -7/+20ron paul is the man. stfu
- blast_flame, on 12/25/2007, -5/+19Please stop connecting your name to ron paul.
- AAK15, on 12/25/2007, -19/+7he's the same as Bush - republican, crazy, retarded ideas
- WIKMUNKEIOYONQA, on 12/25/2007, -16/+4YES I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN BECAUSE THEY ARE SO WONDERFUL!!!!
- aerojad, on 12/25/2007, -17/+14Ron Paul is the last thing we need.
- plato1123, on 12/25/2007, -11/+6I'm not a christian, do NOT believe in Santa Clause, but a careful survey of the higher lifeforms visible on this planet and the lack of transitional fossils in the evolutionary record reveals macroevolution is the biggest case of GROUPTHINK the world has ever known. On the count of 3, everybody bury! =c)
Jesus loves you in his pants- Kmoney78, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8hahaha, lack of transitional fossils, only someone COMPLETELY ignorant would say something as stupid as that. look up your facts before making comments.
- plato1123, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2They even invented a neat little piece of scotch tape to explain why the fossil record doesn't match the theory: "punctuated equilibrium"
- kronix2, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Correction: only somebody COMPLETELY ignorant would make a non-sarcastic distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.
- yonah, on 12/26/2007, -3/+2Correction @ Kronix: there are distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution. Evolutionists will say the only difference is time and scale, and others will say there is several other differences, but any way there is a distinction made by all camps.
- scubasteve377, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1I feel that evolution is sound enough as a theory, but it is worrisome, just as with global warming, that people who challenge the conventional wisdom are attacked and ostracized more and more. Cynicism is a good thing, lest we forget. It prevents us from being ruled by dogmatic thinking. While, yes, in science a theory is a more or less verified or established explanation of a phenomenon, it is important that we, if we claim to be scientific thinkers, remember there is a reason that science makes this distinction. Theory does not mean absolute certainty, because science never assumes to know the absolute truth. That is what separates religion and science. Religion has faith. Science has cynicism.
- Kmoney78, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8hahaha, lack of transitional fossils, only someone COMPLETELY ignorant would say something as stupid as that. look up your facts before making comments.
- Scumbunny, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7I admit I buried this story and then, on a whim, listened to it and now regret I buried it. Olberman may be a better sportscaster and a mostly liberal mouthpiece, but I must admit he is a damn good writer and makes a very good case. I was wrong and will pay attention a bit more in the future.
- Djharlock, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Man you were dugg down faster than Bush dugg his grave of lies.
- card51short, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3I don't give a ***** if ron paul thinks green skittle creatures are out to get him...as long as he continues as his voting record dictates, he is getting my vote!
Nobody knows exactly how humans were started...he is free to have his beliefs.
- pintomp3, on 12/25/2007, -52/+59an evolution denier? no thanks
- jimithy, on 12/25/2007, -21/+301Its a shame that the video is titled after Ron Paul because its too strong a message to be just aimed a Ron Paul fans
The video needs to be seen by everyone who still believes in the American government.- jeffiek, on 12/25/2007, -27/+10You still believe in government (not just US)????
How 'bout Santa Claus? Tooth fairy?- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -8/+2Shhh! You're going to ruin it for the little ones.
(it == Belief that gov't works/helps/serves people or belief that it can; little ones == Digg users)
- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -8/+2Shhh! You're going to ruin it for the little ones.
- KSUdesigner, on 12/25/2007, -0/+49I sat through the whole thing waiting for Olbermann to say something about Ron Paul. Then I was even more puzzled why the video is titled "Olbermann Vote Ron Paul." I support Paul as much as the next guy, but this video has nothing to do with him. The video should be titled, "Impeach Bush NOW."
- Asure, on 12/25/2007, -7/+5It was titled such likely because Ron Paul was the ONLY Presidential candidate to declare openly the exact same thing Olbermann is saying.
- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6then it would be confused with every other Olberman rant.
- DulcetTone, on 12/25/2007, -14/+2If so, they should find someone to deliver it other than Keith Olberman. His shrill tone makes me distrust him outright. Whatever is in this video, if it is this important as you suggest, should come from someone with qualities of discourse and debate such as George Will.
- jon30041, on 12/25/2007, -2/+6... Shrill? Nothing shrill about his tone, bud. It's not like he's a British bar wench (think Latrine in Robin Hood: Men in Tights) or anything extreme. Just a regular fake midwestern accent.
- pixelate, on 12/25/2007, -2/+15Alternate YouTube link, labeled more appropriately (thanks bitspace):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvi8drF61iQ - alterImperson, on 12/25/2007, -3/+20I am glad he's got a podium to say things like this. He's right, and unlike me, when he says things, people actually listen. I'm 17 and nobody thinks my opinions matter. My classmates are fools, sheep, idiot masses who only wish to watch another episode of Laguna Beach or whatever the hell is on MTV. My opinion is devalued by my adults around me because of my age. It's ridiculous! If the next president of the united states does not unleash the fury of hell to bring Mr. Bush and his entire administration to justice then I can see no recourse. If our next president takes no action against Bush, then our country is lost. We have been invaded by those that would undermine everything we once were as a nation, and we must take what is ours back. By any means necessary.
- phike, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3"Justice for all" is not a truth of our country. I am not sure if it ever was, but it sure as hell isn't anymore.
- LoveableNerd, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6Everyone who still believes in America *should* be a Ron Paul fan. Those that aren't (Paul Fans) and somehow believe the "first-tier" sell-outs in the two major parties will keep them safe and free need to wake the f*** up and stop drinking the neocon kool-aid.
- edjenkins234, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3This kinda talk is so retarded I don't even know where to begin.
Anyone who believes in labor and union rights protected by numerous federal agencies should be against ron paul, anyone who lives in a "red" state that would maybe want the option to make your own decisiion on an abortion, any one who supports and benefits from anti-racial anti-discriminatory legislation which is enforced by federal agencies, would be against ron paul.
I understand what the appeal is, hell I even want to jump on the "ron paul revolution" bandwagon it's fun and makes you look edgy, but honestly this guy is way too extreme for our country. Ron paul advocates basically reverting federal govt back to the way it was pre-1920's, however our govnernment is now involved in so many high tech, advanced regualtory duties that having a president have as a policy to rid us of as much as possible, or even better sell this power to a company to control. And pulling out of the worlds largest diplomatic body in human history because of some antiquated notion os soverignty? - ProfessorFoo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4Nope, Kucinich or Obama would be better for our country. I could argue it here but I'd rather just assume you're a random Ron Paul fanatic that doesn't care about the freedom that Ron Paul won't protect with his "send it to the states" policy.
- deadmoo, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Is the bill of rights somehow not enough freedom for you? The states can't change those.
- ProfessorFoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1It really isn't. I want to be able to smoke weed (and crack, for that matter), get married to another dude if I become gay, and have all the man-abortions I want.
- deadmoo, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Is the bill of rights somehow not enough freedom for you? The states can't change those.
- edjenkins234, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3This kinda talk is so retarded I don't even know where to begin.
- expatcatalyst, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2I think his point in mentioning RP was that we should consider RP as an alternative to the current Republican fair...
- kaelyiesta, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1I thought it was just to get more views and not necessarily an honest endorsement. Or it could be a zealous advocate of Ron Paul. Either way, while annoying, it is still a good video regardless. Dugg.
- jeffiek, on 12/25/2007, -27/+10You still believe in government (not just US)????
- Tripw0l, on 12/25/2007, -12/+91In all fairness, O'Reilly neither has nor probably ever could dress some one down like that.
- JamesWilson, on 12/25/2007, -3/+33Oh he can, as long as he can spout lies and cut off their mics.
- pyronik, on 12/25/2007, -22/+3hes done that like once to a few crazies, i dont think olberman even gives the mic to an opposing viewpoint
- boombye, on 12/25/2007, -2/+4Just because he's not yelling or talking over someone, doesn't mean that other person doesn't have a different view point than him. It's like O'Reilly's viewers are so dumb, they have to be told when the other side is on via his falafel flailing of his arms and his looking constipated while spewing hate.
- ajwinder, on 12/25/2007, -1/+9Hes delivering a monologue, of course hes not handing the mic off to anyone. Thats not the format of that type of address. The issue with oreilly is that he feigns dialogue when its actually an hour of him delivering a monologue. Its deceptive. I wouldn't care what oreilly had to say if it was him saying it. Instead, he builds up idiots and cuts the mic off for intelligent dissenters. Thats classless.
Obviously though, the real issue is that you, like so many Americans, don't understand basic vocabulary or even basic political discourse. So then instead of advancement, we have to sit around and try to catch you up on ideas like the real definition of the word Theory in a scientific context, or why someone talking into a microphone on his own doesn't mean hes shifty. - StarlessKnight, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Let us rephrase the statement: "Oh he can, as long as he can spout lies while telling people to shut up, or have their mic cut."
- pyronik, on 12/25/2007, -22/+3hes done that like once to a few crazies, i dont think olberman even gives the mic to an opposing viewpoint
- shupy, on 12/25/2007, -4/+14No, there are far too many three-syllable words and complex sentences for O'Reilly. He could never manage such eloquence.
- heresy_fnord, on 12/25/2007, -4/+16All BillO can do is yell and spit like a child. Keith Olbermann talks like a level-headed adult. He speaks with character. BillO spews verbal bile and garbage. BillO is just a crying neocon puppet.
- phike, on 12/25/2007, -1/+13BillO can dress people down, but he never uses facts. BillO uses lies and insults. Olbermann uses facts and insults. Well done for a former SportsCenter anchor.
- CookieTrain, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5BillO is, forgive me, a retard. I would think he has troubles dressing himself physically, never mind rhetorically undressing someone.
- JamesWilson, on 12/25/2007, -3/+33Oh he can, as long as he can spout lies and cut off their mics.
- AlexPod, on 12/25/2007, -17/+286Well done, Mr. Olbermann.
- jaqwuan82, on 12/25/2007, -40/+1keep blindlly bashing bush while sitting behind your computer. how can you call yourself a patriot or proud american when you continually take stabs at our leader.
- GhostyBoy, on 12/25/2007, -2/+18It's easy when your leader is a tyrant and a traitor.
- JT114881, on 12/25/2007, -1/+15Who said he's American? Bush/Cheney sure aren't. Can you honestly say you agree with what they are doing? People like you disgust me.
- Keon, on 12/25/2007, -0/+20There is nothing less patriotic than blindly agreeing with our president solely because he holds such title, regardless of his words or actions and their constitutionality. It is the patriotic duty of the American people to dissent, and in doing so hold America to the standards upon which it was founded.
- arbulus, on 12/25/2007, -0/+13So we're not supposed to question those in power? We're not supposed to ask for accountability and consequences? we're not supposed to be question when those in power make such catastrophic mistakes? We're supposed to accept the tyranny of a dictator and just go about our business with our mouths shut, never asking why or what is going on?
If you don't like questioning those in power then move to China. We have a thing called freedom of speech here. It's also built into our constitution that if we the people don't like what our government is doing, then we have the right to tear it apart and build a new one. Questioning and asking for accountability is foundational to being American and we've too long lost sight of that. - arcangelgabriel, on 12/26/2007, -0/+16As a former US Marine and decorated combat veteran, I would, in full uniform, turn my back in person on this 'commander-in-chief' knowing what the punishment would be. I love my country, I fear my government.
God help America, Semper Fi.- balla1ap, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10that is what needs to be changed "I fear my government" and you are absolutely right in saying that. This country was founded so that the government feared the people not the other way around. Bravo arcangelgabriel, you are a true patriot.
- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6You, sir, are a patriot and a credit to the uniform. The day we stop being able to question the government is the day we lose our liberty.
- madm0nk, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt
- octophobic, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I especially like that he is closing with, "Good night, and good luck." It's a good indicator of how dire he feels these times are. He gives a very powerful performance too!
- jaqwuan82, on 12/25/2007, -40/+1keep blindlly bashing bush while sitting behind your computer. how can you call yourself a patriot or proud american when you continually take stabs at our leader.
- macwisdom, on 12/25/2007, -16/+118Can someone post a contact email for the Countdown with Keith Olbermann ? I want to thank him for telling the American people what I have been saying since before Bush stole the 2000 election. Bush is not Presidential material , he is a frat boy dilettante, and a proven liar. Impeach !
- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -7/+24countdown@msnbc.com
learn to use google- timjim31, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8no need to be rude...
- pyronik, on 12/25/2007, -38/+2bush didn't steal the election, thats just some fantasy that liberals cooked up. Did you know that earlier in the campaign some campaign experts thought that gore was going to lose the popular vote but win the election. If you have a problem with the system thats fine, but don't make up a lie and say that he didn't win under the current system and the current laws.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/25/2007, -0/+23I am a conservative Republican.
The elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 were all corrupt.
None of the elections have matched the exit polling since before 2000. Exit polls are never more than a half a percent from the actual vote in the entire history of voting.
The exit polls in 2006 showed that the Neo cons manipulated the voting in favor of their candidates by over 4 percent, and this is why they were claiming that they were going to win in the month leading up to the election. They could not predict a landslide vote of over 11%.- ajwinder, on 12/25/2007, -1/+12Yeah if you understand the statistical systems that are in play for making these determinations, its pretty easy to understand that something wacky is going on. You pretty much decide what kind of confidence you want to have in a poll (So, around 1% off, 5% off, etc.) The higher the confidence (lower % off), the more people you end up polling, that sort of thing. Its prohibitive to poll a huge number of people in phone interviews, which is why in the primary vote phone polls you get these +/- 5% confidence intervals, but when you do exit polling, you can get huge numbers of samples. If it happened once I might write it off as a fluke, but when it happens in 3 straight elections, well, somethings fishy. Diebold has to be greatly responsible for a lot of that too, especially when you've got machines that invent 3000 votes in one precinct.
Its an excellent point buckrogers.
Other than that, though, you've got disenfranchisement of black voters all over the state of florida in 2000, and you've got "non-partisan" polling workers saying all previously convicted felons will be hauled off the jail if they try to vote. And you've got precincts in florida again destroying evidence to ensure that vote never gets truly certified by the pure definition of the word.
President Carter heads an organization now that monitors polling in 3rd world countries that are developing democratic nations. The goal is to help them set up voting systems that minimize fraud to an inconsequential amount, and ensure a fair democratic process. When asked if he would take up the cause of monitoring elections in the US, he simply replied that the US doesnt even meet the basic requirements of his organization before conducting election monitoring. Theres too much room for fraud in the US election system, and where fraud can be had, fraud will be had. Its really that simple.
- ajwinder, on 12/25/2007, -1/+12Yeah if you understand the statistical systems that are in play for making these determinations, its pretty easy to understand that something wacky is going on. You pretty much decide what kind of confidence you want to have in a poll (So, around 1% off, 5% off, etc.) The higher the confidence (lower % off), the more people you end up polling, that sort of thing. Its prohibitive to poll a huge number of people in phone interviews, which is why in the primary vote phone polls you get these +/- 5% confidence intervals, but when you do exit polling, you can get huge numbers of samples. If it happened once I might write it off as a fluke, but when it happens in 3 straight elections, well, somethings fishy. Diebold has to be greatly responsible for a lot of that too, especially when you've got machines that invent 3000 votes in one precinct.
- boombye, on 12/25/2007, -1/+8Salud to Buck! Merry Christmas, thanks for educating the both of us on that subject. The more you know.
- MistySteele, on 12/25/2007, -0/+4FYI, look at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa ...
Kennedy is obviously a bit left of center, but he makes several interesting observations and points. A good read regardless of your political inclinations.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/25/2007, -0/+23I am a conservative Republican.
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3And here we have the retort to "LeftistsHateUSA" and his ilk.
- WhoismP, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1I'm never surprised by leftists. Last time I checked, Gore conceded. He could have gone the route of Quincy Adams and took it to congress, there he most likely would have won on the basis that he had secured the popular vote.
And secondly, to impeach, you have to prove that he committed a fraudulent act. Be careful what you say, "lying about WMD's" is not a valid reason, the CIA lied about that, not Bush. And don't get on a typical Democratic high horse and start preaching about torture and lies and 9/11.
Guess what, you are more blind than the right wing morons. Every single congressman was making money off the war before it went haywire. Kickbacks are an understatement.
We need to vote out every single Republican, and every Democrat. Bring back the one party system. This makes me sick.
Bitching does not change anything. Get your ass out there and start campaigning for someone who will bring change, Bush ain't going nowhere. (R) and (D) means (Reject) and (Dumbass).- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1No. Let me say it again, NO. Bush needs to be impeached and tried so that the next chicken little wannabe is afraid to try it. NO Free passes for Bush/Cheney, and I don't give a ***** who has done it before him. NO Free Pass.
- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -7/+24countdown@msnbc.com
- macwisdom, on 12/25/2007, -6/+82Found the Countdown with Keith Olbermann email contact info -> the Countdown with Keith Olbermann Email KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Write him and thank him!- yergi, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1The mail is getting bounced back now. Guess he doesn't appreciate fan mail.
- SeethisPass, on 12/25/2007, -5/+46Trying to get millions killed when bush knows that he is lying should get him impeached and imprisoned, Oh wait. This is the second time. The first was years ago.
- weightman, on 12/25/2007, -103/+9Yea right, Iran doesn't wan't nukes....they are going to wipe Israel off the map with prayer.
LMAO- Trollmaster, on 12/25/2007, -7/+25bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt
- bigsteve, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5Its been a while since I've seen a thread so in need of your services, Trollmaster. Send them back where they came.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/25/2007, -2/+20Name a single country that Iran has attacked in a war of aggression in the past 450 years.
- dabears1218, on 12/25/2007, -6/+3Not at all trying to make a case for another unjustified invasion, but you do seem to forget that Iran recently had a major regime change.
Who's to say the current government will behave the same as the one before the 1970s?
And also, it depends on your definition of "attacked", but you could make a case for both the U.A.E. and Iraq.- boombye, on 12/25/2007, -1/+8Unless Iran wants to committ suicide, they won't attack anyone. Don't forget about 'Mutual Assured Destruction'....
- dabears1218, on 12/25/2007, -6/+3Not at all trying to make a case for another unjustified invasion, but you do seem to forget that Iran recently had a major regime change.
- insane11, on 12/25/2007, -0/+24Israel can take care of themselves.
- Tanktunker, on 12/25/2007, -0/+7Hell yeah, we already have nukes.
But we still need your international pressure and money and military support, keep sending those.- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Dugg for presumed sarcasm.
If people in the U.S. want to support the Israeli military they're free to do so (not that I think they should), but don't stick a gun to my neck and make me (i.e. taxes).
- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Dugg for presumed sarcasm.
- Tanktunker, on 12/25/2007, -0/+7Hell yeah, we already have nukes.
- KSUdesigner, on 12/25/2007, -2/+5Whether they want them or not, who are we to decide whether they can have them? We have nukes, why don't we disarm before going around telling other countries that they can't have nukes? Yeah we'd feel a whole lot safer if nobody else had nukes, but until we disarm we are just a bunch of hypocrites.
- boombye, on 12/25/2007, -1/+1Even if Iran had a nuke, they can't do ***** with it because Israel would just counter-attack, and it's what we call "Mutual Assured Destruction"... In that, both Iran and Israel would be in a more cold-war like atmosphere with each other, but someone wants to start a third world war which would involve China and/or Russia coming to aid Iran, whom they do a lot of business with. Even if the intention is to not get other nations involved, others will eventually, just like we eventually went to Europe in WW2. Iran just wants to live like us, get enough power for their homes to experience HDTVs, Broadband Internet, and so on. The ***** love our television shows in that region of the world. See in Turkey for example, Miracle on 34th Street is on today, they also love Lost! http://www.digiturk.gen.tr/ and even in Saudi Arabia they enjoy our shows like on MBC they're playing West Wing and even Law & Order! They definitely need to watch Law & Order there lols. http://www.mbc.net/portal/site/mbc
Anyways sorry for the linkage, just trying to say that some of us in the West are really ignorant of how similar we are to those who seem to live so different from us, or so we assume.- WebCester, on 12/25/2007, -2/+1Turkey isn't really in that region of the world politically or geographically. They want full EU membership after all.
- Tanktunker, on 12/25/2007, -1/+1The Ayatollah of Iran is a fanatic religious kook, I'd bet my cake on the fact that he's willing to sacrifice Iran for Allah.
He's Ahmedinejad without the suit or the television appearances.
- WaltDismal, on 12/25/2007, -4/+11Who appointed us policeman for the world? If Israel, which has nukes, and wants to continue stealing land and killing children, wants to prevent those whose oppose it from getting nukes, and stopping landgrabs and genocidal killing, why do our soldiers have to die for their cause? Let Israel fight its own battles, and let's stop sending them billions of our taxpayer money, too. Iran is a tyranny, but Israel is no innocent. Let both these cavemen bash each other over the head, leave us out of the fight.
- Tanktunker, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3Millions of ignorant americans can't be wrong: ***** the UN, ***** the international community, evil zionists took that land and impale children with their horns and then feed on their blood, it's not like there was some sort of vote to decide whether or not to give a small piece of land to a people prosecuted for 3 thousand years and slaughtered in thousands and in millions, it's not like the surrounding arabic lands amount to over a thousand times the land given to the evil zionists, and it's certainly not like the palestinians are shooting several missiles at Israeli cities, killing and terrorizing civilians, each and every day.
No, they came there, defeated England and about 150 million Arabs living in the region, and then settled in their land, all of their land, and displaced everybody still alive, without giving them full rights as citizens and freedom from army duty, for them and their children, and it's not like they give millions of dollars of humanitarian, and general aid to Palestinians every year.
Nope, not like that.
tl;dr version: ***** you, you and your stupid 12 year old blogophile friends don't have the slightest clue of what's happening here, or what happened in the past.- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Need a waaaaambulance there?
When our nation stops handing billions of dollars in aid to Israel, and our OWN citizens get health care comparable to theirs, then we can talk. Until then, Israel needs to stand on their own two feet and stop *****-stirring with everyone in the region. When everyone hates you (see: President Bush) it is usually for a reason.- Tanktunker, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1We only have good healthcare because every doctor in Russia and their grandmother is immigrating to this country.
We have twice as many doctors, so if you want them, go ahead, we're not using them.
And yes, please send a Waaaaaaaambulance, I think I'm going into crydiac arrest.
- Tanktunker, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1We only have good healthcare because every doctor in Russia and their grandmother is immigrating to this country.
- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Need a waaaaambulance there?
- Tanktunker, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3Millions of ignorant americans can't be wrong: ***** the UN, ***** the international community, evil zionists took that land and impale children with their horns and then feed on their blood, it's not like there was some sort of vote to decide whether or not to give a small piece of land to a people prosecuted for 3 thousand years and slaughtered in thousands and in millions, it's not like the surrounding arabic lands amount to over a thousand times the land given to the evil zionists, and it's certainly not like the palestinians are shooting several missiles at Israeli cities, killing and terrorizing civilians, each and every day.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/25/2007, -0/+6Funny how the Republicans get all up in arms about the potential for future Iranian nukes yet never say anything about our "good friend" Pakistan and all they've done for proliferation across the globe.
- Snarfy, on 12/25/2007, -0/+9"...wipe Israel off the map..."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said that. They spun that ***** on purpose, then retracted it the next day saying 'oops'. I would laugh at those tactics except they seem to work so well on dumb ***** like you.- SeethisPass, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5That needs a lot of repetition. I hear many times over that Iran wants to wipe out Israel and it is a falsehood. They have no way of doing it either.
- Trollmaster, on 12/25/2007, -7/+25bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt
- purpmint008, on 12/25/2007, -35/+219If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination then I want Huckabee to win it.
Why? Because Huckabee doesn't stand a goddamn chance in a general election against ANY of the Democrats!- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -9/+69you are still operating under the false assertion that the democrats are better than the republicans. hillary is part of the establishment and wont remove all the troops either. maybe obama will be a bit better we will see.
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -2/+22The Dems won't win if Hillary is nominated.
- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -5/+7hillary has the name and the popular vote and will still get the anti-war vote even tho she isnt anti-war. she wont even talk to iran. obama cant beat the gop tho, he'll lose the south for sure
- crypt, on 12/25/2007, -0/+12you clearly missed the latest polls
- dorkboat, on 12/25/2007, -4/+4Hillary also has a lot of female voters. For now. We just have to wait until she comes out against uterus's or something.... Once again: Go Kucinich!
- HotWingBias, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5Please don't think just because Mrs. Clinton is a female that females automatically support her. My friends and I all agree that she's no better than that spoiled frat boy we call a president.
- ajwinder, on 12/25/2007, -2/+1Yeah, according to latest polling half the nation has her written off completely. Thats a terrible candidate to elect through the primary procedure. If you believe in a party system, then the idea is getting your best, most electable candidate as the nominee. If half the nation says their not going to vote for your top runner, the party has become too stupid to be a part of the political process. I'm a democrat, I love some of the ideas of the democratic party, but I swear to god, if she gets the nomination, I'm going to have to evaluate why I'm in league with a bunch of idiotic voters.
And you dont need the south to win the election, theres more electoral votes in northern states anyways. And with the way virginia has become so much more democratically charged as of late, that could be a huge swing in years to come. If you live in northern virginia, sincerely, thank you, and please dont move :P
- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -5/+7hillary has the name and the popular vote and will still get the anti-war vote even tho she isnt anti-war. she wont even talk to iran. obama cant beat the gop tho, he'll lose the south for sure
- purpmint008, on 12/25/2007, -6/+9I know she's a lieing bitch...but as usual you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
- adventchild08, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6well this is just more reason to participate in the primaries...
- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3You don't have to pick.
Don't pick evil.
- ozydingo, on 12/25/2007, -3/+35Obama has my vote over Hillary without question.
- byronm, on 12/25/2007, -2/+20Kucinich has my vote over all of 'em
- lendrick, on 12/25/2007, -5/+3Honestly, Edwards is the best of the democrat crowd this year. He actually takes a stand on things. Obama is weak, and Hillary is practically a republican.
- atonement, on 12/25/2007, -2/+5Nah, I can't afford to fund Edwards' $400 haircuts
- SeethisPass, on 12/25/2007, -2/+2Edwards wants to force you to have medical treatments and exams
Medical practice is a very inexact science and a lot of their actions turn out to be disastrous and deadly failures. Ron Paul must win. - B3000, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2Edwards is running for president while his wife is dying of terminal cancer - ***** him. I don't care if she says it is what she wants or not - when you know the love of your life is dying you don't spend the last years of their life off on the campaign trail, you spend it at home with your family in it's last days as a whole and complete unit. Apparently the real love of Edwards life though is politics - and that makes me sick.
- kuyman, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Mike Gravel looks great, actually. The man has some great ideas and is definitely my favorite candidate. (Even better than Nader... ;)
- Zlorp, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1yeah hillary is looking just as bad as any republican at this point. obama hasnt been extremely impressive, but i still think he might be the best choice barring Kucinich and Paul
- macweirdo42, on 12/25/2007, -2/+22The Dems won't win if Hillary is nominated.
- otaku244, on 12/25/2007, -14/+6Good job purpmint008!!! I thought elections were all about electing the person most suited for the job, not dicking round with which party wins presidential points. Stop being a democratic tool, there are enough of those on the republican side.
- Pritchard, on 12/25/2007, -0/+18The above comment is a good example of how fallen our citizens are now...
- phike, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Huckabee holds the votes of the religious. No fact or great vision can take those votes away. Huckabee will always stand a chance. If there is a loving god, he will not win.
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Huckabee holds the votes of the evangelical Christians, who tend to be very anti-intellectual, and in my opinion, miss much of the point of Christianity. He doesn't hold my vote. In fact, the only candidate I think I could vote for is Ron Paul. The Republicans are all fake conservatives who stand for nothing and the Democrats are all grotesquely underexperienced (except for maybe Dodd and Biden), and all of them besides Ron Paul and Kuchinich don't have a principle among them (except maybe for big government socialism). Face it, all the candidates besides Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich are just tools of big Business.
- Hyperion1144, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Oh no he doesn't. I'm Christian. My friends are, too. Huckabee is a liar, two-faced, and just plain nutty. He scares me and my Christian friends, too.
He doesn't hold the votes of the evangelical Christians. He holds the votes of the ignorant, crazy, ultra neo-con Christian-nutball movement.
{Hyperion1144 waits for the first semi-clever Christian-hating Digger atheist to respond with something along the lines of: “So in other words, he holds the vote of 99.9% of Christians.”}
To which Hyperion1144 replies:
Hey, atheist dumbass… I just gave you some good news about how Huckabee is not going to get the Whitehouse no matter what; news about how many Christians are absolutely NOT sure-thing votes for him. You can’t even take that?
It’s a good thing you aren’t right about all of us being nuts… If you were, then you would really would have something to worry about. Get out of religion-hating fantasy land. Most of us are more mellow then you think. We just don’t often get put on TV, the nutballs make for more compelling viewing. Jerry Springer is based on the same concept. Doesn’t mean JS is true example of modern America. Just a dysfunctional part of it.
Huckabee will never be president.
And that commentary in the vid was AWESOME.
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -1/+6Huckabee holds the votes of the evangelical Christians, who tend to be very anti-intellectual, and in my opinion, miss much of the point of Christianity. He doesn't hold my vote. In fact, the only candidate I think I could vote for is Ron Paul. The Republicans are all fake conservatives who stand for nothing and the Democrats are all grotesquely underexperienced (except for maybe Dodd and Biden), and all of them besides Ron Paul and Kuchinich don't have a principle among them (except maybe for big government socialism). Face it, all the candidates besides Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich are just tools of big Business.
- TheReport, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5If Hucakbee wins the nod for the Republican ticket then I can assure you that we will be voting for the "lesser of evils" again this election....Oh wait thats every election.
- dareNmc, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0Rush Limbough said the same thing about Bill Clinton around 96' switch partys nominate Bill again, he'll be in prison before the Main election occurs, guranteed Republican win.
Worked wonderfully.
It isn't worth the risk to not try to have the best possible opponent in the Election. So unless Hucakbee is the 3rd best in the field don't encourage it.
- tracker198x, on 12/25/2007, -9/+69you are still operating under the false assertion that the democrats are better than the republicans. hillary is part of the establishment and wont remove all the troops either. maybe obama will be a bit better we will see.
- allywilson, on 12/25/2007, -133/+7I ***** hate this *****. I'm not American. I will never be American. I am not interested in America. Digg.com is not Digg.us. If you want to be involved in politics please do - but I am really getting sick of this ***** on Digg plus the added flame wars afterwards. I know, I know - I didn't have to watch the video. I did. I then read the comments. I then started typing _this_ comment. Why? I have no idea. When will Digg be a technology news website again? When?!
- truspect0r, on 12/25/2007, -7/+21When was it ever? Go to slashdot.
- Durinthal, on 12/25/2007, -0/+16Uh, it was tech news only when it first launched. All the other stuff came later.
- gronne, on 12/25/2007, -3/+14Durinthal's right but that doesn't mean that allywilson isn't being a stupid ***** either.
- TheReport, on 12/25/2007, -1/+4Ummm I know you only joined this year but Digg has its roots in technology. Before the, every other front page story was an image, and the crapy spam of celebrity news and dupe stories every week there was real DIY informative Tech stories that was about learning instead of entertaining. Digg has become just another news site.
- SeethisPass, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7"Digg has become just another news site."
Wrong,
Digg has become THE news site. There is no other place in the world that has news articles coming out at the blazing pace that is seen here.
I make up my own statistics like everyone else, but Digg gets at least hundreds of articles per hour.There is no news competitor that can match that level of news and information.- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3And thank heaven's for that because despite having to occasionally sort through crap, I have learned a hell of a lot from Digg.
- SeethisPass, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7"Digg has become just another news site."
- grapeape25, on 12/25/2007, -4/+57Your in the 2008 U.S. Elections section...
- ozydingo, on 12/25/2007, -4/+12*You're* correct.
- tedhead2k, on 12/25/2007, -0/+16I'm not American either, but Digg has quite a wide variety of content nowadays, there is obviously no use in complaining when you see something you don't care about. If people find it interesting, it should be on digg. If people find something interesting, it gets voted to the front page. Sounds like a good system to me.
- Durinthal, on 12/25/2007, -0/+44You want it to be tech news only? Go to your preferences and turn off everything else.
Here's a link, to save you the trouble: http://digg.com/settings/topics- userperson, on 12/25/2007, -1/+9Shh! that'd be too easy; it's more fun to bitch!
- Malarie, on 12/25/2007, -1/+28I am not american, and I work in the IT industry. I am glad that many people are joining the ranks on digg. Why? Because you get some sort of education by reading all the stories. Digg has opened my eyes on many issues. This media is far better than the news you watch on TV. Because no corporations tell you what to think, instead it is another human being, sharing information with you. I think media sites like digg should be made into news channel and newspaper
- christoast, on 09/04/2008, -7/+11the USA is the words most influential and powerful superpower, news about it is important to everyone.
- ozydingo, on 12/25/2007, -3/+3The president of the USA has no effecct on technology whatsoever!!!
(btw, you can go to the technology section. Or turn off all other topics in your preferences. If you're too lazy to narrow your search, and only take what's on the front page, quit bitching about it)
- truspect0r, on 12/25/2007, -7/+21When was it ever? Go to slashdot.
- camarokidaj, on 12/25/2007, -47/+6OLD!!
- ozydingo, on 12/25/2007, -3/+14Worth repeating
- camarokidaj, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Wow !It is amazing what people will digg down! I was pointing the age of the story!!!!! not its content Hello????
- AzMegladon, on 12/25/2007, -16/+100Lets impeach this ***** already! WTF
- macman2k, on 12/25/2007, -1/+15And who would impeach him? The equally complacent / compliant congress??!
- SpeedingSkills, on 12/25/2007, -4/+34That's one good lashing!
- fbi114, on 12/25/2007, -0/+4he called him a chicken little..lol..
- christoast, on 09/04/2008, -11/+115Bush/Cheney is the biggest joke in history. why are we allowing this?
- Namakemono, on 12/25/2007, -2/+16It would be a hilarious joke if it weren't so tragic.
- shupy, on 12/25/2007, -1/+10Why did we allow it? Because a lot of people out there actually voted for these morons.
- JEAH, on 12/25/2007, -0/+21I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over all the xmas music and gift opening. The new year celebrating might make it difficult to hear you next week, and the super bowl is going to keep me distracted until February. Hold on, what was the question again? Oh well... HEY! I just got another Best Buy gift card for xmas! :D
- Akronos, on 12/25/2007, -0/+9I believe his question was something about South Africa and The Iraq, and their education such as.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5Uh god don't remind me. Hey Survivor is on! Sweet!
- iancorey, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Well put.
- Akronos, on 12/25/2007, -0/+9I believe his question was something about South Africa and The Iraq, and their education such as.
- bigsteve, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3We finally, as a nation, have gotten up the gumption to stop *voting them in.* By the time we have the balls required to start thinking about *voting them out* it will have been too late. I just hope the textbooks my children read will reflect the truth.
- tyywebb, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3Yup the leader of the nation with the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world threatening world war III is just ***** hilarious.
- NightVortez, on 12/25/2007, -2/+4Nixon and Lincoln have him beat by miles..
- Jpotts12, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2Simple....because our elected representatives are pussies. They don't want to impeach Bush because they are afraid that it might cause a backlash against them, especially since we are involved in a war. Only a large minority of people (~40%) favor impeachment, and so it wouldn't be very logical for congress members to initiate impeachment proceedings if they want to remain in office. It's better for them to just wait for Bush to die off.
There are still lots of stupid Americans who buy into Bush's "patriotic agenda", believe it or not. Keep in mind that even though the majority of people on digg are anti-Bush, there are lots of really stupid people out there, most of whom don't go on digg. And also keep in mind that lots of people who disapprove of Bush don't want him impeached for various reasons, one being that we are in the midst of a war.- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -3/+2I find your implication that people on Digg are smarter than average to be the funniest thing I've read all month. Some people on Digg are more informed than average, but from what I've seen, this crowd is generally _less_ informed than the average. I disapproved of Bush, but I don't think impeachment even makes sense. It's not a "no confidence vote" despite what a lot of people around here seem to think.
- Jpotts12, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1My implication is correct, actually. As dumb as some of the people on here might be, the average digg user is smarter than the average American. Internet-users in general are more intelligent and informed than the average American. Keep in mind that America also includes poor white trash, ghetto-dwellers and plenty of backwater hicks, many of whom still don't even own computers much less internet access. Also, keep in mind that people who go to digg want to keep up with current events, read news articles and learn about new things, meaning they should be more informed and more intelligent than many internet-users (think of the people who go on myspace and ebaumsworld...). So yeah, I think digg users are smarter, on average, although any place has it's fair share of idiots.
And I don't exactly feel it's a "no confidence vote" either. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "pussies", since it's more a matter of not wanting to make a dumb political move. The short answer is that congress doesn't want impeachment because that's not what the majority of the American people want. The American people don't want it for several reasons, including fear of deposing our leader in the midst of a war, the sentiment that it would be useless since Bush's term will be over soon enough and, for some people, support for Bush.
- Jpotts12, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1My implication is correct, actually. As dumb as some of the people on here might be, the average digg user is smarter than the average American. Internet-users in general are more intelligent and informed than the average American. Keep in mind that America also includes poor white trash, ghetto-dwellers and plenty of backwater hicks, many of whom still don't even own computers much less internet access. Also, keep in mind that people who go to digg want to keep up with current events, read news articles and learn about new things, meaning they should be more informed and more intelligent than many internet-users (think of the people who go on myspace and ebaumsworld...). So yeah, I think digg users are smarter, on average, although any place has it's fair share of idiots.
- Caffeinate, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1JPotts, people on Digg are actually better educated than most. People like ConceptJunkie want you to feel marginalized and isolated because chances are, they work for viral marketers, lobbyists, and others that profit from continuing corruption. If they convince you that you don't matter, it is one less voice of discontent.
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -3/+2I find your implication that people on Digg are smarter than average to be the funniest thing I've read all month. Some people on Digg are more informed than average, but from what I've seen, this crowd is generally _less_ informed than the average. I disapproved of Bush, but I don't think impeachment even makes sense. It's not a "no confidence vote" despite what a lot of people around here seem to think.
- an0nym0uz, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Because no one is willing to do anything more than make nasty comments online about what a crappy president Bush is and if you tried to do anything more you would probably get tracked through the CIAs warrantless eavesdropping and get jailed.
- alkaline213, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2So what are you proposing? A violent overthrow of the United States Gov? C'mon, he is obviously mentally retarded and uncapable of running the free world, but 90% of the people in gov. pretty much fit that category. All we can do is vote. And if you don't vote then you are a goddamn hypocrite and have no business bitching.
So ***** vote.
- Timmetie, on 12/25/2007, -37/+6I thought it a nice speech as well but not worth digging again after 2 weeks..
- sgglynn, on 12/25/2007, -1/+12Why not? Is it less true?
- Timmetie, on 12/25/2007, -5/+2What kind of nonsense argument is that? It's not 2 weeks late which would be fine. It's been reposted after 2 weeks. Are we going to repost the "truth" every time? That would have dig stuck with Ron Paul and Stephen Colbert forever.
- Slimer, on 12/25/2007, -0/+10it's worth digging as long as bush is still president :p
- Timmetie, on 12/25/2007, -5/+2What kind of nonsense argument is that? It's not 2 weeks late which would be fine. It's been reposted after 2 weeks. Are we going to repost the "truth" every time? That would have dig stuck with Ron Paul and Stephen Colbert forever.
- sgglynn, on 12/25/2007, -1/+12Why not? Is it less true?
- joshuaer, on 12/25/2007, -4/+36WOW i do not have cable so i only watch local news which mostly sucks, it is nice to see that cable news is telling people the truth about bush.
- MacEnvy, on 12/25/2007, -2/+16Just Keith. The rest are worthless celebrity-worshipping drivel-mongers.
- Akronos, on 12/25/2007, -0/+6Haha, yeah right. Other than Olbermann and Lou Dobbs, the rest are just a bunch of Bush and Dick licking shills.
- Grummond, on 12/25/2007, -10/+55I'm definitely gonna vote for Kucinich, the only person i trust won't support the current disastrous policies.
- MistySteele, on 12/25/2007, -3/+28Kucinich is a fine choice, and he should be supported on the Democratic ticket.
However, we're still in the lead-up to the primaries, and it's important that Paul does well in the GOP primary against Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee. By almost any measure, he's the best choice among the current GOP crop.
Spread the gospel of Kucinich, but get your Republican friends to find out about Paul, and vote for him for the GOP ticket if you live in a state with open primaries.
Imagine a world in which the choice we have to make is Kucinich vs Paul in the general election.
Ahhh, we can dream. :)- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -0/+4I think Kucinich is wrong about nearly everything, but at least he's a man of principle, which makes him an extremely rare asset in politics.
- Mikhail101, on 12/25/2007, -9/+4good choice, but i think we should all focus on Ron Paul. If we spread votes thinly among other candidates its idiots like Hilary that are going to win.
- MistySteele, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5Ummm, look up the difference btn "Primary" and "General" elections. You can and should support Paul for the GOP ticket and also support Kucinich for the Democratic ticket at the same time.
- luvpuss84, on 12/25/2007, -7/+2no ron paul wants to dismantle the govt and turn everything over into corporate hands (privatization)
- ConceptJunkie, on 12/25/2007, -2/+4Ever heard of the states? That's where most of the power is supposed to reside.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 12/25/2007, -1/+2Man whatever you've been smoking pass this way.
- luvpuss84, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1man try reading what laissez faire governance is--aside from the libertarian cornerstone.
- tyywebb, on 12/25/2007, -2/+11Keith Olberman for president?
- alkaline213, on 12/26/2007, -4/+2=Yea, but kucinich also doesn't have a 2% chance of winning the election. I don't know if that is a waste of vote or a way to make a point, but I just want a Dem to win, and if ppl vote for Kucinich, then that means they aren't voting for Obamma, or whoever.
- enjoiskaterguy, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3This secular idea that you just want a Democrat to win is a big win for the establishment. They want you to segregate yourselves to be for Dems or Reps. They laugh while we pick and choose based on "party". I used to be in that ideology mindset because I was brought up politically thinking that Republicans were all evil and that Democrats were the saviors of the US. When I researched more and found out that they are all part of the same coin my eyes shot open. So today I support a republican named Ron Paul...but not based on party but because if his policies. Vote nation over party or the establishment has already won.
- alkaline213, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Well, I want a dem to win, not b/c they are a democrat, but b/c my ideals and opinions on the way things should be are most closely matched by the people who align themselves with the democratic party. Show me a republican who has these ideals, or ones that more closely match my own and I will vote for him. But what I will NOT do is vote for someone who has no chance of winning, and who I don't think could handle the job; a la Kucinich.
I'm all for bringing down the establishment, and I am well aware of the detrimental effects of a two party system on our political structure, but sometimes you have to play the game. Besides, even if there were no Dems or Repubsl, I would still vote for Obamma. And you can save your speech for someone else, b/c like I said, I am very well aware of how thoroughly *****-up our country is.
- alkaline213, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Well, I want a dem to win, not b/c they are a democrat, but b/c my ideals and opinions on the way things should be are most closely matched by the people who align themselves with the democratic party. Show me a republican who has these ideals, or ones that more closely match my own and I will vote for him. But what I will NOT do is vote for someone who has no chance of winning, and who I don't think could handle the job; a la Kucinich.
- enjoiskaterguy, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3This secular idea that you just want a Democrat to win is a big win for the establishment. They want you to segregate yourselves to be for Dems or Reps. They laugh while we pick and choose based on "party". I used to be in that ideology mindset because I was brought up politically thinking that Republicans were all evil and that Democrats were the saviors of the US. When I researched more and found out that they are all part of the same coin my eyes shot open. So today I support a republican named Ron Paul...but not based on party but because if his policies. Vote nation over party or the establishment has already won.
- MistySteele, on 12/25/2007, -3/+28Kucinich is a fine choice, and he should be supported on the Democratic ticket.
- Yamada, on 12/25/2007, -18/+4The video may have been added just yesterday, but I've already seen this on digg before..
- Trollmaster, on 12/25/2007, -6/+38why the ***** is a puppeteer with his chimp still running the most powerful country in the world?
- 0nslaught, on 12/25/2007, -0/+10The Democrat party supports him, too.
- TheReport, on 12/25/2007, -0/+9because we let him. they have a word for it in the Dictionary. Its called Apathy.
- caseyh, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5China is run by a puppeteer?
- RonObvious, on 12/25/2007, -44/+3Is he picking football games? Didn't watch.
- swoopdog, on 12/25/2007, -1/+3thanks for that didn't read.
- abeduler, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1Exactly... this douche is a SPORTS REPORTER. Don't trust what he says.
- SLuM, on 12/25/2007, -39/+78I can't see the crazed fanatic support behind Ron Paul (read his views on religion http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html) when a much better candidate by the names of Dennis Kucinich is running. Paul does not support National health care, I hope many people realize health care shouldn't be a privilege just because of how much money you make but it should be a right (see Europe). A major flaw in his plan is discontinue regulations for corporations, this is a serious mistake that leads to monopolies and overpricing (see Southern America).
I must admit. I disagree with Kucinich on some issues such as abortion and gun control but everything else is pure perfection. Support this man Kucinich, read his issues and open your minds, please--for the sake of this country. More power to corporations and mega-churches isn't what the US needs.- petebert, on 12/25/2007, -6/+23That article didnt sway me, I dont believe in gods but I hate how you cant use the word christmas anymore. Christmas is a regional custom here, why cant I celebrate it openly?
- byronm, on 12/25/2007, -10/+3oh please.. who is stopping you from celebrating Christmas? By your logic we should be able to walk around naked and celebrate our own body. You can't have your pretend war on Christmas and everyone else will have there war on people, war against health care, war against common sense, war against being smart, war against being intelligence..
- petebert, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5i said openly, which airport took down their christmas tree last year because apparently decorated trees are offensive? and the word christmas has been removed from the work place.
- kayala, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2You can be terrified when you're not allowed to have a christmas tree in your own home, or when you're fined for wishing someone a "merry Christmas". You're allowed to be as open about Christmas as you want, but this isn't to be interpreted as an obligation for everyone to be open about the holiday.
- Turambar, on 12/25/2007, -0/+5<
- petebert, on 12/25/2007, -1/+5i said openly, which airport took down their christmas tree last year because apparently decorated trees are offensive? and the word christmas has been removed from the work place.
- byronm, on 12/25/2007, -10/+3oh please.. who is stopping you from celebrating Christmas? By your logic we should be able to walk around naked and celebrate our own body. You can't have your pretend war on Christmas and everyone else will have there war on people, war against health care, war against common sense, war against being smart, war against being intelligence..
- petebert, on 12/25/2007, -6/+23That article didnt sway me, I dont believe in gods but I hate how you cant use the word christmas anymore. Christmas is a regional custom here, why cant I celebrate it openly?