digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

The World Is Excited For the Bush Regime to End

news.yahoo.com — Many of the actions under the Bush administration have left a damaged image of this country. Many nations are excited for the next political election hoping that under a new leader there will be changes made. Many countries feel they have a lot at stake, hoping to work with the United States again and to have their faith restored in this country

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChiefShaman, on 02/02/2008, -25/+110The problem is not that simple, it depends on who is put in office after Bush and what those presidents do. Besides, leaving the decision of who is president up to the same people (the voters) who (and I still can't believe it) put the man into office TWICE my be just as dangerous! Of course we all know that voting is rigged anyway and the powers that be put into office who they want.
    • mrASSMAN, on 02/02/2008, -3/+51I was in highschool when the 2004 election came around.. all the kids were saying that their parents told them that they didn't like Bush but that "you should never change presidents in the middle of a war".

      Very clever, Bush.
      • Willy0Panhandle, on 02/02/2008, -3/+38Parents are so smart, aren't they?
      • mmortal03, on 02/02/2008, -11/+4You just throw it back at them by asking them, "Do wars just decide to sign a peace treaty after two terms are up?"
        But, right, I forgot about FDR, maybe that is what Bush wants to do. :(
        You must not be supposed to change political parties in the White House in the middle of the war, either, right?
      • GeneralFailure0, on 02/02/2008, -2/+47Some girl at my school told my friend and I that she supported George Bush for re-election in 2004 because "she's a patriot." She gave no other reason. It's scary to hear people say things like that.
        • Elranzer, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7I've heard the "...because I'm a Christian" excuse. These people were so deluded that somehow John Kerry was going to legalize gay marriage and give out free abortions for everyone.
      • nirav72, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10The 2004 election was based on fear about 2 men or 2 women having the legal right to marry each other. I'm still not clear how that became an issue over all the other damn problems we need to solve in this country first.
      • stoanhart, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Parents say the darndest things!
      • altinnovation, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4I know this would not be legal, but some people SHOULD NOT be legally allowed to vote. My mother initially supported Hillary because.... you guessed it... she's a woman.
        • mightydavefish, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1How is that any worse than voting for Bush because you are ignorant and have to support the President?
    • JettaMan, on 02/02/2008, -14/+25Am I the only one here who thinks Romney, McCain, Hillary and Obama will change nothing? Sure they will get better press than Bush gets but we are still on the same path.
      • AndrewDB, on 02/02/2008, -9/+22The door for pessimists is down the hall and to the left.
      • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -6/+12Pessimism or intelligence? Apparently if you believe the media and avoid real research, you get neither.
        • AndrewDB, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4Pessimism and intelligence never go hand in hand.
          • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8I stand corrected. But when the lemmings are running off the cliff, are you optimistic?
          • mightydavefish, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1What kind of stupid comment is that?
            Intelligent people can't be pessimists?
            Or pessimists can't be intelligent people?
            Either way, try again.
          • praxisseizure, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1@ mightydavefish
            No. He's right.. If you're intelligent, then you'll find a way to be optimistic capitalizing and benefiting for yourself during the period of everyone's pessimism. If you're intelligent, pessimism is a paradox to you. This is very true. I'm not pessimistic in my own life, however, I am pessimistic toward the future of the masses. More evidence people aren't analyzing life with different perspectives. Twist your mind around others' feelings and you'll gain new perspective. All it takes is some empathy and intelligence.

            AndrewDB, I applaud you.
      • atheinostic, on 02/02/2008, -3/+39People were saying the same thing 8 years ago.

        "Bush, Gore, who cares. They're both the same, they won't change anything."

        Now we have torture, warrantless spying, gigantic deficits, extraordinary rendition, illegal wars over bogus reasons, reckless spending, tax cuts for rich people paid for with borrowed Chinese money, secret prisons, ....
        • bernieg1, on 02/02/2008, -22/+4Re: tax cuts for rich people paid for with borrowed Chinese money. Actually tax cuts are paid for with rich people's own money. Obviously you have no clue how the tax system works: Before the tax cut I pay $100,000 in taxes. After the tax cut I pay $90,000 in taxes. No Chinese involved at all, I just write a smaller check - the $10,000 I'm paying less? That's my money. Not yours, not the Chinese. Get it?
          • Jebral, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Get it? Nah, you didn't.
          • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3Jebral, I'm not sure if you get it. The "tax cuts for the rich" actually resulted in more revenue flowing into the government's coffers.
          • Fafnir43, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Yes, that's why the economy's been doing so well recently.
          • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -5/+1The economy is slowing down because the boom of the 2000s went to excess and the housing bubble that was created during this time is popping. Would you like to raise taxes back to pre-Bush levels and see how that goes, Fafnir43?
          • Jebral, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1@jcm2678 The Chinese money part.
        • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -16/+1Torturing Jihadists? I don't care.
          Warrantless spying? They've been doing it for years before Bush, this only enabled them to prosecute terrorists when they caught them.
          Deficits? The cost of war.
          Illegal wars over bogus reasons? No, they were legal and the reasons were very real
          reckless spending? To a certain extent, yes.
          tax cuts for the rich? They still pay a higher % of their income in taxes than the "poorer" people. And just the top few % still pay 50% of the total
          secret prisons? You don't think that they existed before Bush???

          Bush is definitely flawed, but I'm very happy that we got Bush instead of a continuation of the policies of the Clinton Administration. The country, and the world, is better off for it.
          • mOdQuArK, on 02/02/2008, -0/+12Wow, with the sheer amount of denial in that statement, I'm surprised you don't negate your own existence and disappear into thin air.
          • fsweep, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4What Clinton policies? Diplomacy? Fiscal responsibility? A sensible foreign policy? Decent economic policies? Which one bothers you the most?
          • flishman, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4"reckless spending? to a certain extent, yes."

            I think its a little more severe than you realize. I guess we need to break out the chart again.
            http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart. ...
          • roodammy44, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4You're not torturing jihadists.
            You're torturing people who have no evidence against them.
          • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2"What Clinton policies? Diplomacy? Fiscal responsibility? A sensible foreign policy? Decent economic policies? Which one bothers you the most?"
            - Sensible foreign policy? Like Clinton starting wars against countries that didn't threaten our national security?
            Diplomacy? Like appeasing the North Koreans?
            Fiscal responsiblity? Like the Republicans in Congress, who set the agenda and who (at the time) were in favor of a balanced budget?
            Sensible foreign policy? Like ignoring al Qaeda?
            Decent economic policies? Like talking up the tech bubble?
            What bothers me the most has to be the toxic combination of shirking the military and intelligence services while at the same time ignoring the al Qaeda threat. I also didn't like the way that his Justice Department acted.

            You are too clueless for words. Clinton was a terrible President and you people who think that Bush is "Worst pretzeldent evers!" while thinking that Clinton was in any way a good President are just blinded by BDS.

            @dstat
            - No, I don't care what we do to people who would love to see America destroyed for no reason other than that we aren't Islamic (aka they hate our freedoms).

            @fishman
            Care to take a look at national debt as a % of GDP? We still haven't reached the levels they were under Eisenhower. Your little chart is misleading, and FWIW this current President has done a fine job in the past few years with the budget -- working with a war and a Congress (that while Republican) has been hostile to any calls to keep reckless spending to a minimum. This is why I (along with millions of others) voted against the Republicans in 2006.
        • JoeRW, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6Warrantless wiretapping is what enables totalitarian governments,
        • StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7"They've been doing it for years before Bush" -- Well as long as everybody else is doing it, Mister "I'm going to bring integrity back to the White House."

          "No, they were legal and the reasons were very real" -- And the WMDs we discovered are currently held where? That was THE primary reason we took out Iraq. I don't care about Afghan, personally, that was a "legit" war. Iraq is where the contention is mainly focused.

          "Deficits? The cost of war." -- Deficit wouldn't be so high if someone hadn't been so gun-ho about invading not one, but two countries, then engage in an occupation/"military support role." One of the countries is hotly debated as ever having been justified in the first place. "They didn't lie, they just didn't know better." We have leaders that just don't know better, even if handed a report telling them what they need to know, leading our country. We're not even pretending to follow the flawed "they're our representative/leader because they're better than the average person. They're smarter and wiser" philosophy, any more, are we?

          "secret prisons? You don't think that they existed before Bush???" -- Again, well as long as the last guy did it...
    • ritter99, on 02/02/2008, -8/+5guns don't kill people, politicians don't kill people. it's people who kill people and no new president is gonna change that
      • wellyuk, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3guns don't kill people, rappers do.
      • ronnijoe, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Yeah it is people who kill people, but it'd be more sporting if you had to chase them down with a knife, or know how to use a bow n arrow. Instead of just goin to a pawn shop and buying an automatic and mowin em down! Oh forgive me I forgot , that's my constitutional right..
    • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -13/+3@$%! the world!
    • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -18/+4I voted for Bush and I'd do it again if they threw someone like Kerry, Gore, Hillary, or Obama up against him.
      • JoeRW, on 02/02/2008, -0/+11Fortnately it's impossible.
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Is there a Democrat you do like, and would vote for?
        • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2I voted for Joe Lieberman and Richard Blumenthal in the last election.
      • altinnovation, on 02/02/2008, -0/+10You wouldn't vote for someone just because they're a democrat? You shouldn't be allowed to vote because the person you voted for ***** up America you idiot.
        • jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2***** you. I would rather not see socialized medicine and I want someone who will remain strong on foreign policy. How exactly is America ***** up and why the hell should you care, being a Canadian? People like you really need to stop meddling in American affairs.
      • Elranzer, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5jcm267 basically just outed himself as a traitor right here and now.
        • jcm267, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I'm amazed that you got dugg up. This is the same behavior that you morons were crying about when people would tell you that you are un-American for not supporting Bush just a few years ago. This is delicious hypocrisy. Bravo, diggers!
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Then thank the heavens it isn't possible. The rest of the world can heave a sigh of collective relief.
    • sinurgy, on 02/02/2008, -13/+11Saying people who voted for Bush are stupid is a little over generalizing don't ya think? I voted for Bush and I'd put my IQ up against yours any day. Not that I'm special by no means but I'm certainly not on the left side of the bell curve. However I readily admit that I made a stupid choice in retrospect but at the time I went with whom I thought was best. Winning and therefor ending the war was very important to me and like many people I was leery of switching horses mid stream as they say. This wasn't an easy decision for me as I absolutely hate the religious right having a say in anything. However I voted in Bush because frankly, I thought he would kick ass and take names. At the time that was what I really cared about, bringing the troops home via a victory. Well not only did he NOT kick any ass, he took the worst possible approach which was do just enough to not lose "the war" but not enough to win it either. Basically he took the Vietnam approach and I couldn't be more disappointed. I'd be the first to admit I was very short sighted and made a big mistake. I'd do just about anything to take back my vote and give it to Kerry but to say I must be stupid because I voted for Bush last election is...well...stupid!
      • mOdQuArK, on 02/02/2008, -3/+18Let me get this straight: your so-called intelligence led you to believe that voting for someone who would "kick ass and take names" was a good idea.

        Never mind that he was "kicking ass and taking names" in a country that didn't have anything to do with the original set of terrorists that attacked us.

        Never mind that he was kicking the ass & taking the names of Iraqi civilians who didn't have anything to do with the U.S. or terrorists until we started bombing them, then occupying their country.

        Never mind that he's blowing trillions of dollars of taxpayer monies, both current & in the future by adding to the National Debt, with very little control or oversight.

        And the only criticism you can come up with is that he didn't go "far enough" to win?

        Do you seriously think that making a decision to vote for Bush on that basis makes you look intelligent?!
        • sinurgy, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1I'd let you but I don't think you'd get it straight regardless. After all it's pretty clear from your post you never had any intention of doing so. You're being deliberately obtuse in order to go on a rant. I'm proud of ya!
        • mnmleon, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5lol destroyed
        • Firgof, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4He wasn't obtuse at all, sinurgy. That was, in fact, very clear and concise.
          • sinurgy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Sure it was clear and concise because he at best ala carted my comments to suit his rant and at worst made insinuations on my part that simply were not true (as if that is the only criticism I could come up with for Bush). Let alone acknowledging that I made it very clear that I made a mistake and regretted it. There was zero attempt to see where I was coming from but whatever, I'm not going to argue on the internet with a bunch hindsight scholars. Go ahead digger lemmings, digg me down!
        • dbradley96, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3I thought he was very clear and effective at explaining your rational, or rather lack of it. owned.
          • sinurgy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Oh well if you thought so then it surely must be true!
    • addiktion, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1There was some slight rigging on Bushes part in all cases but none the less a majority of the people wanted Bush and Dick.
      • johnn11238, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Nope. They did not win a majority in 2000, only the most electorals. Short memory??
        • Tamisin, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2read the constitution, that is our system, you don't like it? work to change it.
        • MrSir, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1hell yea, personally i dont mind that particular system, but i remember either the constitution or the declaration of independence says that government derives its power from the people. that is, we give them power, so why don't we act like it. and by the way, why do the anti-bush people resort to sensationalist words like regime. you can't have a regime in someplace that has elections.
    • temjrpgh, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3"gullible" is the word he might have been looking for. Regrettably, I fell for the same trap. Never again. I will distrust authority, and sekk out the motivations for every action of government. I'll never relinquish my responsibility as a citizen again.....and I'll never listen to the network news again.
      The Bush regime is evil. It is in service to itself, bankers, and corporations. Put your pride away and realize this stark fact.
    • johnn11238, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2So did the voters put him in office, or are the elections rigged? You can't have it both ways.
    • badjokes, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3bush didn't just pop up out of nowhere and convince everyone to go along with all the ***** up ***** that has happened. the problem runs deeper than just the bush administration. there are other bigger players, banks, corporations, military contractors, etc.
  • ramong, on 02/02/2008, -21/+72The good news is the he HAS to go and I highly doubt another republican will win. The powers that be will still control the USA and the world, it will just seem like their power will be slightly limited once a democrat takes power. The real question is: will Bush & pals ever be taken to court for lying about the war, for profiting from it, mass murder, UN violations, promoting torture, etc. etc.?
    • ronpaul20008, on 02/02/2008, -20/+34the bad news is the democrat replacing him will continue the same policies...
      • koko775, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9God damn. Why do people like you always get dugg up? To hell with your cynicism, if you think they're all the same anyway, then put your head deeper into that hole or actually inform your opinion with some research. Democrats will not continue the same policies. There won't be a revolution either, but it's not 'all the same'. Some of the candidates actually, you know, have principles.
        • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1
          different policies, same outcome in the end....bankrupt.

          To hell with republicans and democrats...vote third party.
        • Bhima, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I dugg him up because he is right.

          Are the front runners going to end the occupations? End warrant-less wiretapping? Extreme Renditions? Close Gitmo? Bring back Habeas Corpus? Get the spending in line with tax revenue? Fix the various aging and inadequate infrastructures?

          Or are we just going to have the same *****?
    • Mothrog, on 02/02/2008, -4/+20"The good news is the he HAS to go and I highly doubt another republican will win."

      Wait until the Hildebeast gets the nomination. The DNC has a bad habit of taking elections handed to them on a silver platter and flushing them down the drain.
      • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -5/+5It doesn't matter whether the woman or the black guy get the nomination because the public isn't going to elect either of them. Get used to the sound of 'President McCain.' Now if he only knew the difference between Germany and the Russian Federation...
      • Bear101160, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Unfortunately I must agree. Neither will win the general election.
    • nastronomical, on 02/02/2008, -14/+7When you have you can prove all the crap you mention above then lets see a trial.
    • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -10/+4Either potential Republican outpolls either Democrat. Why would you "highly doubt" another Republican will win? We're a long way from the general election, but the Democrats have their work cut out.
      • wastelander, on 02/02/2008, -3/+0Not really.. only McCain looks to be slightly ahead, but its more or less a dead heat against either Clinton or Obama. Chucklehead, and especially Romney, are significantly behind both. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
    • fuzzynyanko, on 02/02/2008, -6/+4I doubted that Bush would win in 2004... but considering his opponent... However, what it came down to for some people: they didn't like Kerry's wife and didn't want her as 1st lady.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2How funny liberal assume that conservatives had a problem with Ms Heinz-Kerry. She was amusing to say the least and harmless, besides the bad hair day looks that helped harpoon her husbands chances. Liberals are very "looks oriented" just see how they react to Hollywood stars....
        John Kerry was a chronic lier, far worse than Bill Clinton. Shooting an unarmed Vietnamese child in the back so that he can look a heroic warrior, penning himself a letter for a purple heart received while shooting at a rock...
    • MadEnvoy, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8He doesn't necessarily "have to go". All he has to do is declare another war and then declare martial law and he can stay in power until he feels he's finished.
      http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911
      • MrSir, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1yes he does have to go in my opinion. you can't dispose of the constitution in a time of emergency. People do, but its stuff that that starts a rebellion. ie. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" US Declaration of Independence.

        But Bush's "Offenses" are not worthy of court compared to other people, so i wish people would stop throwing that word around like it was 3 years ago when he was reelected. He may have done us wrong, but personally, i don't think he acts like what a "republican" should be like Not that i am one, i am just for a smaller government than we have now, but i don't see anyone who will actually do that for us in a not-reckless way. and the UN is a giant joke. thats why the USA doesn't do things by UN rules.
        • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2He could, but I very much doubt that he would survive the ensuing uprising.
          • Bhima, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3The only thing that's going to cause an uprising in the US is $10.00 per Gallon gas and $15.00 Cheeseburgers.
    • DerangedPenguin, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Given the Democrats poor showing of potential presidential candidates: One senator from New York who is about as likable as a porcupine on a bad hair day, with looks, like an evil step mother from Cinderella, remember looks are everything to the left. One has only to look at who is held in high esteem by the left, actors and models from Hollywood, John Edwards with his gorgeous hair. The other Senator, in case you didn't notice is black, Remember it was the Democrats in the south and north, who did their best in the 19501s and 1960's to keep "Them peoples" from moving up in society. It was only after Republicans threatened the Democrat power base and rammed through the Affirmative Action bills that President Johnson (D) signed into law allowing peoples of all descents and nationalities equal rights. No I can just see Senator Byrd (D) plotting away in some smoke filled back room with his white hooded friends how to derail Barack Obama. I think the Democrats are going to have a very rough election this year. Oh don't forget Senator Clinton's husbands comment "We need to slow down the economy to save the world..." This is going to go over real well with liberal minded business leaders and Wall Street speculators.
    • gypsi, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3as much as i loathe it, the republicans will win with any candidate they put out or the dems can't win with hillary. sorry folks.
  • jphicks, on 02/02/2008, -13/+139"People all around the world are pretty worried. They want a president who will restore a kind of U.S. legitimacy in the world." They are not alone. We all do.
    • Richandler, on 02/02/2008, -10/+12Too bad it's looking like 2008 will not be that year.
    • Audacitor, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10That's why the quote mentions "people all around the world".
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -12/+7That's too bad... .Because we're voting to Bomb-a Pakistan.

      But seriously. If any of you bothered to investigate vote fraud, you'd see that this is not your system, and it's practically impossible for any candidate who is not mainstream to gain recognition that they should get. The media is only propping up criminals with records so dirty they are obviously being manipulated and blackmailed from behind the scenes. If you think the Elite Regime is going to end, and that your president is really running the shots, I have a 14 year old I want you talk to. That's how old I was when I realized this wasn't an open, free system.

      How about you?
      • nirav72, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3yet you had no problem when the country elected someone that bombed another country that wasn't a threat to us?
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3Who is "you"? I was only 16 when we invaded Iraq. I opposed it then because our military was too powerful, and there was absolutely no way that the intelligence they brought that Saddam was intent on attacking the U.S was accurate. I had no idea that they were simply manufacturing the documents then, but I'd investigated Hussein. I found that he had a photographic memory and was something of a Savant when he was younger, attaining power by THE CIA. That and the weapons he had we'd given him. I knew all that. Because of that, I knew he would NEVER attempt to attack the U.S. Whether we were bombing him for 11 years or not, which we were, it doesn't matter. His M.O would be to sell out and gain the support of the U.S. He had NO idea we were going to invade, and nor did I. I didn't know what the hell we were doing, but I knew then that a conspiracy was afoot. If you know anything about our technological capabilities, you'd understand what I mean. So yeah, I was also only 13 when we elected Bush, and to be honest, I didn't know or undertand the system, only hearsay. I had no responsibility in the errors of my predecessors. I'm just becoming the age required to vote. I never was, originally, going to vote, because every one of them would be as despicable as the next.
    • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -13/+2I for one dont give a #@!$ what the world thinks.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10That's funny, because the world that you don't give a #@!$ about is paying your bills. Their hard labor at the boot of oppression to keep the loans and cheap goods coming is the only reason you can afford those Khaki's and metrosexual hairdo's ya fruit.
      • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -11/+1Im just trying to figure out why I should care.
        • JoeRW, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2You dont have to, but it's no trouble.
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3The rest of the world at least has an interest in politics outside their immediate sphere, you bumbling and insular fool. Fortunately, you and your ilk are a dying breed -- Obama (and the people who support him) is restoring my faith in America and its people.

        You're an idiot and an ignorant disgrace to your country.
      • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Democrats believe they are the cure. I believe you don't aren't *****. Besides as I recall democrats had this same cocky attitude in last presidential election look where that got them then.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6USA.. The country that largely loathes itself. Hopefully we can change that.. yes..we..can..? Damn you Obama and your message pounding into my skull!
  • chrisk9, on 02/02/2008, -15/+6Good riddance
    http://www.digg.com/politics/The_End_of_Cowboy_Dip ...
  • captainpugwash, on 02/02/2008, -13/+7there will be one hell of a party no mater who gets in , perhaps with the exception of the Huckster
    my vote ( as a non American ) would probably be for obama
    see http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
  • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -14/+17It's not ending.
    • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -2/+12Exactly. We built permanent bases in Iraq. Anyone who claims that a vote for them is a vote for ending the occupation is lying.
      • mmortal03, on 02/02/2008, -7/+17Except for Ron Paul.
        • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -4/+8That's like saying, "Except for Neil Patrick Harris!" They both have about the same chance of being our next president.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -5/+5RR... I think you need to slap yourself. If you recognize that the only person running for president who is going to have the backbone and power to reverse the current trend is someone who is an underdog, why would you automatically be pessimistic towards that person? Ron Paul has cured most of our apathy. You become powerful once you decide to become active and speak out. It's like waking up after a long 20 year coma and realizing.... Holy *****... EVERYBODY! STOP WHERE YOU ARE! THERE ARE ACTUALLY ***** ALIENS WALKING AROUND THE STREETS TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO!

          that's an analogy to the fact that there are evil elites controlling the world, I don't believe in aliens, but you get the point.
          • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7Hey, I'm all for change. I just realize that there's absolutely no way Ron Paul can win the election.
    • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2People don't care, they love war! If they really didn't, they'd be looking long and hard for alternatives, wouldn't they? A little clickety click and kapow!, some real common sense pops it head out from the crowd.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2It's scheduled to end in 2012. Talk to your local Mayan today.
  • ussoldier, on 02/02/2008, -15/+78They may be gone, but the massive amounts of damage remain. Its like after a nuclear blast has occurred. You're glad its over, but what you're left with isn't very repairable. Millions of dead bodies, scorched earth, flattened buildings, and land that will be radioactively poisoned for decades to come.

    No, we'll be cursing about Bush and his assholes 50 years from now.... the damage has be catastrophic.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5We won't be here in 50 years if we don't vote for the right president this time around. We're looking at a scientific dictatorship if we vote for someone who is in SUPPORT OF TH ESTATUS QUO, LIKE real ID etc, , or we're looking at a long hard depression followed by a chance to gain our country back if we vote for someone who is willing to reverse this trend, and do all the necessary things to restore our image, economy and military.
      • Khannea, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4I think it sunk in just how horrible this Presidency was. Now let's realize behind this man is a distinct apparatus of evil. Let's move ahead and dismantle that.
    • ladalang, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5I talked to a complete idiot yesterday who actually said Bush would be known as the best president this nation has ever had. I asked, do you ever go on the Internet? He said no. How somebody could actually say that with a straight face is beyond me. Thank God what comes out of a person's mouth speaks volumes of how stupid they are. Easy to identify the liabilities.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately in this case, the nuclear blast will be going on for 50 years. Bush isn't going to leave office. This group of fascist elites have ruled and manipulated the government for a century. What makes you think it's going to end now.
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Simply arrest him (and his ***** government) when he's out of office, try them all and let them rot in Gitmo.
    • queenstarsha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1strategery note:
      "bush and his assholes"=republicans.
  • morningmatters, on 02/02/2008, -9/+62While it's true that Americans are often not on the same page as rest of the world, most Americans will celebrate with the world when the Bush regime finally comes to an end.
    • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3Thank god we're still smart enough to revolt if they try to change term limits.
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -4/+7Thank god we're still smart enough to revolt if they try to to vote in Hillary!
      • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Dugg up, but that implies the people revolt if they pick anyone but you know who.
      • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Yeap, just think, the events going on in Kenya today are a prelude to what may likely come to be in the US in less than 11 months...
    • xsquirrel378x, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2just for fun, a look back at approval percentages (bush is last)

      http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/i ...
    • mufasa, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5I think we should celebrate all around the world when GWB leaves the white house, with fireworks and whatnot.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2He's not ***** leaving! The fascist rulers don't leave! They've controlled us for a century!
  • romistrub, on 02/02/2008, -9/+48+1 from Canada
    • pell, on 02/02/2008, -4/+6Agreed
    • goldpress, on 02/02/2008, -3/+13I may relocate my +1 to Canada depending on who is elected!
      • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -10/+1@$%^ canada. @$%^ you.
        • COINTELPROAgent, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Translation: ***** Canada, ***** that guy ^
        • crowbar77, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4It doesn't matter, if your economy goes down so does ours. It's disturbing how many people don't realize this and ask me why I care about American politics.

          So far Ron Paul is the candidate that's impressed me the most, mostly because of how direct he is when asked a question. He'll explain why the current system isn't working, how to fix it and often use history to back up his claim. That and his views on Foreign Policy obviously.
        • hplasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2***** off, troll.
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1And stay there we dont want you her.
    • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -14/+2I for one dont give a #@@! what Canada thinks.
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10What about the entire world's opinion of your country? Wouldn't it be nice to take pride in your country AND have the rest of the world look up to you again?
      • LukasSmith, on 02/02/2008, -7/+2#$%@ the world!
        • wellyuk, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Why does no one else around the world have such an arrogant, self righteous attitude? I have met many great American people but they're overshadowed by the idiots and arseholes such as yourself.
        • themoors, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Nah, Lukas just wants for ***** everything.
        • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2I think we have already been doing that.....
        • hplasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Mommy won't like it if you use *real* naughty words, will she?
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Lukas, stop acting like an obnoxious and ignorant *****. You're embarrassing your countrymen.
    • DerangedPenguin, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1You need to post this in both English and French, Oh and my mother didn't have to wait in line for breast cancer surgery and is now in full remission with no signs after 7 years of cancer.
  • wishninja, on 02/02/2008, -20/+15I think it will not be a big deal. Maybe good for the world but america will be no better off. Millions of people will still be in jail for smoking weed. I will still be franticly looking over my shoulder everytime I pass a cop on the interstate. All the front runners love the patriot act and will no doubt use it to catch nonviolent drug offenders. When they bring the military back home they are all going to be ***** up in the head and ready to breed another generation of abused children. The murder rate is going to climb and the election is going to produce a whole new set of gun grabbers. We will be stuck with a supreme court that will force anyone to get a drug test to go to school or get our brand new national ID chip implants. They will legitimize the illegals guaranteeing them a monthly welfare check. On one hand the if we are lucky the Dems will spend and tax us to death but maybe we will avoid a war with Iran. If we elect the Pugs its off to Iran to save the Jews with more spending all on our children's future. Maybe Ron Paul will let me crash at his place.
    • guestworker, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3Answer: Get off the drugs.
      • hplasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1That's half of the govt taken care of then; what about the rest?
    • Nougat, on 02/02/2008, -6/+2http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Some_Hippie
    • Khannea, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3And yes, you are right. Poeple who digged you down just didn't read. You are right. How about holding people accountable. I think a court case for high treason (=firing squad) wouldn't be a bad idea? Why not drag the cesspit open and expose precisely who did what. Clean the house.
    • sammypai, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4this was the best comment i've read all day. why did this get dugg down!?
  • londubh, on 02/02/2008, -9/+27It won't end! It'll just take a new name. It'll become the Hillary regime. Do you think she'll give up all that sweet sweet usurped power when she takes office?
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6After all she is qualified for the presidency because she slept with the president for 6 years!
    • Branyers, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5The Clinton Dynasty - reattained by Hillary and continued by Bill.

      12 years of the Bushes and at least 12 years of the Clintons = 25 years of the same *****.
    • ronnijoe, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0Amen!!!!!!
  • Richandler, on 02/02/2008, -11/+26We'll still have military bases in 130 countries and we'll still be borrowing money from Saudi Arabia and China. We'll still be in Iraq and our national debt and federal government will still grow. Nothing is going to change much.
    • bullcutter, on 02/02/2008, -6/+7this isn't necessarily true, especially after a year or two
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7what we need to do is stop feeding the terrorists by buying ther gas. Stop the importing altogether. We will at that point start to fix our importing crisis - I think that this is the only way to stop polution and money leaving the country.
    • mOdQuArK, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Things will definitely change when the other countries stop lending the U.S. money. That kind of change is highly likely to be very, very, painful.
  • Durb, on 02/02/2008, -12/+8The US is excited!
    • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8Yes, but we're bickering over which wolf gets to eat the lamb. (clue... we're the lamb)
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3why are we excited? because are taxes will soon go up if there is a Demecratic President?
      • gak001, on 02/02/2008, -2/+31. A tax raise is not guaranteed. In fact, most democrats support a tax break for the middle class.
        2. Would you prefer tax-and-spend that exercises fiscal responsibility without sacrificing government services or the borrow-and-spend policies of the Republican party that poses a national security threat when countries like China and Saudi Arabia own all of our debt?
        3. Learn how to spell "democratic" and the difference between "our" and "are." Your comment makes you seem barely literate.
      • Khannea, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I am European - I DON'T CARE. If ya don't like it why dont you go after the bastards who facilitated it, sue them procecute them, strip them clean of all worldly belongings and execute them? It's not like a court case wouldn't stick, right? High treason yanno?
        • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Good luck getting that to happen. LOL Washington doesn't represent the American people.
      • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2yow! I'm not excited about democrats. I'm realistic, but I wish all you people would research and extrapolate in your brains the future with Ron Paul. The world would not end AND we'd not have some ***** or ***** in the Whitehouse. I know, I'm asking too much.
      • queenstarsha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1god you're stupid.

        do you know why taxes have to go up? because bush borrowed a bunch of money from china and gave it to halliburton.

        democrats take the blame by raising taxes because unlike republicans, they actually give a ***** about our future.
  • kylere, on 02/02/2008, -8/+30Honestly, compared to most of the States, the rest of the world will only be moderately pleased when Bush is gone.
    • savagesteve13, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8Europe and Russia are just being courteous. They don't want to say to our face that the Bush Regime are a bunch of idiots, so they will quietly wait until Dubya is sent back home to his ranch...or to a war crimes tribunal depending on how things go.
    • Khannea, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9I live in The Hague and I say we are ready! Bring it on!
      • themoors, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Not going to happen. The US operates outside of international law.
    • DemDude, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6The rest of the world is standing with it's breath stopped, waiting for what will happen. Very much more than diplomatic and economic relations are at stakes. The decision is muche more than who becomes the next president, the decision is when the third world war begins. Vote for a republican, and he will begin the third world war RIGHT NOW.
  • Mustard911, on 02/02/2008, -46/+22Lets hope Ron Paul can do it.

    Obama is for Britney Spears type voters and wont do anything as he's corrupt himself. Hillary, well we already know she's a witch. And McCain well he's also tied to criminal Zionists, like Obama and Hillary.
    • zephyear, on 02/02/2008, -14/+11get off my internet.
    • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -10/+14And Ron Paul is another fundamentalist christian with a social agenda that includes limiting our right to privacy.
      • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Outright lie...
        • JoeVet, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Here's my evidence: The We the (Christian) People Act sponsored by Ron Paul
          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
          I await your rebuttal. Your last one was so elegant.
          • cmackattack, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1An invalid bill ID was specified in the URL.
        • cmackattack, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I found the bill for you; and after I read it I see that this has nothing to do with your slanted post. This bill is inline with his ideas of limited government at the federal level and giving power back to the States. That IS what it is about, liar.

          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
        • JoeVet, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1The bill specifically forbids the supreme court from hearing any case involving state and local government establishing a religion, any case involving the right to privacy, and any case involving equal protection under the law. The bill clearly is written to deprive individuals from protection from states and local governments who enact religious law. If this bill passes not only do we lose all rights to privacy but state and local governments can discriminate based on religious affiliation or lack thereof. To clear that last part up, If you do not belong to the state established religion then they can deny you all rights. The idea of limiting government is always good except when it is done to limit individual rights. If this bill passes not only do we lose our constitutionally given right to religious freedom, right to privacy and right to equal protection, we lose all our rights. If a simple majority can change the bill of rights by simply limiting our legal options, then they can limit our ability to fight any absurd edict they decide to pass. This bill could have just as easily said that the Supreme court can not hear cases involving possession of weapons and the states then can take away our right to bear arms and we have no recourse. So call me a liar all you want. I can read and what this bill does is ***** all over our constitutionally protected rights.
          • cmackattack, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1
            Okay, okay...I see...you are now going to blame potential State and local corruption on Ron Paul whom has no say in that state or local governance. That's brilliant. What a douche you are man.

            Anyone that believes that corruption only occurs at state and local levels and it is not possible at the federal level is completely ignorant. Anyone that believes they need the federal government to protect them from anything and everything deserves the "protection" you will soon be receiving. I don't!

            Please stop spreading lies. Please put the blame on wrongs where they are deserved; at the source of the problem. I am really tired of people copping out...
          • JoeVet, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1This has nothing to do with states versus federal. This has to do with individual inalienable rights of each citizen and Ron Paul's attempt to limit those rights by transfering them from personal control to state control. There is no way you can tell me that by giving up my rights to the state that they will be better protected. It is an idiot who would vote to take away his own liberty and you sir are that idiot. Its sad to see the evidence of our poor education system.
          • cmackattack, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1You twist words more than any weasel...no one said to give up individual rights to a state...and yes, this is about states rights versus federal. Why would you think it is right for federal government to ***** on individuals, but wrong only when its state or local government??? I should just read your post and turn the content around 180 degrees and that might be closer to the truth; much like Fox News. It is indeed sad to see the evidence of your poor education and/or outright deviant actions here of spreading a complete distortion of the facts.
          • JoeVet, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1What do you think prohibiting individuals from bringing cases to the supreme court is all about if not banning protection of their individual rights? This bill gives the states total control over matters of religion, privacy and equal protection by denying individuals legal recourse through constitutional review by the supreme court. This does nothing to limit federal power except to forbid the court from protecting individuals. The wording is quite plain in this bill and your argument has no merit. Paul's motives are clear with this bill. Not only does he want this bill to over turn Roe V. Wade but he wants it so he can establish a state religion, pass laws allowing invasion of privacy to ensure religious doctrines are followed, and to be able to discriminate against those that don't follow that religion. Its written in plain English, unfortunately blind loyalty prevents you from understanding it. Your a typical Ron Paul groupy. Now run along and go join Scientology. I hear they are a great place for your type of blind believer.
          • cmackattack, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1180
    • Daedalus81, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5That's the wrong way to do it man.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -8/+7You lost people when you said Zionist. And then you insulted the Obama cultists who are NEVER changing their votes. They're crazy. Other than that, you're right. There really isn't ANYTHING you can do to discredit *accurately* Ron Paul. Believe me. I've checked into him. I've hoped i'd find like... at least a child rape victim in his closet or something. ANYTHING. This guy is like what people *imagine* the Pope to be.
    • Branyers, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5Digg was owned by Ron Paul followers for quite a while. Now it belongs to Obama. After that, who knows??
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Oh look, it's the usual low-grade Mustard911 fayre.
  • lukeydukey, on 02/02/2008, -17/+6Man you know your country had a big impact on the entire world if they're excited for your president to step down.
    • sbgskl, on 02/02/2008, -3/+12Thank you Captain Obvious.
    • peranadigital, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Everyone agreed Germany had quite the impact on the world in the 40s too you know. It's not neccessarily something to be proud of, especially when the rest of the world is waiting for your leader to be removed from office.
  • mrASSMAN, on 02/02/2008, -8/+35America is excited for the Bush regime to end..

    Personally, I'm going to throw the biggest party ever and run through the streets screaming with glee on the day he steps out of the white house.
    • Khannea, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8DO SO PUBLICLY. Tarnish the reputation of this beast by making a public spectacle of it. Sully the name of Bush for generations. Erect monuments to this stupidity and vileness. Expose him fully. DO NOT FORGET AFTER YOUR NEXT CHEESEBURGER.
    • absurdist, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3You're going to have to go like hell to beat the party we had when Nixon was forced out of office. But then, Ford pardoned him, and it was back to business as usual. They rely on the short memories of the public. Never Forget.
    • stuckinOK06, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3We should plan a national Mardi Gras-type parade on Inauguration day. I can't wait. As much as I don't like a few of the candidates, the worst candidate in this election (Dem or Rep) would be 10x better than the current stubborn, ignorant, pathologically arrogant *****.
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Every country around the world should celebrate Bush's eviction as a national holiday :)
  • sbgskl, on 02/02/2008, -15/+9Many diggers think you should learn to start sentences with different words. Is that a terrible attempt at AP-style or what? Reminds me of Wikipedia writing.
    • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9Well, if you start a sentence with "many" you don't have to do any research, since no matter what follows there will be a group of people that holds that view. It's called lazy opinion journalism.
      • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Actually it's called FOX JOURNALISM
  • goldenhearted, on 02/02/2008, -8/+37To be more accurate, America is excited that there's a possibility that having presidents with Bush and Clinton in their name for almost 2 decades is about to end.

    Dammit, I hope it will end.
    • TrevorPace, on 02/02/2008, -7/+2You know that is really a rather ignorant comment. I don't necessarily support Clinton...but I do consider her a good Candidate.
      I think it is stupid for you to tie in potentially four presidents just because the current one is THE worst president in history.
      • spawnfree, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6shes a corporate shill and you know it.
        they are all corporate agents and the popular ones that are not get shot.

    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I thought that was clinton?
  • rory096, on 02/02/2008, -12/+4Dugg for accurate title and description, exactly reflecting what the article says.

    Oh wait.
    • rory096, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1This is where you digg me down for pointing out a bias that you (and, admittedly, I) agree with. And.... go!
  • CMiYC, on 02/02/2008, -2/+52Over the past couple of months I visited 8 or 9 different countries (in Europe and Asia). What shocked me is how many people wanted to know what I thought of the candidates for America's next president. Many times I was told, "we're probably more interested in your next president than you are..."
    I take that back. I was not shocked. In fact, I was embarrassed.
    November can't come fast enough.

  • dizilbdog, on 02/02/2008, -7/+12I'd Like Some Cuban Rum and Cigars is that o.k???
  • Dudeee, on 02/02/2008, -19/+13NO ONE WILL

    Ron paul means it in his heart to change things, but even if he won he'd need a lot of candidates like him in congress and senate to change things.

    and thats the same for obama if he isn't a corrupt liar like i think.
    • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1We'll find out. Swoon people, swoon good.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -4/+8"if he isn't a corrupt liar like i think."

      He is. Nothing will change but the skin tone of the president and the painting of the White house to Moca Brown.
      • JoeVet, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Another white nationalist for Ron Paul.
  • LeadOffMan, on 02/02/2008, -17/+8and even more excited about their new president Ron Paul
    • Flam16, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0Uhm sorry to say this but he won't get in,
      dont get me wrong i would love to see him in office,
      but it wont happen, americans would rather see mccain or clinton in sadly
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Try to stay with us, here in reality. Ron Paul is a nice guy, but he has zero chance of getting in. Face it.
  • ceredron, on 02/02/2008, -11/+36***** Bush.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2With a tire Iron.

      ....Or Jeff Gannon... Whichever is appropriate.
    • nastajus, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4I would like him to hear that every day for the rest of his life.
  • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -18/+10Hey, why don't we let the rest of the world vote for who they'd like to be president of our country?
    • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -6/+11They can't do worse than we did!
    • powatom, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5Makes sense, America's choice in president affects us quite a lot.
    • cmackattack, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I'd love that idea, cause then we'd get Ron Paul...as they are not sheep swayed by the main stream media...
  • yujie, on 02/02/2008, -5/+4So its the beginning of the end or the other way around?
  • cyb3rdemon, on 02/02/2008, -19/+3Yeah, right. Why would countries want their competition to succeed? Many are probably sad that now the US will be progressing again instead of regressing.
    • rory096, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8Yeah, because a strong trading partner is bad for a country. You clearly have a strong grasp of basic economic principles.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Holy *****, you are a ***** moron! Bush has driven this country into economic disaster - you don't think countries around the world felt that? When America goes into a depression, the world goes into a depression. They do NOT want us to fail. "READ A ***** BOOK!" (Ryan Verniere)
  • krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -2/+13It's going to take more than one term just to unbugger everything Bush touched, and most of the candidates running are all about doing less of that than they want you to believe. Also keep in mind you got the same asshat corrupt lobbied Congress to deal with. There's a lot more voting out yet to be done.
  • linuxrebel, on 02/02/2008, -10/+6As much as I can hope otherwise. I'm still not convinced there will be elections held in November, and if they are there won't be an inauguration in Jan. Bush has the plans in place to usurp power one more time.
    • rory096, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4Right...
    • badqat, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7You're silly...take your tin-foil hat and crawl back under your rock.
    • bullcutter, on 02/02/2008, -3/+5NO really guys, he's going to unzip his human skin to reveal a Lizard Person, whose race has been quietly enslaving mankind (with the help of the Bildebergers of course), and announce his plans of world domination on the eve of the election.
    • HankHill, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3You are an idiot.
    • absurdist, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1If Bush was stupid or power-mad enough to try such a stunt (and I don't for minute think he might not try it), I think the army would simply hand him his ass as they threw him out bodily. There are still enough officers who realize that the oath they swore was to protect and defend the constitution, not the Bush crime family.
  • Vector713, on 02/02/2008, -11/+70Worst. President. Ever.
    • d0onut, on 02/02/2008, -9/+2I see what you did there.
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Man... I see what you did there HAS to rank up there with MADNESS... THIS IS SPARTA as the lamest, most over-used response on Digg.
  • rdldr1, on 02/02/2008, -9/+25Bush will come down as the worst president the US has ever had. The US is WORSE off now than it was before he took office. Good riddance, I hope someone offs him.
    • mete85, on 02/02/2008, -8/+4You must not have been around when Carter was president!!!
    • likesoy, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4Ignorant AND offensive. Nice.
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4But only to 30-odd percent of Americans. Checked the chimp-in-chief's approval ratings lately.
    • nirav72, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5Yeah, but carter tried to make up for it after he left office by attempting something good. He's still trying. Habitat for humanity is one thing. I doubt GW will leave his ranch after leaving office.
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3hmm which Presidents were Impeached? Especially with a Congress controlled by the other party?
      • JoeVet, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Yes getting BJ while in office is sooo much worse than starting an illegal war, spying on the American people and torturing political detainees.
  • badqat, on 02/02/2008, -19/+4Who really gives a flying foo what the rest of the world thinks? Not this American.

    That being said, I am looking forward to a new administration, as long as it isn't a hildabeast or McCain administration...ugh...
    • nhaas, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2cool commnet, I really do agree - I want someone with change, not a liar, or a cheat - hmm that will not happen.
    • absurdist, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6I have a feeling that when the rest of the world says "enough, already," and stops the supply of cheap consumer goods, calls in all the loans the US has outstanding, and turns off the oil tap, you'll give a "flying foo." Idiot.
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2"Who really gives a flying foo what the rest of the world thinks? Not this American."

      A prime example of foreign policy that hasn't really worked for you in the past.
  • Look4Truth, on 02/02/2008, -5/+25End? Who do they think they're kidding? Clinton is going to continue the madness of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

    The parties are NO different at the top and both serve the global masters. Ann Coulter endorsing Clinton should be all the evidence you need.

    Wake up America! The media is owned by these fools and they're lying to you! Turn off Faux and CNN and learn the truth!
    • savagesteve13, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2I don't remember the clinton regime being THAT bad. The worst thing the GOP could come up with is blowjobs from fat jewish chicks. All Lewinsky got for her trouble are a few presidential coffee mugs and t-shirts.
    • johnn11238, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Obama 08. The ONLY SANE CHOICE.
      • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Obama 08. THE ONLY SANE CHOICE (if you want high taxes, a corporate Washington, big government, and a continuation of war).
      • Look4Truth, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Obama is CFR and also part of the global order. The only sane choice is Ron Paul because he's outside the NWO cage. Dennis Kucinich is also not NWO but he's out of the race which leaves Ron Paul. But make no mistake about it, they have no intention of letting Obama in there and never have, they want Hitlery. The media is going to whip up articles claiming that Hitlery and McCain are surging, mark my words. It will be Hitlery and McCain in the finals of this disgusting, fraudulent side show we call the "free" elections.

        It's all a scam and a farce.
  • bullcutter, on 02/02/2008, -4/+7whoever I talk to, there is this prevailing sentiment seemingly shared throughout most of the world: "Get this guy outta here!"
  • RATM4EVER, on 02/02/2008, -10/+6*****....

    I'm sure I'm not the only non-American that clicked this link and thought it was about the end of the girls not getting Brazilian waxes regime.
  • omnithought, on 02/02/2008, -7/+10As long as it's not the start of a Hillary or Huckabee Regime...
    I'd like to see Gravel win, but I'm realistic. So, it's Obama for me
    • queenstarsha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1remember than mccain is hillary with none of the health care, and way more christian conservatism. don't let the media convince you he's just a swell chap.
  • OC73, on 02/02/2008, -19/+10"The world" needs to spend more time worrying about their own leaders and quit opining as if we give a ***** what they have to say.

    In fact, we'll give a ***** what they have to say when they quit washing up on our shores.
    • gsadamb, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11You may find this hard to believe, but the majority of the world's citizens are not clamoring to emigrate to the US.

      But the actions of the US DO affect people across the world. That the American market slump has affected all the other markets is evidence of that. We also can seriously destabilize OR stabilize politics across the world with our foreign policy.
      • OC73, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2"You may find this hard to believe, but the majority of the world's citizens are not clamoring to emigrate to the US."

        Nonsense. All of Africa, India and China would come here tomorrow if they could. That right there is just about half of the world's population.

        -------------

        "But the actions of the US DO affect people across the world. That the American market slump has affected all the other markets is evidence of that. We also can seriously destabilize OR stabilize politics across the world with our foreign policy."

        Exactly. What we do matters. What "the world" says doesn't.

        If anything, they should actually try to do something instead of just bitching constantly. Probably the reason they don't is because they know they'll no longer be able to bitch once they have to show and prove.
    • antechinus, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8I have no desire to visit your ***** self absorbed third world police state again, let alone wish to live there.
    • p0windah, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10Being an Aussie that's lived/worked in asia for the last 6 years, I can assure you there is no mass desire from Chinese or Indians to emigrate to the US. Infact, many find the prospect of visiting such an oppressive country distasteful, even for short business trips.

      OC73, get over yourself mate.
    • StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Really? Then, perhaps the rest of the world will begin to "give a *****" what America has to say when it stops renditioning its POWs to other countries for "safe keeping."
    • praxisseizure, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1...............
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8I'm American, and I'm asking you to please shut the ***** up.
      No wonder everyone hates us.
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Thank you. I was just about to ask if there are any normal Americans here who were embarrassed by OC73 (probably his year of birth) and USMarinesTanker speaking for them. You, my friend, have restored my faith.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Congratulations, Lou Dobbs. You found out what the Internet is.
    • Gazoo2001, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4OC73 is pretty much the definition of an ugly American. No interest in being a member of a civilized world community at all.

      Crawl back into your egg sac, OC73, and let the adults talk for a while.
  • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -3/+47I recently returned from living 4 years abroad, in Europe. Everywhere I went, when people found out I was an American, they would furrow their brow and ask, "Do you like Bush?" When I said no, they'd grin and offer to buy me a drink. :)
    • oggydefl, on 02/02/2008, -18/+2I live abroad too as we speak and they love Bush here, so do I. Funny we haven't had a major terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.
      • gsadamb, on 02/02/2008, -2/+15You know, if everyone submitted to random searches of their properties, and agreed to have all their internet traffic and phone calls screened, we'd be safer. Is that the first and foremost goal? Security?

        A totalitarian state is as safe as they come.
      • radix2, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3Did you forget about the Anthrax?
      • fnpssdoff, on 02/02/2008, -1/+13Of course they said they said they loved Bush. They thought you were referring to pussy. Something must have gotten lost in translation.
      • StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Funny, we didn't have another major (excluding Oklahoma, which was Domestic-based) attack in the US after the first WTC bombing... until the second WTC "bombing." Brilliant "logic."
      • Ovalteen, on 02/02/2008, -1/+9They don't need another attack, the USA is still all tied up with the last one, and is quite happily wrecking itself with no further intervention from Uncle Osama.
        Why don't you go ask Bush what he's done to protect American values and the Constitution (remember, that "piece of paper" he swore to protect)?
    • oggydefl, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3I just thought it would be amusing to see Diggers go ape-*****. Thanks.
  • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -15/+6If the image of America is so damaged, why did France and Germany replace their anti-American leaders with pro-American?
    • krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -5/+6Those "leaders" are not pro-American, they're Bush sympathizers, and not very popular at home.
      • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Apparently popular enough to get elected. I wish I was that unpopular.
    • clupean, on 02/02/2008, -2/+6Sarkozy and Merkel were elected for their political program in their home country, not outside. It just happens they like America. Nothing wrong with that.
    • Goodanswer, on 02/02/2008, -7/+2Neither of those two answers are correct.
      They didnt elect them, they were SELECTED and put into place.
      The US and CIA have been doing this for decades in case you havent noticed yet.
      • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6Oh please. The CIA can't find its ass with both hands. The idea they're having any effect on elections in France or Great Britain is laughable.
        • themoors, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1No it takes a far more sinister organization to sway elections in the UK. Rupert Murdoch's NEWS CORPERATION!!
    • nirav72, on 02/02/2008, -1/+9"If the image of America is so damaged, why did France and Germany replace their anti-American leaders with pro-American?"

      Then why did Australia and England elect new leaders that aren't so Pro-American.
      • tsotha, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Gordon Brown is pretty pro-American, and according to my Aussie friends, as well as commenters here on Digg, Australia's relationship with the US was virtually unmentioned in the election that turned out Howard.
        • lovekudu, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Australia's relationship with the US was mentioned pretty much everyday during the Australian election in terms of us having soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kevin Rudd (the new PM) campaigned on the basis of getting our troops out of Iraq by a set date.
      • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Er ... we didn't elect Gordon Brown. He and Yo Blair cut a deal that didn't involve the UK as a whole.
        • tsotha, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0Some day I'm gonna have to figure out how your system works. Is this because Labour still has a majority in Parliament until elections are called?
          • iainc, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, you're quite correct. And Blair should have seen his term out as Prime Minister, or we should have had an election.
    • p0windah, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7tsotha, it's because you fail to grasp the difference between correlation and causality.
    • HellDonut, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Preparation for when Mr Bush is outside the office.
  • henryjw, on 02/02/2008, -22/+8I could really care less about some foreigner's input concerning our elections. They have not been doing such a great job with their own elections. They seem to hate our president, but they sure want to live here.......
    • radix2, on 02/02/2008, -5/+8I call bull. There is no way I have ever wanted to live in America. Never. So here is one foreigner who casts doubt upon your naive generalisation.
    • StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -2/+6Yes, listening to other people can be such a pain, sometimes. It is, truly, just best to ignore them. That's how we solve problems in America, we just ignore the opposition. Try arguing against their argument, not argue on the basis that they're a "foreigner" and you're a xenophobe.
    • KMartSheriff, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Stop being so ***** ignorant.

      /is American
    • blackmesa, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6God damn, you're embarrassing your country. Stop posting before you say something really bad.
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Specifically, who did you have in mind there. And, who the ***** wants to live in the US at the moment? When I fly to New Zealand, I head east from the UK and try to avoid even a transit landing in the US while Bush is in power.
  • Azerael, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4Another newsflash from the desk of Captain Obvious.
  • jwquinlan, on 02/02/2008, -12/+2The world is constantly changing and it's changed beyond hanging on every breath of the USA. Bush chose to respond to that by trying to force everyone onto our (US, Western) rules. The ways and people outside the US make up their own minds (or allow a dictator to make it for them), and aren't going to be changed by us from the outside. Without US force acting as "Emperor" of the world, it will desinigrate into a dark age. But let's hope people take western ideals to heart and change for the better, themselves.
    • peranadigital, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4What the hell are you talking about? Tthe rest of the world is better off without a superpower that randomly attacks unprovoked. Civilisation has been around a lot longer than the US, I think it'll carry on just fine.
  • Bittermanscolon, on 02/02/2008, -11/+5RP08 FTW guys, your Canadian buddies up here would likely agree that a BIG change like RP would be a good thing, not only for the US, but for the world. That or Barack, he seems like he might try and change things.
  • QuickeningYak, on 02/02/2008, -7/+4...and they damned well should be.
    • QuickeningYak, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Ok, look jackasses,
      I don't mean: "RAH RAH AMERICA !!!1 WE'RE NUMMMMER ONE!@# GO MAKE ME A SAMMICH!".
      I do mean: "It's reassuring that the rest of the world is as sick of the slow-motion train wreck that is the Bush Administration as are most Americans."

      Done.
  • kahrytan, on 02/02/2008, -15/+2If Democrats win, you can expect tax increases and funding to services to be cut. Because that is the democrat way of balancing the budget. Any democrat that promises health care or better education is lying through his or her teeth because they will cut funding to them to balance the budget.

    Want Proof? Look at Democrat history across the nation.
    • mete85, on 02/02/2008, -7/+3I can't believe how goofy our country has become. We used to take pride in our country. Now it seems that everyone is just tearing everyone else apart. Bush has kept us safe from terror attacks, regardless of what the "progressive" media tells you, he has done an OK job.
      He isn't perfect, no one is. If Hill or O win our country is headed right for socialism. They say they're for the middle class but all that will happen is the middle class will become the poor. Hold on, the roller coaster is headed for the plunge.
    • nirav72, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Right. Is that why when you republicans controlled every single branch of the government in this country. You still ***** it up! Ever had a budget surplus in the last 7 years ? I didn't think so.
      • kahrytan, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1Governments SHOULD NEVER HAVE A BUDGET SURPLUS. EVER. Governments should not make money from it's citizens. it's not a business.

        I am Republican/Constitutionist.
    • iainc, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Er ... America hasn't really prospered since the last Democrat government. Get your own ***** straight before to make yourself look stupid again.
  • S3dative, on 02/02/2008, -10/+14People who are still trying to pitch Ron Paul need to take a step back into reality. Seriously it is getting old coming into these threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him and seeing his name still. Sure he is a great guy but he is pretty much no chance at getting elected. It's going to be Romney or McCain so deal with it and vote Democrat in the general election.
    • emoneyd, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8I agree with you 100% and I am a supporter for Paul. But, even if his candidacy is a long shot he is still in the race and no media source even bothers to mention his name. I'd be willing to bet that most people over seas and many people here don't really know who this man is and what he stands for. Every candidate should receive equal coverage. No matter how much I believe the media has overwhelming influence in this race, Paul is at fault too. Of all the money he has raised I have never seen one campaign commercial for him on television. What is he doing with all of this money that people send him? Long story short I believe if he put himself and his message out there and more in the mainstream many more people would consider him. He is the only Republican I have ever considered voting for in my life.
      • savagesteve13, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7The problem with Ron Paul is that his GOP party are full of jesus monkey nut jobs. conservatives aren't welcome in that big tent anymore.
      • madroneDorf, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Ultimately the problem is with the constitution.

        The way elections were designed (first with the founding fathers, and later the amendments that the progressives added 90 years ago) [Irony being that its these progressives, who Paul supporters probably tend to disagree with their goals, were the ones who enable Paul to even run in the first place - as before, the party picked the canidate]) where there is no requirement to run, and in the case of Democrats and Republicans, being approved by the party (which essentially is just being a democrat or republican with some degree of support) is too wide open.

        People who advocate equal time for canidates forget their are some 47 indepedents running for President, should they get equal time?

        Obviously not, they dont have support built up.

        What is needed is actual requirements to run for President, and if those requirements are met, than to compel some sort of equality. (IE being in on all debates, the specifics are not important now, but rather the idea)

        For example the support of 500 elected officials (from any level) or a few million signatures, or some level where the individual has to have some degree of a support network built up, and some degree of support in the county.

        On a more realistic level, what is needed to be done is to get rid of the current debate council thing, and have organizations that ran it in the past pick it up agian. (IE the league of woman voters, who did a generally excellent job for the Presidential debates in the 70's an d 80's)
    • Goodanswer, on 02/02/2008, -4/+6Read the Ron Paul Forums a little closer.
      It was stated, that about a month ago, he was saving his money for this coming Tuesday and is starting a Super Blitz on commercials in the 24 states.
      That is why he hasn't spent the money. He needed to see the SEC filings of the other candidates to see where they stand and to let them run out of money getting deeper into debt or to drop out like Ghoualini and the rest.
      He has been playing this game against the Neo Cons for over 20 yrs.
      I pretty sure he is a wise old man that knows what he is doing.
      At the very least he certainly is grooming Rand Paul to take his place.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2I agree with you, but don't vote Democrat. If its McCain vs. Hillary, move.
    • stuckinOK06, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Digg isn't the only place for Ron Paul support - he's raised more $$ than any other Republican candidate in the past quarter - including Romney. (Romney's been spending his own cash.)

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02 ...
    • queenstarsha, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1he's not a great guy. he thinks black people belong in prison and women belong in the kitchen. i realize this is digg, so of course those are very popular sentiments. but they are not the sentiments of a "great guy." they're the sentiments of someone stuck in 1853 alabama.
  • seltaeb4, on 02/02/2008, -6/+10Forget the rest of the world, or even us at home. Bush himself knows he's blown it. You can see it in his face when he makes a public appearance. He just wants it to be over too, so he can get back to Nintendo and clearing brush at the ranch.
    • empty521, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3can't stop laughing man!
    • djpolaar, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8Wow - Bush knows how to play Nintendo! I guess I misunderestimated his computer skills.
    • AvangionQ, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Forgetting the rest of the world is how the Bush administration got into this mess into the first place ...
  • DeloreanDank, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1I'm voting Democrat in the general election no matter what. Democrat '08
  • 5xSTUN, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3If it gets to the point where someone is about to get elected who looks like he or she is going to cut into Halliburton et al's profits, Bush and Cheney will make sure they stay in office permanently.
    Be on the lookout for it... by the end of this year we will likely have a dissolved Congress and "President-for-Life Bush."
    All it'll take is another 9/11.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.