Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
bitCruncher
348 Followers
Richard McGinnis
832 Followers
Eric Davis
147 Followers
crymtyphon
744 Followers
robertbulwar
54 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
Gregory Chandler
37 Followers
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
One of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not lie", broken over and over again by the very people who preach the hardest about their religion ruling this country (America), and religious responsibility.
I'm a homosexual, and I'm an Atheist (for those who don't already know), yet I don't lie, steal, and in my fifteen year relationship with the same man, I have never cheated.
Tell me again why I, and those who are like me are considered the evil ones?
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
With all due respect, that commandment is broken over and over again by all kinds of people.
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
People who preach against the way I live my life, and make it impossible for me to get the same benefits they enjoy with the people they love.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
The Muslims and the Jews?
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
Anyone who doesn't practice what they "preach".
eraptorApr 25, 2011
No, Quirky.
frayedknotjeff is referring to those with an alternative lifestyle (not religion) and he makes a valid point.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
I believe he's referring to religion here. He was pretty clear...but thanks for chiming in.
eraptorApr 25, 2011
Really, Quirky?
Read his post again, specifically the part where he refers to "the way I live my life" and "make it impossible for me to get the same benefits they enjoy with the people they love (aka marriage)".
As for chiming in...I'm just tryin' to help the blind.
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
I'm referring to people who do not practice what they preach.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
Can you please settle this. Are you referring to Muslims and the Jews(religion) or the alternative lifestyle?
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
All of the above who do not practice what they preach. Religious people who lie/sin/steal/cheat on their loved ones and the world.
Pointing out that the Atheist (me) is the honest one, compared to those who are religious and big fat liars, like Senator Jon Kyl.
I don't know how else to say it.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Understand now, jdenz?
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
@Quirk
I'm not the one going back and forth. Just asking frayed to settle the debate. As you would say "I asked a legit "
eraptorApr 26, 2011
@Quirky & jdenzer,
I'll help settle this discussion once and for all. Both issues are relevant since they're interconnected in America.
Remember, heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry in the U.S.
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
Understand what? That I the Atheist am more moral than most religious people in this country, shown by the lying politicians elected into office?
Why do you argue with me? Just because I'm right, and an Atheist? Shouldn't you be seeking truths in the world?
Do you know one of the number one reason for divorce in this country? Infidelity. I believe that's one of the top "Ten" do not do's.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
"That I the Atheist am more moral than most religious people in this country..."
Hm.
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
"shown by the lying politicians elected into office? "
You forgot the whole line. Learn that from Fox News?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Doesn't matter, Jeff.
frayedknotjeffApr 27, 2011
I see you are nothing more than a forum troll, you came here looking for a bad guy, and it turned out the bad guy was you. Sad, digging down good posts. I thought I was actually talking to a morally responsible human.
ultimisApr 25, 2011
And what benefits are you talking about? There are quite a few people that I love.
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
If I were to say I don't have the same rights as you do in marriage, you could say, "yes you do", making it a war of semantics. So I must emphasize that I do not have the same rights to get married to the one I love.
ultimisApr 26, 2011
So I emphasize I don't have the same rights as a woman to have a baby. What is your point? Depending on your state you have 100% ability to enter into a civil union with the one you love.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
Not the same. A "married" couple has hundreds of more rights than a couple in a "civil union" does.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I disagree with ultimis on this issue and I agree with you. I believe that gay marriage should be legal. I would not support forcing any church to perform a marriage ceremony, but civil rights are civil rights.
Now ... do you understand what I am saying here?
I would encourage you not to think that the world is crumbling due to religion, but instead to get some perspective and understand that sometimes things come slowly.
If you try to advance your cause by indicting all religious people, you'll lose the debate.
If you act like nothing is better now than it was in the past, you deny history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
should read 'HYPOCRITES' who preach instead of 'People' who preach.
Nice added civility. I can't be that civil when referring to ANY politician.
eraptorApr 25, 2011
Since when does that justify lying? I don't recall God issuing the Ten Commandments as a cafeteria plan (where one get to pick what suits their personal agenda).
Lying should NEVER be condoned, especially among the faithful.
miklkitApr 25, 2011
But only you republicons make it your official policy to lie.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
How's that revolution shaping up?
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
Going about as well as your tea bagger revolution. How's those 2nd amendment remedies working for you?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Again... I'm GOP ... not tea party.
And I have always condemned ANY person talking about the idea of a forcible revolution here in the USA.
jdenzerApr 27, 2011
BS. You remained absolutely quiet when Angle made her "2nd amendment remedies" comment.
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
I do not see you condemning the idea of armed revolution from the left. There's been plenty of it here on Digg.
Here on Digg I regularly said that right-wingers here (before the elections) who talked about armed revolution were nuts.
jdenz - you have zero integrity here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 27, 2011
"I do not see you condemning the idea of armed revolution from the left."
Name the politician and Dig story. Plus I never claimed I either condemned or supported them. You are the one making the BS claim. But it's not about you, right?
"Here on Digg I regularly said that right-wingers here (before the elections) who talked about armed revolution were nuts."
Prove it, links please.
Like I said, when it comes to the right, you remain completely silent. Or use the double standard defense.
eraptorApr 26, 2011
Ask Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republicans and the Republican Congressmen/state politicians who are getting chewed out across the country.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I'm sure you are going to act like angry liberals showing up at townhalls is some new, legit thing...whereas angry conservatives that showed up at them were astroturf....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorApr 26, 2011
Here's the funny thing, Quirky. Those "angry liberals" voted for the politicians they're now dressing down, contrary to the bused in healthcare reform stooges.
We're witnessing a sea change in the political landscape. The beauty of it is that Republicans have done it to themselves. They let their ideological insanity trump their common sense when they turned on their core constituents.
As the old saying goes, "Give some people enough rope and they'll hang themselves with it every time".
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
Are you f**king serious?
You really think that these people who showed up at townhalls voted FOR their reps?
There were no liberals in these districts who voted for other candidates and would show up angry?
How ignorant can you be?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorApr 27, 2011
Oh, Quirky, when are you going to learn? It was SENIORS who largely elected the Republicans in 2010. Read the 2010 poll breakdown by Demographic if you don't believe me.
While all senior voters aren't Republican, most Republican voters are seniors. It's a fact of political life in America. Does this mean all of those screaming Seniors are Republican? NO, but you can rest assured that most of them are.
Do you honestly think Congressman Ryan invited "Liberal" seniors to his town hall meeting?
As for who's being ignorant in this political debate or any other...it was settled LONG ago. When are you going to tire of being in ideological denial?
BluntzworthApr 26, 2011
Yes it is. But what alot of those "all kinds of people" don't go around pretending to be ultra Christian and don't pretend to be the Party of the Moral Majority.
See the difference?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
But not all kinds of people venerate a deity who wrote "thou shalt not lie" on stone tablets.
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
Oh I see, doesn't matter to you. Then why all the questions?
And how do you feel about the fact an Atheist like myself sins less, or not at all, compared to the majority of religious?
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
Because you're not like us?
I'm just guessing here, because I have no problem with "those who are like you".
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
We definitely appreciate your support, but we are still considered the "evil" ones, and are blocked from basic rights you enjoy with the one you love everyday.
My point is that the religious speak loud, then sin.
I do right, because it's the right thing to do.
It's just sad to watch the world crumble around me, because of the very people claiming to have the power of a God behind them. I'm not sure what goes on in their heads when they choose to lie, steal and/or cheat. I can only assume it's the confess and get out of Hell free card.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
jeff - Do you seriously think it's worse for you here in the USA than it would have been 30 years ago?
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
I'm sorry, but I must speak out about the people who claim righteousness, then spit on that very righteousness, then face me and act as if I should consider them some type of moral guide through my life.
ultimisApr 25, 2011
What people are saying this? Are these imagined people?
Thou shall not murder fray. See I'm imposing my righteousness on you. How does it make you feel that you are not allowed to kill people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frayedknotjeffApr 25, 2011
The imagined people are the ones who do not practice what they preach.
It makes me feel fine, as I would never kill another human unless defending myself or another person from a life threatening attack.
Phish much?
ultimisApr 26, 2011
Ohhh, so only if the "righteousness" matches what you believe it is suddenly okay for the government to enforce it.
frayedknotjeffApr 26, 2011
Matches? I didn't write the Ten Commandments.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
"It's just sad to watch the world crumble around me, because of the very people claiming to have the power of a God behind them."
Again ... are you saying it's worse now than it was 30 years ago?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timelessbwApr 25, 2011
I am confused quirk, are you saying gays should just stop requesting the freedoms the rest of us enjoy because the discrimination was worse 30 years ago? How does that justify anything? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
You stupid? I'm asking a simple question.
timelessbwApr 26, 2011
I am just asking a simple question as well. I really don't understand how the discrimination of 30 years ago justifys anything today. If you believe that makes me stupid, so be it. Still didn't answer my question though.
Closed AccountApr 28, 2011
WHAT? Quirkopatra is really the victim no matter what she said or did in this situation? HOW SHOCKING!!!
There is no reasoning with this very sad person. Best to shun and ignore, for your own good.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
Too bad frayedknotjeff is a Conservative. Then quirk wouldn't be attacking him with BS questions. Just like she defends her buddy alan to no end.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
she does the same with Mollydog each time he reappears and pretend that she doesn't know from the DP dispatches who he is. Ever notice that while pretending to be a victim she screams insults and vulgarity at those unlucky enough to be in her way? She will even play victim when you show that in the last 24 hours most of her 30-60 comments during that time were a vulgar attack. I tried to be reasonable with her too, but she is basically Ms. Mollydog or DavidNiven. Best to shun and ignore for your own sake.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Why don't you make this discussion about me?
I asked a legit question that hasn't gotten an answer.
Also, kuppajava ... get me banned if I'm so terrible. You know how to do it, right? You got YOURSELF a permaban and came back.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
@quirk
So let's see when you talk about double standards or 'but but liberals do it" or point out how others on digg game the system, that's fair.
But when you do all this, we are now making the discussion about you? Can dish it out, but we must never dish it back. Is that how you roll?
"You got YOURSELF a permaban and came back."
Nice to know how you actively try to get users banned on a regular basis.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
jdenz - Did I get kuppajava's former identity banned? If so, I was unaware of it.
Do elaborate. HOW did I get Kuppajava banned??
Seriously, I want to know!
Guess what? You don't get a permaban for nothing!!!
Now ... continue with the personal attacks. They are like a refreshing glass of milk. When ridiculous hacks like yourself are attacking me ... that's when I know I'm winning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 27, 2011
@quirk
And where's your proof that kuppa is this former permaban user? Or any other that you claim is a permaban. Anyone who dares someone to permaban them is probably doing the permaban as well. And don't act like you don't engage in the game of trying to get users banned. Remember you are the one who searches other social sites and post other Digg users comments as News.
So don't play dumb and act innocent. Everyone know how you game Digg.
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
Gawd you are hopeless.
If I'm as terrible as all of you claim ... and you claim it repeatedly ... you would have been able to get me PERMABANNED.
Like Mollydog?
But you can't...why? Because you are liars.
A Digger doesn't get a permaban without saying something completely terrible.
Kuppa admitted to being a formerly banned liberal.
I really don't give a s**t ... but don't pretend you folks don't like to show up and gang bang me with false allegations.
Why don't you try commenting intelligently on some subs instead of spending your meager existence attacking me?
just a bit of advice....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 28, 2011
Yeah, except i did no such thing. I never said anything like that and everyone knows it.
There is no reason for your life to be like this, Quirkopatra. Please, for your own sake, maybe it is time to take a little break. You are not a victim, you are an abuser striking out at people you do not even know because of slights you have made up in your own mind.
Just stop, for your own sake, you will thank yourself in the morning.
jdenzerApr 28, 2011
"Why don't you try commenting intelligently on some subs instead of spending your meager existence attacking me?"
That's funny coming from the person who spends hours searching other social sites and blogs for comments from Novenator and Anomoly and then posting them as news. Talk about 'attacking'. But hey why limit yourself to just digg right.
Can dish it out, but we can't dish it back. Is that how it works for you. Here's some advice, why don't you stop playing the 'they are attacking me' card. Act more like your buddy alan, you don't see him whining and playing that card, when people give it back to him. And he says plenty of nasty things.
largentApr 26, 2011
Surely not because of your team! You religious f**ks are STILL very combatant at every opportunity to make sure to oppress and limit the rights of others.
f**k off quirk you douche.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
You are so civil.
Closed AccountApr 28, 2011
So, are you saying you don't refer to people as "douche" Quirkopatra? No, you haven't ever used that term or "liberal douche" to make vulgar insults at large groups of people you never even met.
You really are sad and miserable person, aren't you, Quirkopatra. You really should consider growing up a little bit.
lightfallsupApr 26, 2011
Even if it's better than it could be or used to be, does that mean it's even remotely fair?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I favor gay marriage. So no, it's not completely fair. However, let's have some perspective.
And indicting all Christians for this issue is not going to win the debate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightfallsupApr 26, 2011
I agree. Some things are true but do not help.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I'm going to ask you to consider something that is irrefutably true.
The vast majority of Americans ARE Christians.
The population is slowly coming to favor the idea of gay marriage.
Any comment?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightfallsupApr 26, 2011
Absolutely. More and more people who consider themselves christians ignore the holy book of christianity. This often leads to a forward progress for the culture. Slavery is another good example.
lightfallsupApr 26, 2011
Absolutely. More and more people who consider themselves christians ignore the holy book of christianity. This often leads to a forward progress for the culture. Slavery is another good example of this.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
You are wrong. Jesus spoke about homosexuality.
http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/Jesus.htm
timelessbwApr 25, 2011
Well said. Sadly, some people just have a need to feel superior to others. It has always baffeled me.
headhotApr 25, 2011
"Ninety percent of what Plan Parenthood does is abortion" *
*not intended to be a factual statement, and when called out, Sen Kyle will attempt to pull it from the Senate record.
rockergirlieApr 25, 2011
Yes, I can say AS A POLITICIAN that "88 percent of Christians are cannibals." I can also say that "91 percent of Republicans eat their own ejaculate."
Then, AS A POLITICIAN, I can say "Just kidding! I lied for fun!" and have everything be ok again.
I love it.
mazdagirlukApr 27, 2011
haha I would vote for you
tucson27Apr 25, 2011
John Kyle is an evil, lying corporate shill. He recently distributed a flyer in Southern AZ titled, "Why Now is not the Time for Solar Power in Arizona". My brother showed me this thing as we were gazing across an incredible view of empty, sun soaked desert.
darthmeatloafApr 26, 2011
Awesome.
John Kyl is one phenomenal piece of work...
murxApr 26, 2011
"Why Now is not the Time for Solar Power in Arizona"
Just hoping, he distributed those flyers at night?
:P
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
its about the money needed to make these panels efficient. do my state a favor and keep your bulls**t in your own borders.
tucson27Apr 26, 2011
And you can keep your head where it's apparently, firmly lodged.
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
well apparently most arizona voters disagree with you because both McCain and Kyl have both been in office for way too long. same goes for arpaio.
you say my head is lodged up a republican ass (even tho im not republican) and it seems your head is lodged up a liberal ass. the only difference is which s**t you find most compelling but remember its both s**t.
headhotApr 25, 2011
The problem the GOP has with truth is that it needs to convince its constituants to vote against their own self interests. Its hard to do that by telling the truth.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
Let me ask when it became a wise idea to "vote for your own self-interests"? I'm not wealthy. If politician X says he wants to provide me with free internet ... I should vote for him? It's in my selfish interest to do so.
Or should I say, "Hang on ... that *sounds* lovely, but it's not within the purview of government."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Schweppesale2Apr 25, 2011
He's not claiming that it's always a wise idea.
Read the statement again.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
Again... why should a person vote for their self-interests? Why not vote for your princlples?
headhotApr 26, 2011
Ah, but capitalism is all about self interest, it kinda the very basis of it. The market is defined by the needs of the individual. If you want to vote on principle, like a Communist, be my guest.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
No, capitalism is economics. It's an economic system. You are trying to say that capitalists are greedy, but communists are principled.
Logic fail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
headhotApr 26, 2011
They are both economic systems. Capitalism relies on the individual to pursue his self interests and consume and produce what he wants. This is the basis of the invisible hand. The sum of everyone's self interests. Capitalism works because people are greedy and self interested, and uses that to its advantage, by optimizing production and consumption.
Communism relies on forgoing of the self interests for that of the group. Communism does not work, because the motivation to produce is destroyed because the work can benefit others more then the individual. It would only work in an idealized world where people acted on principles.
Go back to school before you try to fail my logic.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Your logic failed with your comment:
"Ah, but capitalism is all about self interest, it kinda the very basis of it. The market is defined by the needs of the individual. If you want to vote on principle, like a Communist, be my guest."
You have clarified now ... but your previous comment was a fail.
A person can be a principled capitalist or a greedy communist.
They are economic systems.
ncmusicApr 25, 2011
Is it any different to be well off and vote for Democrats who want to raise my taxes?
headhotApr 26, 2011
Depends on what you define as your self interest. Do you want to pay less taxes, or do you want to work in a functioning democracy?
ncmusicApr 26, 2011
Functioning democracy of course, I tend to vote democratic for the record. I was just pointing out that it's possible to vote for people who may make some policy decisions that may have a negative financial impact.
headhotApr 26, 2011
financial impact and self interest is not always the same. For example, if we got rid of health insurance all together, we would get larger pay checks, but be totally screwed when we got sick.
ncmusicApr 27, 2011
And thus be financially worse off! :)
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I'd like to pay as little tax as possible and live in a functioning Republic.
headhotApr 26, 2011
I was implying that does one want to pay less tax then is needed for a functioning democracy? Every one wants to pay as little tax as possible, but do you want to pay less then what is needed? What percentage of tax is the correct amount? 10%? 20%? 30%?
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
I believe that less tax would be REQUIRED if the government would shrink.
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
headhot: your comment is a logical fallacy, more specifically the False Dichotomy fallacy.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Congratulations Quirk, you just shat on the writings of tea party matriarch Ayn Rand. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but if those are your core beliefs then you're a liberal.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
Congratulations stupido... I'm not Tea Party, I'm GOP. I'm not an objectivist, nor are most GOPers. We do recognize that some tax is necessary.
No, I am not a liberal. Nor am I a socialist for driving on those "socialist roads" and "going to that socialist library."
Closed AccountApr 27, 2011
Translation: You're not retarded, you're retarded. Besides, call me silly but I have a tough time recalling any comments of yours where you've aired disagreement with an ounce of tea party philosophy. Goes back to that whole selective skepticism thing.
As for whether or not voting for your principles makes you a liberal, it sure as hell doesn't make you a conservative. You'd have to have principles in order to vote for them, and those seem to be in short supply on the right.
njdoo7Apr 26, 2011
"The problem *almost all politicians (GOP and Liberals included)* have with truth is that it needs to convince its constituants to vote against their own self interests. Its hard to do that by telling the truth."
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
evidence? ..... didn't think so.
austinjameshereApr 25, 2011
I read in an email that Obama's mother is actually an alien from mars... it must be true... the bible does say the anti-christ is a martian.
twinklyjesusApr 25, 2011
I GROK you..
trdrstvApr 26, 2011
Obama is an alien with alien parents, however the "Birth matrix" aboard his ship hatched him when his ship crash landed in America.
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
if he was actually born here don't you think he would be able to prove it by now?
i mean just rationally, if something really happened (like his birth in america) then logically there should be some sort of evidence of this. where is it? the people saying its a conspiracy theory is the left-wing not the birthers. the birthers just want to see if he is eligible to be president because its the constitution not the republicans that say you must be an american-born citizen to become president. excuse me for wanting to protect the integrity of the constitution.
chilidogsApr 27, 2011
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
superkendallApr 25, 2011
What is far more shameful is pretending Democrats are not doing the same thing. Lies should not be tolerated from either party, but they will be as long as you keep pretending your "side" does not engage in them.
peppermintpigApr 25, 2011
And often issues are taken out of context to create fake outrage, or to preserve a sense of irreconcilable opposition. There's at least one story on digg today I saw which shows just how far gone things are.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
"taken out of context to create fake outrage"
You don't say?
grounded4lifeApr 25, 2011
Pretending (or genuinely believing, as the case may be) someone else is not lying is "far more shameful" than the actual willful telling of a lie?
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
How is it shameful?
To call it that, you'll need to admit to the shamefulness perpetrated by conservative sources point at the lies coming from the Democrats and act like they're angels against the Democrat Demons.
MusicManGPApr 25, 2011
All lies are not created equal.
eraptorApr 25, 2011
While I agree with your opposition to lying by all politicians, it's hardly accurate to accuse Democrat's of the same behavior as Republicans.
While both political parties are capable of lying, Republicans do it more often than Democrat's and the information age makes it possible to collect most of the evidence. As such, this gaping disparity hardly makes them equally culpable.
ultimisApr 25, 2011
"While both political parties are capable of lying, Republicans do it more often than Democrat's "
There are entire shows dedicated to showing democrats lie. Just because you only go to the Daily Show where he skews what he covers doesn't make that reality. Don't let your bias blind you, politicians lie for a living.
eraptorApr 25, 2011
I only watch Jon Stewart for the laughs. He's a satirist who has a talent for getting to the core of most political issues.
I use credible media sources and years of working in D.C. as the basis for my assertion about Republican lying. With regard to media sources, they include, but are not limited to, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, New York Times, Washington Post, UPI/AP news wire, The Economist, Barron's, etc. Notice the heavy emphasis in business news (hardly a liberal bastion of news content).
ultimisApr 26, 2011
I applaud you for your diverse amount of news sources. That still leaves very little evidence in terms of "Republicans lie more".
eraptorApr 26, 2011
The evidence is available on the internet if you're willing to do the research.
It can also be verified by fact checking the assertions of BOTH political parties. Since you don't believe me, do your own research. But, try to use objective sources instead of partisan sources, like (Fox News, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, etc.). Otherwise, you'll never discover the truth.
ultimisApr 26, 2011
I fact check every party when they make a statement. I can find articles and "studies" that state that both sides lie more.
You're implying you have evidence based on the amount of news sources you view. Guess what, I read more. My sarcasm should have been apparent in my last posting.
Now you can bury me all you want. It still leaves you without any evidence for your claim, and comes off as a partisan hack comment. Your "opinion" has a bias; whether you admit it or not. Everyone always sees the other side acting poorly, but fail to realized when their side is doing the same. I always visit liberal sources on a daily basis to see what type of crap they're flinging. It is very easy to see them lying and being disingenuous on all levels. I am not dishonest enough to claim that my side does not participate in the same level of lying like you do. You perceive comments as lies because you don't agree with what is being stated. Or you take what is stated out of context.
eraptorApr 26, 2011
First, I don't take sides. I criticize BOTH sides when they step over the line and shirk their sworn duties in favor of ideology. If my past criticism appears imbalanced, it simply reflects the political abuses found.
Second, the fact that I tear into either side does not make me their ideological opposite.
Finally, if you've researched the positions of both sides as you claim, there's NO way you would find an equivalent amount of disinformation, lies OR political propaganda. The data simply doesn't support your theory.
Hell, Fox News coverage ALONE, blows your theory of equal abuse completely out of the water. Try to name ANY media outlet that is equally as partisan. MSNBC's coverage doesn't hold a candle to Fox News propaganda and they're one of the most liberal channels around.
ultimisApr 28, 2011
"MSNBC's coverage doesn't hold a candle to Fox News propaganda"
We're talking about political parties. But yes; we can open up media outlets to this disucssion.
Let's say we have a scale of tactless bias and lying (since we've switch gears from party to media bias) -10 being blatant liberal bias/lying +10 blatant conservative bias/lying.
MSNBC: -9
CNN: -2 to -4 (depending if its election time)
Fox: 4 to 5 (depending if democrats are in power)
During the 2008 elections CNN would have been a -4 and Fox would have been a 4. There is *no* comparison to MSNBC as they are a joke of a network and don't even try to at like a actual news organization. They had f**king Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann (Essentially Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity) covering the Republican debates. Are you f**king kidding me? During a normal news broad cast the anchor out and out called Bush a idiot. Now wait for it (since you're like; "well he is a idiot!")... This was when the democrats forced out the CIA report stating Iran was no longer pursuing a nuclear program. Bush had come out and stated that while the Iranians stopped their nuclear program in 2003 (right after the invasion of Iraq over WMDs) that he still believed they were developing a nuclear program. As it turned out; Bush was right. But a *anchor* delivering news actually stopped and called Bush and idiot on air because they thought all the facts were against him.
I don't even think I've seen opinion shows on fox even drop that low. Straight up name calling the president with very little reason to do so.
Please look up the definition of propaganda. It doesn't work for a network like fox. The most you can say is that they are highly biased (based on your perception).
Propaganda is thrown out in a negative way because everyone thinks of the famous Nazi propaganda machine. So you're essentially pulling a Godwin. Most countries of the world had propaganda offices. And they didn't necessarily produce "lies"; they produced information related to a specific cause. So if you wanted to go to war with Germany you would go to your propaganda office and have them distribute relevant information about the Germans that would make the populace more agreeable with such a war. PETA for instance puts out propaganda all the time. Fox news does not. Their coverage is more conservative because they have conservative commentators and they are less likely to cover bad stuff about conservative movements. This would be called conservative *bias*.
Ultimately this was off topic as you were going to demonstrate how the Republican party (politicians) lies more often.
I come across your comments every so often; and never once did I think you were a Republican. I'm sorry to break it to you; but you do not fit the definition of a "moderate". If you weren't so blatantly a democrat/liberal I would occasionally see a comment from you that I could agree with. I don't think that has happened.
eraptorApr 28, 2011
First, I could care less what you think I am. You don't define my ideological views, I do. Leave it to a conservative to label anyone their polar opposite just because they disagree with them or call them out on their BS.
Second, if Fox News is not the propaganda arm of the Republican party, then why are their talking points IDENTICAL...TO THE WORD? Conservative ideology isn't a sufficient explanation for this replication and neither is the vapid barrier between their "news" coverage and election messaging/sloganeering/campaigning.
Third, with regard to Dubya, he wasn't called the worst president in modern history by liberals alone, that label was assigned to him by objective presidential scholars (over 125) based upon his RECORD. By the way, these are the political experts who would know based upon their knowledge of history AND the records of Presidents from BOTH parties.
Finally, the facts don't match your ideological denial/excuses. Yet, I'M supposed to be the political partisan? Please!
ultimisApr 28, 2011
Leave it to a liberal to think he's not biased. No one is unbiased. Your comments consistently lean left, stop pretending you don't come down on that side of the issue consistently. And I didn't call you my "polar opposite". I said you leaned left. Meaning you are definitely not down the center.
"Second, if Fox News is not the propaganda arm of the Republican party, then why are their talking points IDENTICAL...TO THE WORD?"
WHAT TALKING POINTS (see I can use caps)? You mean conservative opinion shows all comment on the same news? And since they're conservative they generally have similar opinions? Back when I had cable I would occasionally come home from work and just watch a few of the shows. And *none* of them had the same content (that would make for bad ratings). As for the actual news programs there is no "talking points" as they are just covering whatever sensational news that is available.
"vapid barrier between their "news" coverage and election messaging/sloganeering/campaigning."
Present a clip. Your words are laced in bias. Fox news has conservative bias so it shouldn't be hard to find Sean Hannity speaking about something. And of all the programs, Hannity would be the "arm of the Republican party" as he has rarely criticized the republican party. That's of the opinion shows. As for news, I doubt you will even be able to present much bias; and you will definitely not be able to find "messaging/sloganeering/campaigning".
"Third, with regard to Dubya, he wasn't called the worst president in modern history by liberals alone, that label was assigned to him by objective presidential scholars (over 125) based upon his RECORD. By the way, these are the political experts who would know based upon their knowledge of history AND the records of Presidents from BOTH parties. "
Again another tangent. I will respond to this because you keep bringing up tangents and I can't resist. But the example I gave was of blatant bias and out right failed journalism.
The worse president based on what indicator? His Record? A record where he stopped all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11? The record where he saw the largest rise in tax revenue than any other president? The record where he had the highest approval ratings of any president in all of history? The record of keeping unemployment down after being hit by 2-3 recessions (dotcom, 9/11, Enron/worldcom failures).
Oh no... we'll go off his ratings when he was a lame duck president with democrats in control of both houses of congress?
He placed 2 democracies in the middle east. He contributed the most to fighting aids in Africa. His legislative achievements are numerous; even though he had rabid democrats that hated him. The list of his achievements are many. He also has his failures (deficit); but no reasonable historian can purely equate that with his leadership as president. Especially for the times he lived in.
Bush was not a great president; but he was a much better one than Obama (not really high standards). What has Obama achieved? A healthcare bill that the majority of this country oppose. A healthcare bill and financial bill that fail to do what they were intended to do. A failure of a leader who has never gained the support of the majority of the people on a single issue. A failure in foreign policy making our allies irritated or less likely to support us in any issue. Name one foreign issue Obama actually came out looking like he accomplished something? Iraq was won. He fail to follow up on troop increases that his generals request; thus Afghanistan is a continued battleground with no progress. And he has started a "humanitarian" air war in Libya where the U.S. has nothing to gain from it. And in all reality the humanitarian side of it is bulls**t.
"these are the political experts who would know based upon their knowledge of history AND the records of Presidents from BOTH parties. "
How about you link me to it? You keep making statements of fact without actually showing them as factual. I'm supposed to take you at your word that you're not biased (which is laughable), that you've seen mountains of evidence that shows the Republican party lies more than the democratic party, and that you have hundreds of experts who are not biased and list Bush as the worse president in all of history (even though many actions that preserved American lives are still secret and won't be revealed for many years).
"Finally, the facts don't match your ideological denial/excuses. Yet, I'M supposed to be the political partisan? Please!"
What facts? *You* have presented *nothing* except *opinion*. Opinion =/= fact. You come off as a deluded liberal who has convinced himself that he is at the center of the political spectrum. I'm sure we would all like to believe we are moderates; I *know* I'm a conservative. I know moderates (friends, family members, people on digg I've debated with), you are not one of them. Please stop pretending to be one. You haven't demonstrated a single shred of dignity in admitting your bias. I cannot believe someone can be so dishonest.
lpezzApr 26, 2011
Perhaps if you watched him you'd see that he feels no compunction in going after Dems as well.
ultimisApr 26, 2011
I said skewed. He has a much higher percent coverage of Republicans lying compared to democrats. This creates the false impression that Republicans lie more.
lpezzApr 26, 2011
The only dog I have in this fight is that I believe John Stewart has more integrity than many so-called news organizations. He's gone after Dems and Obama with ferocity. Now, consider the possibility that perhaps Republicans give him more fodder. Can that not be true?
ultimisApr 26, 2011
There is that possibility. But he is a stated liberal. His staff are stated liberals. I don't have cable, but when I do watch shows online the only time he goes after democrats is usually when they weren't liberal enough for him. But he does on occasion hit them for being hypocrites.
But as I've watched shows on other networks I *know* there is more fodder about democrats that Stewart doesn't touch at all.
If your content is 30% democrat lying moments and 70% republican lying moments; that is not a real appraisal of the environment.
Jon Stewart is funny and I tune in every so often when I can. But the perception that his show isn't biased is patently false.
lpezzApr 26, 2011
I guess I just believe that his show is ultimately a comedy show and he finds more to work with from Republicans. I do not, in any way, believe Democrats don't lie, cheat, steal, etc. I think Republicans public rhetoric is a more rich soil for a comedy show. Perhaps I mean that they make it easier for him.
ultimisApr 26, 2011
I can accept that.
darthmeatloafApr 26, 2011
People on both sides pretend that their side does not engage in lying.
Think of it like a Mexican Stand-off: Who's going to make the first move?
brendakwangApr 25, 2011
Great article.
dilbertApr 25, 2011
Now I see where Stephen Harper (Canada's dictator) gets his ideas.
bluenose2Apr 25, 2011
He's farther right than those lyin' bastards.Pray to whatever deity you may or may not believe in that Harper,the Great Satan is defeated.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
You don't have elections there? You'd better amend Wikipedia.
pnorth12Apr 25, 2011
Correction? “There is no such thing as society.” (Margaret Thatcher) what does a Prime Minister of England have to do with GOP lies? I'm on board with parts of the article, but some are really grasping...
elimgarakApr 26, 2011
While this statement was not made by a member of the GOP, it does seem to demonstrate a stated belief of many Republicans and conservatives. "Poverty is the fault of individuals who are sinful and lazy." - I've heard statements to that effect from some of my conservative friends.
macliberalApr 25, 2011
The repugs are digging their own grave, I love how they keep trying to resurrect the birther issue even after the birth certificate has been released, 2012 is going to be a good year, you heard it here first!
rixar13Apr 25, 2011
"Is there any limit to the outrageousness of the GOP lies?"
None, no limits on GOP lies... smile :-)
laurahoustonApr 26, 2011
looks like Republicans study the 'Mein Kampf' bible version.
"............in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,""
sapana543Apr 26, 2011
Not that a lot of the examples are actually true.
But, are these official GOP statements? What about all the lies the Democrats keep saying?
chassupApr 26, 2011
Classic projection?
Johnboy33Apr 25, 2011
Where do all the fools come from???
http://www.e-forwards.com/2011/04/gop-where-do-all-the-fools-come-from/
blydchyldApr 25, 2011
im really super promise not defending GOP here but he takes one of his points out of context.
"not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
The original quote refers to Public Sector jobs being negative to economic growth.
norman619Apr 25, 2011
This is so dishonest. It implies the other side doesn't do this. But then I'm nuts for expecting real objective journalism from alternet.org.
grounded4lifeApr 25, 2011
Being one-sided doesn't make it dishonest. What's really dishonest is accusing it of being dishonest when it isn't.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
Alternet is frequently dishonest.
But don't forget to donate, because they can't survive without your donations and you'll cease to see articles about how the Christofascists and Talibangelicals want to kill your mama and your grandmama while forcing you to read the Bible aloud 3 hours a day.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
Links an proof, please.
largentApr 26, 2011
Haha, facts from a repubutard? Good luck.
ultimisApr 25, 2011
Nice douchebag remark. I read through a decent number of comments and yours is a gem. And you got 12 diggs... Wow.
It *is* dishonoest to imply that politicians lie more if they are conservative. "I did not have sexual relations..." If it is one sided they could state that they find the lies more repulsive. But to imply that their side is "truthful" is laughable and absurd. Quite frankly it is dishonest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grounded4lifeApr 26, 2011
When/if you actually read the article, show us where they imply that their side is truthful.
theonewhoknowsApr 25, 2011
The article is an example of how Dems are skipping out on the truth here. I don't know, maybe it is just ignorance?
"What are police, firefighters, teachers, judges, prosecutors, postal workers, military personnel, etc engaged in if not “government jobs.”
They were ALL private sector jobs (except for some judges and some military). The government didn't make them into being. In fact, there might be even more of those jobs if it were private because people generally see the value in them, and might fund them directly if they had the chance. Of course, privatizing these things is bad public policy and i won't argue that point, but the writer misses out on the fact that they were not originally public jobs.
"...the certification of the safety of our food and drugs, air traffic control, if they are not “government jobs.” Well, this is perhpas more on point, but a different point of the author. These jobs are from added regulation (primarily) and it isn't so much about creatio of jobs as it is creatio of WEALTH." These jobs do little to create economic wealth, but they are essential nonetheless. Kind of like the operations department in a corporation, needed, but they are not in wealth generation.
So this article is a deception at worst, and ignorance at best. But it doesn't lessent the enthusiams of the author in making his point, does it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
You'd be nuts to expect real objective journalism from any US source...
jdenzerApr 26, 2011
It's not dishonest, just bias. They are not making the case that the Dems don't do it. If you want to do the same, then write your own blog and submit it.
barackalypseApr 25, 2011
Well, at least alternet actually attempted to explain at least one of the points they claim is false. And I agree with them on that point, the Government can create jobs, though it creates Government jobs and some research jobs and construction jobs, and a whole bunch of non-value added private sector jobs like tax preparation and monitoring compliance with Government regulations and legal jobs defending companies from lawsuits by said compliance agencies.
bonestampApr 25, 2011
Don't get me wrong, I dislike big government. But, I think some government is necessary to prevent people from self destruction.
If wall street was regulated the way many other country's financial systems are then we wouldn't have seen such a traumatic collapse that not only killed our economy but gave banks from all the other strong economies a chance to buy up hundreds of American banks.
The government controls fishing so the fishing industry doesn't get too greedy one year and remove all of the fish (effectively killing their own industry and our food supply). The same thing needs to be done with wall street.
This may not create jobs, but it sure can protect a lot of them.
diggduggjoeApr 25, 2011
A co-dependent is necessary for complete self-destruction. Usually, persistent bad decisions make life hard quick enough for most people to rebound.
Our government is big enough to be the co-dependent of choice for many Americans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bonestampApr 25, 2011
Do you have a specific example in mind?
diggduggjoeApr 26, 2011
Most welfare creates dependence on the government which creates a pool of voters for the politicians. Corporate welfare is also very toxic to our society, too.
Even our war machine tends to enable people to support wars based on fears and not real threats.
Government enables people to do horrible things that they could never do by themselves. Corporations can twist the markets to their favor. Unwed mothers can have several kids when without all the assistance would stop at one.
It is not that government is directed by people for evil intentions. Every CEO believes their company is special, every welfare mom things she deserves it, every Archie Bunker thinks blowing up the world will save America. However, in the end the government is a crude tool that has limitless unintended consequences that screw up our lives.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
If Wall Street wasn't bailed out over and over it wouldn't have happened!
You seem to ignore the fact that we have a track record of bailing out Wall Street 100% of the time. Going back decades, back to the S&L / housing crisis in the 80s, the original creation of the Federal Reserve, there's a couple other big ones in here too I'm pretty sure.
My 1949-1979 American history is spottiest.
The buck needs to stop here.
ect5150Apr 25, 2011
What is "is" ?
charlesdkraussApr 25, 2011
No, there is no limit.
irukaApr 25, 2011
Nope there is no limit to their stupidity. Come on!! They don't call them Republicans for nothing, okay that's not entirely true but lately it seems they have gone on to do some Gorilla warfare. :D
bossm4nApr 25, 2011
You might want to check yourself before calling someone else stupid. Gorilla warfare? Seriously?
irukaApr 25, 2011
Ooooh sorry mate, didn't mean to offend you.
Just a joke. Well I guess there are people like you who refuse to see it.
Have a nice life. Cheers!
UncleTogieApr 25, 2011
Will you two quit monkeying around?
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
He wasn't making fun of you just for saying "Gorilla Warfare", he was making fun of you for NOT saying "Guerrilla Warfare".
You didn't offend him, you showed him how dumb you are.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2011
"They don't call them Republicans for nothing..."
???
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
That's what I said.
Maybe he thought it said "Republican'ts"?
Kent_KnutsonApr 25, 2011
"Shameless Alternet Lies: Is There Any Limit to What Liberals Will Say -- And What People Will Believe?"
There. Fixed it for ya.
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
You guys are unbelievable.
Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet and to have discovered the toxic contamination of Love Canal. : SERIOUSLY?
John Kerry’s allegedly heroic war record was fraudulent. : He was a traitor, he met with foreign powers in a time of war
Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim. :
Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001. : He did have 550 metric tons of yellowcake
Global warming is a gigantic hoax, perpetrated by thousands of deceitful scientists. : It's all about the money
Obama has raised taxes. : Obamacare?????
“Obamacare” is a “socialist government takeover of health care.” : not a take over, it's just terrible health care legislation.
Ninety percent of Planned Parenthood funding is for abortion services. : this is true
Elections in the United States are always accurate and fair. : this is for the most part true. there is no wide spread manipulation like countries that are going through coups.
skews13Apr 25, 2011
Affirmative. All followers share one thing in common. They want to be told what to think.
jefftsApr 25, 2011
FTA: "This is, after all, a public almost half of which refuses to accept evolution -- the central coordinating concept of modern biology. And approximately half of the GOP primary voters believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States."
Citation needed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jefftsApr 25, 2011
Wow, what a surprise. I'm getting buried and yet none of you intellectual geniuses [insert sarcasm] can provide credible citations to back up the above quoted comment. Carry on bigot...err, I mean...bury brigade, carry on.
darthmeatloafApr 25, 2011
Only thing I could find was a Gallup poll from 2007:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
It states that belief in evolution was inversely proportional to the frequency of church attendance.
74% of people who attend church weekly DO NOT believe in evolution, whereas 71% of people who do not attend church with any frequency DO believe in evolution.
Of course, this is ALL churchgoers polled, with no delineation between conservative or liberal.
ngc4414Apr 26, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
rikninoApr 26, 2011
"Teachers, police officers and firefighters are greedy. But billionaire CEOs and hedge-fund managers are not." ROFL
ridgerunner5Apr 25, 2011
The only shameless thing going on here is how often alternet is brought up on Digg as some form of reliable source.
touchy610Apr 25, 2011
Yeah, Digg is only used for reliable sources...
ridgerunner5Apr 25, 2011
Needs more Alex Jones
wf80diditApr 25, 2011
Add Freak Out Nation to that list as well. Sorry Anomaly :P
Closed AccountApr 26, 2011
We need to be given a single daily super digg. This comment is super digg worthy.
ridgerunner5Apr 26, 2011
Thank ya, sir :)
nodespikeApr 25, 2011
Why do people still believe there is a difference between a republican politician and a democratic politician?
They are all the same. They work together for their own benefit.
they could tell you I will bring world peace and morons will still vote for them.
There is no difference in REP. or DEM. that's what they want you to think so you vote in who they want you to vote for.
roddackApr 26, 2011
Of course the government has created jobs. How else would they have the ranks of thugs that are utilized to steal from others?
zirchxworldApr 26, 2011
i dare democrats and liberals to submit a neutral source for once. instead of this alternet.org, moveon.org, mediamatters crap.
ngc4414Apr 26, 2011
This account has been closed by the user
sapana543Apr 26, 2011
Lies:
Obama raised taxes - yeah check the healthcare reform bill. Does raise taxes.
Government has created jobs - well they do pay someone to show up and do 'work', but that work does not really add to the GDP does it?
The author even says that MSNBC is news...since when?
barackalypseApr 25, 2011
Al Gore said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. " To say that someone saying he claimed to have invented the Internet is lying is really semantics between the difference between invent and create. Either way, Gore far far overstated his involvement.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Unregistered_CowardApr 25, 2011
Liberals and Conservatives, Pots and Kettles.
MusicManGPApr 25, 2011
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
He meant, as implied by the "During my service in the United States Congress," that he did so politically. See my above reference for details on how that was the case. Al Gore by no means claims to have created any of the technology involved in the creation of the internet.
jbarker6Apr 25, 2011
Why the hell is this garbage a hot story? More like is there any limit to what Politicians will say -- and what people will believe?
Until you step back and realize that all of Washington is bogus you won't get the real picture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alanocuApr 25, 2011
You know, it's almost sad how Americans have rejected the ideas of the alternuts and liberal dims. No one is listening to them, and when you feel powerless and have no voice, the only strategy you have is self-defeating and sunk attempts at defeating the opposition.
It's such a losing strategy. I'm just embarrassed for the Democrats.
This is sad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
16x9Apr 25, 2011
The Republicans are admittedly good at wrapping up their poop-on-a-stick philosophy and making it seem as if they will save our country. The GOP pushes the right buttons, scares people in just the right way, lies so boldly that too many assume that it has to be the truth.
If your ideas weren't wrecking the country and our world I'd find it a truly amazing thing to witness.
Democrats, on the other hand, find it manipulative to push those buttons. They assume that people will be able to see through the fabrications. But the truth is that we don't. And this isn't an elitist "we are too stupid to see the truth" claim. We don't because most of us are just too damned busy keeping our heads above water to really look around and see what's going on.
So what's the result of this? The Republicans understand this about us (and I suspect facilitate it). They make their message simple, exaggerated, loud and consistent. The superior message of the Democrats gets lost in the noise.
Until Democrats embrace this reality and learn to work with it, I fear we will continue to travel the road paved by Ayn Rand and her modern-day acolytes.
npisthojApr 26, 2011
There is no shame in political, only money to be make by lobbying lies. the more lies, the more money you made.
mabarrowsApr 26, 2011
"Every generation needs a new revolution" Thomas Jefferson. Who wants to help me start one?
gkiltzApr 26, 2011
Some people STILL believe that Elvis is alive!!
skyislandApr 26, 2011
I heavily discount US main stream media in the truth department. US federal and state government as well. Without internet for outside reference the media in the US wouldn't even have the forces holding it to account. Even discussing distortions and repeating falsehoods pushed by the corporate right empowers the lies pushed.
Media consolidation of ownership in the US and the grip it and corporates behind it have on the US is frightening because it's gotten its mitts on the high court and the federal monetary system along with the mechanism that inserts presidents and representatives. It affects what is prosecuted and can push war and issues it wants..
That said, the US is still the leader if the world is to work its way out of the mess it's in with the environment, economics and essentially what I'd describe a some sort of good business practices which still continue to some degree along with higher education facilities and research. But the general public is a dim witted bunch of followers with visions of great excellence it doesn't have.
There are a scattering of sources of information but there is also an effort afoot to better reporting to some small degree.. But ownership has got hold of media dispersal and won't likely let go and right now internet access is under threat in the United States and most are too dumb to know.. Once lost freedom won't be coming back anytime soon and there is no time to waste retooling to combat global warming and trying to put a hold on military spending and undercutting of protective social programs and the agencies responsible for public safety.
Still it's my country but next time if ever I fly the flag it may be upside down for distress. The world better hope the US get's it's act together.. And soon.
Unregistered_CowardApr 25, 2011
Articles like this are why I've stopped reading Alternet and Politcusa. They make the same baseless claims and exaggerations that they accuse the other side of perpetrating.
It's like a snake eating it's tail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusApr 25, 2011
No more limited than what the DNC will say and their people gobble up like Nutter Butter cookies at a pound party...
obvioustrollApr 25, 2011
I like how he claims several things as "lies" that have been shown to be true: Including the fact that Kerry seriously padded his military record.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bionicpimpApr 25, 2011
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
jbarker6Apr 25, 2011
legit link............
bionicpimpApr 25, 2011
Dammit! I got trolled by "obvioustroll"...well played...well played...
obvioustrollApr 27, 2011
I've known Snopes off-and-on for 20 years; on political issues he's highly partisan. In addition, his source is the very book that had only John Kerry himself as its source and was debunked by testimony of people who served with him.