Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jason Lankow
16768 Followers
Darcy Savit
241 Followers
Darcy Savit
241 Followers
Matt Tobey
1407 Followers
Matt Tobey
1407 Followers
YME1280@AIM
2939 Followers
YME1280@AIM
2939 Followers
tyg10Aug 3, 2010
Well I do agree with this!!!
alanocuAug 3, 2010
Murders, rapists, and racists.....the Democratic leadership could use some work.
jboitnottAug 3, 2010
Well I'm glad they've got it narrowed down to just these two.
/s
theinformerAug 3, 2010
For the most part, according to Digg, it's only the RetUGlicans that bend moral principles.
moderndaydarwinAug 3, 2010
It's all politicians.
Oh s**t I just posted that on Digg, guess there goes your narrow minded drivel.
scuba7183Aug 3, 2010
@Darwin but the internet tells me it's all the Republicans' fault! Liberals fix everything!
/independent
stikytAug 3, 2010
@TheInformer
Nice partisan-bait but you forgot to mention that the Republican party runs on a basis of 'family values' while Democrats support social liberty. So even if both sides aren't morally up to standard at least the Dems aren't hypocrites about it.
omicronnineAug 3, 2010
And nothing will ever change as long as everyone keeps believing that you HAVE to choose one or the other.
Is that what everyone really wants? No? Then stop voting for it. Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.
Never again.
arschgaudiAug 3, 2010
Are we to believe that third party politician is somehow immune to corruption?
ww917352Aug 3, 2010
I think OmicronNine is challenging the whole political system, not implying that third party politicians are better.
stikytAug 3, 2010
No one 2012!
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
Neither actually. I am challenging the *two-party system*, which creates a situation where people feel they have to vote for one person, even if they don't like them, simply because they like the other one *less*.
Its bad for politics, and bad for this country. We NEED viable third parties.
mikelistAug 3, 2010
your idea, which is apparently to boycott elections is the stupidest s**t ever. if the only plausible candidates are dems and repubs, it's because there is no compelling alternative. and there still isn't, direct tea party folks are a non-starter, because they have put too much effort into merging with the republicans. all of the peripheral parties are one-trick ponies and although i like the greens environmental platform, they have nothing to offer to non-environmental issues.
that new party has to gel before the major primaries,
rsm33Aug 3, 2010
How about voting for a third party?
Or going and writing someone in.
Nobody is saying "don't vote" but that is all anyone seems to hear.
ANY third party with any sort of party will immediately have an impact in the United States. When the dems and repubs are no longer able to orchestrate everything, something real will start to happen. The fact that it has been this long, and we STILL haven't managed to even have a third party with 3 seats in congress is simply depressing.
mikelistAug 3, 2010
but it won't be the tea party.. merely having a third party doesn't ensure any positive effect, you can claim president o is this or that, but if you think that the republican ticket would have done better, or that having a random third party (you didn't define your overall views, but sound like a teabagger, plenty of outrage, no realistic focus) would improve the process, you have shown yourself as the idiot you are.
theaceoffireAug 3, 2010
@rsm33
You would still need organization to get lots of people to write in the *SAME NAME*. 3 billion votes for random people will not help defeat anyone.
And if you have the organization to vote for person x or party y, why not turn *THAT* into a party?
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
My idea is NOT to boycott elections.
And there is no need to all vote for one independent politician, or one third party. I don't care WHO you vote for. As long as its not a republican or democrat, and enough people do it, the results could be earth shattering to the existing duopoly of power. Politicians would be panicking in the streets!
mikepictorAug 3, 2010
and you'll do what instead.
If you just step away and do nothing, congratulations. Your "statement" is ignored, and nothing changes.
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
As long as people like you are the majority, then yes, voting for a third party candidate accomplishes nothing, and nothing changes.
Are you proud of yourself?
norman619Aug 3, 2010
The problem isn't feeling that you have to chose one or the other. the problem is that people stop giving a s**t after the vote. Anyone who thinks this is a Democrat or Republican issue is an idiotic partisan lemming. We do not force our ELECTED representatives to do their jobs. They know we don't care and this has fostered this entitlement mindset held by most of our politicians. If they knew the people would be willing to kick them out of office AND have criminal charges filed against them they would be less likely to pull this s**t. It's like any other workplace. When the workers know the boss isn't going to do anything to them from breaking the rules or out right not doing their jobs they will do as they please. WE are ultimately to blame for this. We have the elected officials we deserve.
rsm33Aug 3, 2010
I agree with you, but I think a big part of that not caring comes from the "us versus them" political setup we have in this country.
norman619Aug 3, 2010
It's human nature to view things like this. The political system in place isn't to blame it's the general apathy the general public feels when it comes to our government and how it is being run. they only care when things start to hurt like they are now. this s**t has been going on for decades. Hell I'm tempted to say it's been going on for generations. It's become the American way to not give a s**t about how our house is run until things get REALLY bad. this is how we tend to deal with most things and it's sad. I don't know what it will take to get people to care about their government and what the people we send to DC are actually doing with the power we entrusted them with.
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
You are not actually wrong norman619, but you are dismissing the cause to focus on the effect. The politicians don't have to do their jobs right primarily because they only have to do them just well enough so that we don't run to the one other choice. Its the ultimate duopoly.
Us: Hey politicians! Do a better job!
Politicians: Or what? You'll vote for the other guys?
Us: Well... no. I can't do that. The talking heads on my preferred propaganda network told me the other guys will destroy all that I hold dear!
Politicians: Exactly. Now here's a lollipop, go play over there. I need to talk to the nice man with the millions of dollars who needs favors...
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
Until we get campaign finance reform, all politicians will be corruptible. Its naive to think someone like Rand Paul is going to change that.
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
Who said anything about Rand Paul?
And you are 100% right. Of course, good luck getting real campaign finance reform through with the current duopoly of power.
Nothing less then wholesale votes for third parties can possibly change anything now.
theinformerAug 3, 2010
The original tagline is ridiculous.
It would be like saying "With the possible exception of men, no sex knows how to bend moral principles to the point of near-snapping better than the women."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ljay90Aug 3, 2010
that would be the point. it's called a joke.
hipmanAug 3, 2010
When did he grow a beard?.
russ3Aug 3, 2010
it looks terrible.
decoy26517Aug 3, 2010
Explanation:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-26-2010/jon-s-white-beard
I think it looks good. But I know I'm in the minority :P.
theaceoffireAug 3, 2010
When a man and a goat *really* like each other...
um...
You know what, the stork brings it.
theswashbucklerAug 3, 2010
"possible exception"?????
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Ah, that was hilarious. Rangle is such an arrogant hypocritical ass.
raouldukehstAug 3, 2010
to paraphrase something I heard:
our government has two legs - a left and a right - and while at any given time they appear to be going in different ways, they are actually marching in the same direction
mithrasinvictusAug 3, 2010
More like a right leg and an extremely right leg.
raouldukehstAug 3, 2010
the point is that the right v left concept is largely imaginary
sprucecabooseAug 3, 2010
And in the US, both legs keep tripping each other, while blaming the torso.
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
And although its not entirely clear what that direction is, I do know that it will include more favors for lobbyists, more money for politician's campaigns, and more power for politicians to turn into favors for lobbyists so they can provide more money for politician's campaigns...
jjason1985Aug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
You miss the ethical mecca we had with Bush, don't you?
jjason1985Aug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
Oh, you mean Ron Paul? Who do you mean?
jjason1985Aug 4, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
omicronnineAug 4, 2010
SpinningHead: It doesn't matter who. Just voting outside the power duopoly, if enough of us do it, could force major changes.
spinningheadAug 4, 2010
I agree with the sentiment, but look how much stock libertarians put in Rand Paul. As soon as he got in office, you get the same old thing. If we had government campaign finance, we wouldnt have congress hustling for money from lobbyists 11mo per year.
mrcacaAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
raouldukehstAug 3, 2010
wasn't nancy going to "drain the swamp"
good for the goose and all that...
dayal911Aug 3, 2010
indecisionforever is a liberal biased site.
mrcacaAug 3, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dayal911Aug 3, 2010
The dailyshow is an extremely biased left wing comedy show.
sprucecabooseAug 3, 2010
Everyone has a bias. That is reality. Here, they appear to be going after democrats, so what is your point?
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
You mean like fighting to ban gay marriage while trying to score in a men's room?
fyberopticAug 3, 2010
But guys, I thought The Daily Show and Comedy Central were part of the liberal media? This must all be a trick against conservatives!
dayal911Aug 3, 2010
They are. Notice they don't ever attack the liberal agenda, they just attack the fringe democrats that are in trouble, while attacking any and every republican.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sprucecabooseAug 3, 2010
What is this "liberal agenda" crap? I would consider myself a liberal, and I find most US liberals far too right, to be honest. There is no agenda that I signed up for, and I disagree with many liberals about policies, just as often as I disagree with conservatives.
Each person has different views and opinions. Lumping every liberal and every conservative together and then saying that they are just reading from some agenda that someone else came up with is intellectually lazy and disingenuous.
anawnymooseAug 4, 2010
I would also like to know where I can find the liberal agenda. I'd like a copy of the gay agenda as well while we're at it.
dayal911Aug 4, 2010
Liberal agenda:
Increasing government control of all aspects of our lives:
health care, food, energy usage, FCC, schools, expansion of overseas empire.
Bush was a liberal.
It's really not that hard to see.
bamatoneAug 3, 2010
Fun to see how a page devoted to ethically challenged Dems still turns into a GOP hatefest in the comments. I'm a libertarian and I hate both sides, but what really annoys me is how Digg pretends to be against all politicians. What I finally decided was that Digg will lay into individual Dems for their actions, but absolve the party, whereas a Republican misbehaving is just par for the course. Newsflash here, people. They all want the same thing: Absolute power for themselves and control over you.
I wish I could just stick to the kitten submissions. :(