What is Digg?129 Comments
- joelm2400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18As a Christian i have to say that I think that the notion of a "fundamentalist" christian as being a republican is completely wrong. I think people who promote prejudice like Dr. Dobson do not represent the true meaning of christianity. Christ said it himself, (im paraphrasing) all christian values can be boiled down to two commandments, love god, and love people. Thats it.
Just my $.02 - MercedRocks, on 10/13/2007, -4/+20Its so lame, Hillary cant win, too many people hate her. Obama , on the other hand, he could actually win. I tend to vote Rep but Id even vote for the guy because he's NOT PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT and he smoked pot, meaning hes a real, live human being and not some scary socialist robot like Hillary....she seems so fake and contrived and devoid of any true feelings.
- OmarOmar, on 10/16/2007, -0/+15I don't agree with Mr. Dobson's views but at least he is going with a candidate for the right reasons.
- joebrender, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16If the fringe right moves out of the GOP, that might make the GOP more electable.
- dinostabOMG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12You're right, it is a problem. But the source of that problem is the simplistic election system we have here. What you've described is what's wrong with "first past the post." If we had proportional elections of one stripe or another, then we WOULD be able to vote for the candidate we like without worrying about the greater of the evils winning. This is how it works in more sensible countries. I don't know how we'd get this changed, though; it's not in the interest of those who have power now.
- lead2thehead, on 10/14/2007, -0/+10There is a lot of this sentiment floating around on the right, but it isn't entirely about religion like this article is trying to claim. Real conservatives are truly disappointed with the current Republican leadership because they've abandoned conservative principles. That's why the Democrats were able to take back the house and senate so easily. The Republicans have abandoned their base and so conservatives don't feel compelled to vote for them anymore. And it's going to be that way until they get their act together.
- spacecoyote1966, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm not sure its possible to get worse than Bush
- ereg, on 10/15/2007, -25/+32There is only one way to settle this
RON PAUL 08 - 309east, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7It's amazing that these pundits still think that American's can be characterized by their party affiliation. The truth is that the old labels are being rejected by most citizens these days. Certain candidates are drawing support from all across the spectrum, democratic, republican, independent, liberal, conservative, left, right.. The labels are less and less important.
- neodorian, on 10/15/2007, -1/+8I agree but for different reasons. Hill-dog is hardly socialist. I understand that is how she is categorized in conservative media but if you compare her stances to one of the social-capitalist societies in Europe, she's closer to Nixon. Even so, I think she's part of the old establishment of the left. The Tipper Gore, ban the music, ban the video games, jail the pot smoker, save the children type. Not the kind of person that represents my interests. I lean left because I'm relatively young and want the government to avoid issues of social choices like media consumption, sexual practices, diet, etc. I don't think business or the church ought to control all of these things so I don't vote Republican. I don't think the government should control them so I won't vote for some democrats. I also don't think we should get rid of the Department of Education, United Nations, right to abortion, easier path to a legal immigration to cut down on the illegals, or common sense gun regulation that doesn't ban guns, but makes sure you're licensed. Therefor I can't vote for Ron Paul. He's just too anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-"foreigner" (i.e. non-anglo), and anti-gun regulation. I need someone who stands for things as they are today, not a hundred years ago. No xenophobia, no homophobia, none of this us-vs-them mentality.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Herpes may be another cause.
- mikerand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm one of the ones disappointed with the republicans. I really don't care if they win or loose, I think they're pretty much the same as the democrats. They've had years to shrink the size of government and it has just gotten bigger as they gorge themselves on our taxes and borrow our future.
- spacecoyote1966, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5 tend to have a lot of Libertarian views, but with the two-party system I usually gotta pick the LO2E. For me that is the dems. Even though the GOP is in some ways closer to libertarian views, what tips my vote leftward is the Taliban Wing (religious right) of the GOP.
- Hetman, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7George carlin also says that.
- beautifulleper, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7I am not so sure why people worry so damn much about other people reproductive rights, it seems to be one of the smallest concerns on a much larger list of issues such as war, environment, ecconomy, I think the nations diet is more important than the abortion issue. I agree with some republican ideals but they terrorfy me that reproductive rights are such a big issue that they would not concider a canidate based on that issue alone...
- NickMilne, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5It will be hard for them to finally establish their Looming, Imminent Theocracy if they're more interested in doing what they feel to be the right thing than in voting for whatever vaguely-sympathetic candidate is most likely to win. Maybe they don't actually want to establish a theocracy after all. Maybe they never did! Shocking.
- Sketchcast, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5It failed in BC too, thanks to voter ignorance. Most people who voted no did so because they were too ***** lazy to read the goddamned pamphlet that was mailed to everybody. *****.
Still, our multi-party system is light years ahead of the two party system in the US. - redwards, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Totally disagreed on the notion that Hillary can't win. If the race is Hillary vs. Rudy, as it's shaping up to be, I think Hillary will absolutely destroy Giuliani.
- Hetman, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4This will all change after the republican primaries are over. Whoever wins will change stance to gather support from the christian right.
- Hetman, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4I am against universal healthcare. However this is another reason why big business is against Ron Paul. If the government starts universal healthcare that means corporations will not have to provide healthcare for their employee's. That will save them way more money than if Ron Paul was elected.
- MattB123, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5As a non-Christian, I have to say that you're making a whole lot of sense. You are a credit to your people.
If only you could convince the rest of those folks to think like this... - Crosshare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dear lord no I don't hope for that. I would like to see Obama win the Demcratic side, and Paul win the Republican side so we can actually see change regardless. If Ron Paul has to go 3rd party, I'm afraid he'll get railroaded as another Ross Perot. His best chance at winning is now.
- Gerz1219, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4It's an extremist position to believe that the United States should become a Christian theocracy, just as it's extremist to believe that everything but the police department should be privatized, or that we should levy an 80% tax on the rich. For any ridiculous extremist position, there will be a small minority of people who will agree with it -- and a large majority who vehemently oppose it.
Democracy is about compromise. If everyone voted only for candidates that precisely shared their viewpoints, we'd wind up with 100 million different candidates, and the guy who managed to get two votes would win with a plurality. It's always wrong to enact extremist positions quickly, because they will always be opposed by a substantial percentage of the population, and society works best when only a small number of people are pissed off all the time. The two-party system helps ensure moderation and compromise. It's best to support a major party candidate who will at least pay lip service to your beliefs, rather than make an angry statement by voting for an ideologue with no chance of winning. It's better to be practical than to feel right. Being practical gets things done. - treehugger87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The two party system does not do anyone any good. The best thing that could happen to this country is if a third party "evangelical christian" party got 20% of the votes in the next presidential election. We would then enter the era of a multi party system that would break the cycle of corporate ownership of our politicians and our government.
I for one am tired of holding my nose when I vote because the candidate I REALLY want is not one of the 2 people who has a real chance of winning. Check out the Netherlands' parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_par ... one of the most successful multi-party democracies in the world. - rotundo, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3I think the issue is that they don't see it as reproductive-rights, they see it as human-rights. They believe that the unborn should be fully protected humans and that abortion is genocide. I am guessing that you don't see it that way, but it's worth understanding why the other side takes it so seriously.
Politically I'm pro-choice, but I am personally sickened by abortions after viability (which is an early and moving target). But I understand that if you don't think unborn are full humans, then it probably seems absurd to you to be so worried about it. - NickMilne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes and no. There was never any chance of it happening anyway; what we voted on this week was whether or not there was sufficient interest to put the idea of a switch to a particular system (Mixed-Member Proportional) before the legislature so that THEY could argue about whether it was necessary or not, and then vote on whether to maybe think about implementing it a few years from now. The proposed system was also idiotic. I voted against it, even though I would like nothing better than to change the current FFP system. The problem (and I'm sure the question was designed with this in mind) is that voting against MMP seemed to be a vote in favour of the status quo. There was no "change, but not this change" option. People are not happy about this; or, at least, I'm not.
- 10001110101, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3LOL. In Ontario, we just had a referendum to switch away from FPP. It failed.
- bratpack8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We're supposed to be a republic, where a monkey could be elected and still swears to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.
- primus101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5First, I know diggers love to post Christian bashing articles, but the fact of the matter is Dobson is not the ***** spokesperson for Christians, just like Jesse Jackson is not the spokesperson for black people. Both are just media figure heads. Dobson isn't a Christian he's a ***** puppet just like many media heads are. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Colmes, Dobbs, all of them media puppets. In media don't trust anyone they are all ***** up.
- gropo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Democrats tending to embody ideas of compassion and Samaritanism, I've never really understood why hard-line Christians have backed the Republicans the last 20 or so years. What would Jesus think of trickle down economics or Republican Pentagon budgets? Republicans are effective at targeting the sentiment in many Christians that our society is "losing its moral focus."
Meanwhile it's the Democrats who propose far more pragmatic, functional approaches to remedying that degradation, while Republicans make giant symbolic gestures like Terry Schiavo circuses and don't actually seem to want to 'heal' society's woes in any constructive manner. Too much work, too much impact on the "free market" (their actual God). - BlacklabelSAR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is why I have been a registered Independent for so many years.
- pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The "simplistic" election system is better than the alternative. In Europe you get multiple small parties, and a small extremist party frequently has just enough legislative votes to control one aspect of government. In the US, the voters have to choose which politician will represent them. This pushes decision making down towards the voters, which is a good thing. Of course, you're relying on the politician to behave reasonably close to how he campaigned.
Over the long haul, when situations like this come up (i.e. Dobson), then the politicians will get the message, and we'll get more candidates that can appeal to enough voters to get elected. We've had a couple of significant third party candidates over the last several decades (John Anderson, Ross Perot ) and the Republic didn't collapse. But it did make the two parties more attentive to the issues they raised. If they hadn't, they would no longer be one of the two major parties.
It all comes down to a matter of degree, and what the politicians think they can get away with. - AJH16, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3While I agree with the article's conclusion that it would be political suicide to split the religious right off in to their own party for this election, the article is very short-sighted as to the benefits it has. If a sufficient number of traditional Republican voters were willing to express their dissatisfaction with the current Republican party, even at the expense of sinking the entire party, it would leave the rest of the party no choice but to capitulate to their demands or face a never ending string of losses. They would never stand for that and so the far right would bring the party more in line with their views.
Personally, I still think the entire system stinks though. Allowing everyone to vote once for every candidate they wish to support and electing the candidate with the most votes President would deal with the issue in general. - professorchaos1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pretty much what I meant in my comment above. ;-)
- Kent4jmj, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Dobson's integrity concerning not voting for the lesser of two evils is commendable. Swallowing the lie that we have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils is really stupid.
However his failure to acknowledge Ron Paul who pass his litmus test is a real moral fault. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3I think Obama is the only Dem with a chance at 'outChristianing' the Republicans and wooing the evangelicals. His speeches certainly sound preachy enough.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dinostabOMG is right, the nature of the US electoral system forces you to vote for a candidate from a major party whose interests most closely align with yours. The fact of the matter is that WE AGREED 200 YEARS AGO THAT THIS WAS THE BEST SYSTEM and a super-majority of us have been voting to tweak the constitution's election system ever since. If you choose to play the political game foolishly, and vote in a non-strategic manner so that your preferences will not be represented in the legislative and executive branches, that is your prerogative, and is ultimately self-defeating.
Think of it like standing on a 9 vs. a dealer upcard of 7 in black-jack. Sure you might win very occasionally if you stand, but you are significantly better off if you hit, even if 9 is your favorite number.
Politics is a game, and if you don't play the game with your best interests in mind, you often end up getting screwed. I wonder how different our country would be if 1000 Nader Supporters would have voted with their minds, rather than their guts, for Al Gore, we would have a Nobel Peace Prize winner for a president, rather than this war-mongering, illiterate, know-nothing Bush we have in office now. - MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article is kinda lame because he argues that without the Christian right support the Reps will lose......who the heck else are they gonna vote for? He doesnt say in his article, only that the Right isnt happy with its choices.
- bratpack8, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3Jesus wasn't too fond of religions either.
- MattB123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3“It’s not about winning elections. It’s about honoring Christ”
Excellent. Keep the honors coming! - roystgnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you mean "ranked or rated elections" not "proportional elections". Proportional elections can work for legislatures, but it's very hard to hold a proportional election for an office like President. If you try to make a victor who's 48% Kerry and 51% Bush, you just end up with blood everywhere.
- Skip742, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2"Frightening tricks up his sleeve", huh? Wow, that's almost as bad as a "risky scheme". I'm trembling in my boots.
I think we've all had enough of politics by fear. Let's try to argue based on facts, not on fear. It's time for us all to move past this kind of garbage.
And, what we have today is NOT "private healthcare" but a government-mandated system that works exactly how any economist could have predicted...poorly. The solution is NOT more government. - Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That is until fox news gets a hold of him. They will turn him into a terrorist by time they are done. He went to a muslim schoo, what if he is a sleeper cell, blah blah blah blah etc.
- phatt-matt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not going to happen. This is an effort to get the current batch of candidates to move closer to the right.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm a Christian. I can't tell you how much I wish Christian leaders would stop getting into politics. If Dobson would use his "platform" and "influence" to actually preach the gospel of Christ instead of politics, maybe people wouldn't be so anti-Christian.
I am sad to say that one time a non-Christian girl visited our church. She happened to have put a sweater on that morning that still had an "al gore" button on it. One of the ladies in the church (nervously trying to make light conversation with her) actually saw it and said "oh, you're with the enemy!"
I don't care who you vote for, I actually don't care who becomes president, I just want that girl to hear the gospel without thinking she'll have to change party affiliations before she can accept it! - ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Jesse Jackson's not my spokesman!? The white folks on digg have been completely misleading me!!!!!!
- bratpack8, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Gerz, where in our Constitution does it mention Democracy? We're not a democracy, we're supposed to be a Republic. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority, i.e. mob rule, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. Dobson has a right to his views, and if people are blind enough to simply vote the same way he does, oh well. There are people who vote the same way George Clooney, Sean Penn and Robert Redford do as well. What we need to stress is the importance in getting back to the Constitution and there's only one candidate that preaches that this election cycle. He's got my vote, but I'm not expecting a thousand others to vote for Ron Paul just because I will.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay, so Ron Paul has your vote, which means you won't be voting for a major party candidate, which means a candidate you don't like will be the next president. It's all well and good to support a candidate polling at 1% during primary season, but I sure hope you reconsider come next November.
And please, for the love of God, people need to stop reflexively reacting negatively whenever the word "democracy" is used. This is a democratic republic, and the "this is a republic, not a democracy" meme was invented by the far-right to get people used to the idea that they shouldn't be running their own government. We're actually in agreement on a lot of points, but when you treat the word "democracy" as a curse word, you do us all a disservice. - rotundo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I used to believe in voting your heart. But unfortunately our election system penalizes that behavior. You can say "I won't play that game", but like it or not, you'll be playing... and losing.
Personally I would like something like approval voting, which doesn't penalize voting your heart:
http://www.approvalvoting.org/
However, until something like that is in place, I will play the game I'm given to the best of my ability. And that means voting for the best chance of causing the least problems. - bratpack8, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3You should read a new book called, "The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money." It is really eye-opening and completely rips apart the stereotypical argument that big business hates big government and regulations and taxes. It is the exact opposite. Think for a moment. Can any company of any size FORCE you to buy their products or work for them? In a free-market (i.e. no government interference) they cannot. But in today's world, corporatism prevails, where large corporations use the power of the State (why the heck do they spend so much in lobbying) to protect themselves from competition. When large box stores go into markets and get tax breaks from cities, that gives them a huge advantage over other stores that have to pay taxes (and even more now that these large stores don't have to pay). Think about the Export-Import bank giving large sums of money and loan guarantees to huge corporations like Boeing. Think about why we pay 3x the world price for sugar, as well as cement and peanuts, amongst many other goods. It is the government FORCING laws upon us to protect their donations.
As for your glorious free-universal-single-payer, health care system, you should simply read some basic economics books, like 'Economics in One Lesson.' It's an easy read. -
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is