digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at whitehouser.com

How I've Come To Loathe the Democratic Party

whitehouser.com — While the media obsesses over Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, not all Democrats are happy with the party's leadership over the years.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sukmydigg, on 03/13/2008, -0/+168I'm not happy with any party's leadership over the last decade.
    • Waterrat, on 03/13/2008, -1/+28 The same goes for me.
      I loathe BOTH parties.
      • GeorgeClayton, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12If republicans were truly small government, they'd have my vote every time. Libertarian needs a serious boost in this country.
    • Pillage, on 03/13/2008, -0/+27couldn't agree more, the republicans blame the democrats and the democrats blame the republicans, all the while the people get screwed. We should have followed George Washington's advice and stayed out out entangling alliances and the factioning of political ideals.
    • NightVortez, on 03/13/2008, -0/+14As long as people think about politics as "which party you belong to" the system is never going to work.

      The fact that they flip flop like crazy every other year because their "leader" changes his position disgusts me.
    • brundlefly76, on 03/13/2008, -5/+6I thought it was common knowledge that NO Democrat has been happy with our party leadership for years - its been horrific, we all know that. Since Bill Clinton the Democratic party has been like Rock after Cobain - tepid, unimaginative and unappealing.
      • fyngyrz, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8Modern democrats? You're all just as bad as the recent spate of republicans. Citizens had a real shot at change in a candidate who actually supported American ideals like liberty and state's rights, who would have gotten us actually *out* of Iraq, and much more. But you were too dim to support that candidate, and now you're going to elect either a constitutional law professor who can't follow the constitution (for example, he can't understand the basic phrase "shall not be infringed") or a lawyer whose idea of campaigning is to claim that hanging with pop stars was "peacemaking in Bosnia", and who thinks "the village" should be raising your children. The republicans are just as bad in their own special little ways.

        Good luck with all that. Personally, I'm quite certain I'm going to get to watch the country turn the rest of the way into a tin-pot dictatorship while you all wring your hands and whine about how you "tried." You've backed yourself into a corner you can't get out of any longer.

        • brundlefly76, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2what does what you just wrote have to do with democrats not approving of their party leadership?
          jesus the RP people will take any opportunity to spam digg comments - even after his campaign is gone.

          What could possibly be your reasoning for beleiving that Obama will turn the US into a 'tin pot dictatorship'?
          Its like you just cut and pasted an RP rant from a different post.
      • SC4RP, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2If you want things to change go to the Grannyworriers.com and come to the DC rally meet people like yourself who want to see a change. Or pick the party that use to be closer to your ideals and start something, become a precinct caption. You can not change them by sitting on the front door and crying. You have to get inside and be the catalyst that brings on the change.
    • DirkBelig, on 03/13/2008, -12/+5Oh, boo-fricking-hoo. Some bleeding heart liberal fascist can't stop crying emo tears over his shame that we're trying to save his worthless ass from being killed by Islamofascists and we're all supposed to applaud?!? FTS!!! Move to Europe where you can revel in the glories of such an enlightened Continent, you loser!!!!
      • Akronos, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4Does it ever occur to you neocons that in your zeal against this so called "Islamofascism", you are step by step transforming our nation into a fascist society, a nation you are supposedly against? I truly have never more hypocrites in any one movement than the neo-conservative one. It's as if you guys have a monopoly on lies, fraud, idiocy, and hypocrisy.
      • MrTulip, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2"liberal fascist" löl

        stop embarassing yourself
      • TimDigg, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2"liberal fascist"

        stop reading Jonah Goldberg
    • kyyled, on 03/13/2008, -3/+7Americans voted in November 2006 for and end to the war got a surge instead.
    • spankaccount, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7I haven't been able to vote for a Democrat for many years now - Democrats were once the party of "Ask not what your country can do for you..." but the party has moved much more to the left - offering to expand government in order to help "victims" with government programs, rather than promote self reliance and self determination. I miss the JFK days when Democrats knew that the US government wasn't created "provide" for people, just protect them.
    • dkern, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Sadly, there really are not two functioning parties and haven't been since Jimmy Carter and probably longer. Republican and Democrat political boxing matches are designed to hide the elitist neocon blood sucking ***** who are really running the planet into the ground grabbing what they can while they and ***** the rest of us. The missing trillions are probably being funneled into the space program so at just the right moment they will climb into a vehicle and head out into space while we struggle to breathe air on a dying planet.

      This is not a conspiracy theory- it is the only logical conclusion- one thing is for absolute certain- The few elite power players do not give two ***** to Sunday about any of us.
  • iraq, on 03/13/2008, -5/+52There are a lot of problems the party will have to clean up when the primary election is over. Exploiting racism to pick up the white male vote, exploiting gender to increase female support, Spitzer's public humiliation.. all just the tip of the iceberg. If I didn't think the Republican party was in equal or worse shape, I wouldn't give Democrats a chance in 2008.
    • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5I'm not so sure the racist angle is meant to pick up white male votes...at least it doesn't appear to be very effective if that's the real goal.
    • GhengisKhan, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Then write-in Ron Paul. That's your right in a democracy.
  • vault, on 03/13/2008, -2/+59Serious non-trolling question for the liberals: if superdelegates make Hillary the nominee or Dean and the Democratic leadership go ahead and make the Michigan/Florida primary delegates count (which could give Hillary the edge), who will you vote for in November if Obama is out? Will you still vote Democrat?
    • iraq, on 03/13/2008, -3/+25I think for anti-War Democrats, it depends on where John McCain positions himself on the Iraq war vs. Clinton. In a lot of ways, John McCain might be more liberal than Hillary (with the exception of maybe Healthcare, an issue Democrats will be talking a lot about in 2008)
      • InRussetShadows, on 03/13/2008, -2/+25McCain is a liberal, no doubt about it. But he is pro-life (Hillary is not), and he is for fiscal restraint (Hillary has said that we can't afford all her ideas). McCain would stand a good chance at balancing the budget whereas I doubt Hillary could get much done because she is ultra-polarizing.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -1/+18Oh don't kid yourself. Noone who makes it into that office is going to balance the budget. Clinton did it only because there was a huge huge huge public mandate to do so and a lot of the work that was done to balance the budget also came from Newt Gingrich's "new deal". Clinton in office, and Newt as the speaker made that happen.
        • fromonesource, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7John McCain is not for fiscal restraint! He spends and taxes like the rest of them!
        • thebaron2, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2@fromone (didn't have a reply button, sorry)

          McCain is the one Republican who handled the Bush tax cuts correctly, IMO. He was in favor of cutting taxes, but only if we cut *spending* also. He is FOR tax cuts, but is realistic about them, noting the fact that if we want to cut taxes, we also need to trim the fat from our over-spending, wasteful government.
      • SuperMoses, on 03/13/2008, -18/+18John McCain wants to attack Iran. He keeps referring to the Iraq war opposition as those who want to "surrender". The guys is a freakin neo-con. But so is Hilary Clinton.
    • Terr01, on 03/13/2008, -5/+12There's a lot of time until November to make the decision and for further positioning/digging on the candidates.

      I'm leaning Hillary. Not good, but still at least marginally better than McCain. Some of it might hinge on their ideas of executive power, the constitutionality of the military commissions act, repudiating the kind of unconstitution crap like unconstitutionally jailing US citizens as "enemy combatants",etc.
    • 3tcp, on 03/13/2008, -12/+15If hillary is the democratic nojminee it will bring a whole new age of political apathy. Half of Clinton's supporters will be dead by 2020 and the democratic party they'll leave behind will be stuck in a rut until people get ***** over by republicans so badly that they go running back.
    • benintn, on 03/13/2008, -6/+36write-in for Obama. i'm done w/ Billary.
      • vault, on 03/13/2008, -11/+5You can't be serious, a write-in?
        • RobotBuddha, on 03/13/2008, -2/+9It shows displeasure with the two choices a whole lot better than going for the lesser of two evils, or not voting at all. And in many polarized regions, the chances of a vote actually mattering are pure fantasy. If you're going to be forced down by the political tide no matter what, might as well give the finger to the system drowning you on the way out.
          • grakker, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Then write in Kucinich. Obama? Are people ***** serious?
        • pjr12345, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I write in people every time I am faced with an unopposed candidate, or where neither candidate is acceptable. It is a way to make a point, and if more people did this, the majors would definitely take heed.
        • vault, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2It shows displeasure yes, but no one cares. The Democratic Party hasn't changed any of the 5 other times Nader has run, why would they change this time?
          • Akronos, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Well, apparently they do care. At least enough to bash all the Nader supporters for "giving Bush the White House" instead of wondering what they did wrong to not get all those votes going to Bush.
            But you're right. The Dem. Party hasn't changed. They had their chance in 2006. And they blew it. But they'll still get votes and probably win because they are "change" from this current administration or at least, the "most likely or viable change".
          • vault, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2But you're saying they didn't wonder what went wrong...so why would that be any different on the sixth try? Vote for whoever you want, but history shows a vote for Nader does absolutely nothing to change the Democratic Party.
          • Akronos, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1What I'm saying is that democrats care, but they won't change themselves about it. They will instead blame Nader supporters for 8 years of Bush. Basically, their argument will consist of telling people "a vote for Nader (Or any third party candidate) is a wasted vote that helps the republicans, and so, even though we haven't changed our policies, you should still vote for us".
            By the way, I'm not a Nader supporter, and I would probably never vote for him but I respect him.
      • Pillage, on 03/13/2008, -3/+5I would hope Obama form a new party based on reformation. If anyone has come along with the influence to create a new formative party in America it would be Obama.
    • phnx0221, on 03/13/2008, -4/+18I'll be voting third party, to give some sort of percentage increase to the third party in an attempt to make it viable. If I can't stand the third party candidate (I think it's Nader now, i'm going to have to look into him), then I'll write in Kucinich.
      • TopherT, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6I'll vote third party too, Hillary and McCain are political machines more than people at this point and I wouldn't trust what either of them said on any issue. Nader speaks truth to power, and though I have policy differences with him, an expectation of honesty from politicians at least on their views would be a big step towards restoring efficacy to US democracy. Strategically I also think that the parties have gotten too close to each other and provide very little choice, Nader as a spoiler then hurts the democratic party and encourages them to move away from dead center.

        Of course this is all silliness, no real change ever came from an election, real change is grassroots and usually angry.
    • sbader, on 03/13/2008, -5/+19I'd have no problem voting for Hillary over mccain, i still can't get over his current stance on torture vs his experience as a pow. I liked McCain when he was the supposed Maverick but it seems as if he's been brain washed by Bush and co.
      • vault, on 03/13/2008, -2/+13Yeah but Hillary started off as the universal healthcare candidate with HillaryCare 1.0 and now some of her biggest donors are the insurance industry and Big Pharma. http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Once_an_Enemy_He ...

        It's hard to say who the bigger sellout is.
        • sbader, on 03/13/2008, -6/+11Yeah but there is still the 100 years in iraq thing with mccain.
          • PopcornDave, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Maybe he meant until *he's* 100.
            /sarcasm
          • thebaron2, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Can we stop with that out of context remark please? He was obviously commenting on troops in Iraq just like the ones we still have in Japan an Vietnam. The quote mentioned he'd be OK with troop presence as long as American forces weren't be killed or injured.

            Even before the Iraq war we had some 60,000 troops in the middle east. Anyone being honest with themselves will realize that we are going to have a military presence in the middle east long after this next election. The question is whether you'd like empty promises that the next candidate will bring them home immediately, or whether you'd like someone to just tell it to you like it is.
        • vault, on 03/13/2008, -2/+9No argument from me there, sbader. While McCain would only have control over 4 of those 100 years and would be subject to a Democratic majority in Congress, he did make his position very clear by saying that. And even though he criticized the way Rumsfeld handled the whole thing, he has supported the war itself every step of the way and has been fairly consistent about that.

          Now Hillary was gung-ho in favor of the war initially, then reneged on that, then voted to fund it, and now her plan is for 2011 plus wiggle room in that she's said she can't guarantee the removal of all US troops in Iraq by the end of her first term. In Hillary's defense, she said that the troops would be needed for continuing sup port roles (defending the embassy and whatnot, I'm guessing that includes oil interests as well). But in being fair to both candidates, what McCain's actually said was 100 years *as long as* Americans are not being injured or killed.

          So at least from my perspective, I don't see why an anti-war voter would vote for either one of them. If McCain says no withdrawal and Hillary's opinion is constantly changing with the fall-back excuse that the troops are needed for 'continuing support' then can she really be trusted with an anti-war vote?
      • bossm4n, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6I don't understand your comment--McCain is the one Republican to come out and state that waterboarding is torture. What more do you want? Who the hell else that has ever run for President could possibly have more of a grasp on the concept of torture than this man. I still don't like his politics, but the man sacrificed his own life for his men and proceeded to be imprisoned and tortured for 5 1/2 years. He can't even raise his arms due to the damage inflicted while held captive. I'm not condoning torture here, but anything that has been alleged or proven against the US military in recent years pales in comparison to what this man went through.
    • wild, on 03/13/2008, -4/+12Transparency in government is one of my key issues. McCain trumps Hillary. She has also burned up all of the good will I had for her over the last 6 weeks with her scorched earth policy.

      For the record I am registered and vote as an independent. My ballots are usually all over the map.

      Obama first, then McCain.
      • grakker, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2While I don't agree with you, I dugg you up just for answering the question.
    • MrBelding, on 03/13/2008, -8/+6Having lived in Chicago during Obamas formative years in politics I've been really excited about him since he was an IL Senator, however if Hilary got the nomination I am a party line guy and would still throw my support to the dems. People are certainly justified in wanting change away from the Clintion era, but I got to say I really don't think it would be that bad as a second choice...but theres been a lot of hype to the contrary. Sometimes I find it odd how little we can forget 8 years of republican rule, not just Bush. The dems botched it 4 years ago and I really really hope they take the reigns and I'll certainly rally around whoever the democratic nominated candidate is.
    • ZenFountain, on 03/13/2008, -7/+11I'll vote for McCain as a suicide vote because Hillary would destroy what little is left of the Democratic party.
    • SuperMoses, on 03/13/2008, -2/+13Vote Nader and show the Dems that if they want to win, they have to actually pay attention to left.
      • Intercon, on 03/13/2008, -4/+4Nader, eh? He pretty much ruined his chances in 2000. Obama write in for me.
        • rgersmrk, on 03/13/2008, -2/+0The Clinton's did more to ruin Gore's chances in 2000 than Nader ever could have.
        • SuperMoses, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Really? I thought that was the supreme court
      • PopcornDave, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately it won't show the Dems anything unless you've got lots and lots of dollars to back it up with. Neither party gives a flying ***** about anyone unless they come covered in cash.
    • virtualmadden, on 03/13/2008, -0/+20Personally I think it's sad when people vote "along party lines". I'm not trying to insult Dems or Repubs, but I think we've really perverted the American political system. Candidates need to be voted for based on their ability to make America a better and stronger place. I really don't care anymore about party, I've seen to many idiots not willing to look at the other party's candidate because their "not on their side". I applaud those mature enough to not help with the destruction by taking a hard look at the real messages and not party bias.
    • shortysmyname, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3If Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and in pledged delegates, I will vote for her if only to keep McCain out. But if the Supers give it to Hillary in spite of Obama's lead then I think Nader will have my vote. Or I'll stay home because it is all fixed anyway.
    • spiltmilkblog, on 03/13/2008, -2/+12I'll probably write Obama in on the ticket. I can't pick the lesser of two evils. I can't even begin to figure out who that is between Hillary and McCain, and I can't stand Nader... Besides, I don't know how any Obama supporter can happily vote for Hillary after she's insulted us so many times - saying that we're naive to believe in Obama's message of hope and calling us a bunch of "latte drinkers"... If the DNC gives it to Clinton, they have basically handed it to McCain.
      • grakker, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Well, you are naive and voting for an empty shirt as far as I'm concerned. If people fall for this shiny penny though, I would vote for him over McCain. I would voter for Clinton over McCain. I don't like either of these three, but there is a huge difference between McCain and the other two. I have a little trouble seeing the difference between the dem candidates, just because Obama says so much vapid ***** that I'm not really too sure where he stands.
    • TiMMY8765, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4I'll be voting for sitting at home playing some games
    • RRJackson, on 03/13/2008, -6/+6I'll be voting Republican if Obama gets the nomination. McCain is the obvious choice if it comes down to him or Obama.
    • Jeepy, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5Voting Democratic in Novemeber and voted Obama in the primaries. McCain's continued shifting to right of center just to win the nomination has made me lose a lot of respect for him and the fact that he has Bush campaigning for him doesn't help either.
    • perogi21, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Vote for me: perogi21!
    • Draxius, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6Is there a difference between hillary/mccain/obama? I mean, I guess Obama and Hillary want to give the medical insurance companies about twice the power they have already, but other than that.....
      • mulling, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2Yes. McCain and Clinton voted to invade Iraq like idiots. Obama was against it from the start, and would bring this ***** to a halt.
        • link5280, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8Obama wasnt in congress when this was voted on!
        • revisrev, on 03/13/2008, -2/+0@link: He was very vocal about his opposition before it was voted on.
    • mulling, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing myself in. I was Time Magazine's Person of the Year, after all.
    • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -6/+6Why do you all pretend that it's still possible to actually vote in the US? Are all of you really still completely ignorant of the ES&S and Diebold voting machine fraud that remains unfixed? I swear once you're all on the trains being dragged to Halliburton's new detainment facilities, (paid for by your tax dollars), I'd be surprised if most of you aren't still saying "Just wait until next election, then we'll show them!"
      • vault, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Oh is today free internet day at the paranoid schizo institute?
    • link5280, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Dean cant count the FL or MI votes unless they hold a new primary. Assuming this occurs both candidates will campaign and be on the ballot. But it wont happen, it will cost 30 million to hold them again and nobody is stepping forward to pay for this. It appears neither candidate will receive the number of delegates required to get nominated either, especially if the super delegates split. Delegates are going to have to jump ship to push the nomination either way. This should put a nice dent in the Democratic party for the general election. Anyway, I'm so sick of seeing spineless Democrats in congress I will not vote for them in the general election. I guess I'm voting for a third party, because Cain isn't getting it either. The current field doesn't deserve my vote.
    • kingUssop, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I'd vote for Hillary, McCain is turning into G.W.'s parrot so much it's repulsive.
    • Spoomeister, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3If Obama lost the Democratic nomination and formed a 3rd party, I'd vote for him.
    • myills, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I guess if Hillary got the nod I'd be torn. In respect to American Political history and the tradition that would be set by having the last twenty years being under either a Bush or a Clinton, I don't think I could do that. I don't think I can be sold something stinking of cheap aristocracy and I'm not being flippant either. I mean it. We've lowered ourselves enough with two bushes, lets keep away from the Clinton's, follow George Washington's lead and keep away from families being in power. I don't know why it isn't but that should be in the constitution.
    • Nettik, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2Obama, Ron Paul, or Hillary. In that order and nobody else. McCain is a war monger and Bush lover. Karl Rove is already advising him. Talks of war with Iran already. Is not against torture despite the torture done to him. He really does have an interesting shift on his priorities and war.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/13/2008, -3/+3I'd be leaning McCain. We need a good moderate candidate whose interests haven't been bought and sold.
    • rgersmrk, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I'd vote for McCain before I voted for Clinton. The corruption the Clinton's allowed during Bill's Presidency was enough for me to never vote for them again. Unfortuantely McCain is not the maverick politician that he was in 2000 (I supported McCain in 2000) or 2004. The only hope I see with McCain is even now he realizes how polarizing Iraq is and has softened his stance on staying there. With the latest media barrage that Iraq is gouging us with $110 per barrel oil and putting little to no money back into fixing their own country it will not surprise me that McCain changes his views entirely in the next few months.

      Obama is the man I'd like to see in office with McCain and unenthusiastic 2nd.
    • Mark6569, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1Hey Vault - is that your club name? Into S&M - most NEOCONS are into torture of some kind so it doesn't surprise me...
      By the way, I'm writing in Obama- staying home is UNPATRIOTIC - voting for MCCAIN or HILLARY is more of the SAME OLD ***** - unless you are a 1%'er, and are making $1MM a year, and have trust funds, there is absolutely no reason to vote REPUBLICAN or for anyone who smells like a REPUBLICON.....

      PS - Tom Jefferson was a stinking liberal...and for those of you who are religiously inclined, what would JESUS DO??? STay in Iraq for 100 years....hmmmmm----- NOT.
    • revisrev, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0I'd vote Clinton, as much as I hate to even think about it. The reason I would vote Clinton: appointments. America can not take another 4 years of judges being appointed by a Republican. The Judicial Branch is completely screwed right now, but luckily, these people do die, and when they do I hope there's not a republican in office to tip the scales even more.
    • groinkster, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I live in Arizona, which will most definitely go to McCain, so unfortunately - as much as I'm hoping to vote for Obama in November, he's not going to take the state. I'll have to wait and see if I am going to vote McCain or find a third-party, but I refuse to vote for Hillary.
  • caponumen, on 03/13/2008, -1/+20Yes, what a horrible disaster and why I call them the "Party formally know as democratic"..........
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/13/2008, -45/+34I loathe the Democratic Party because:

    1) They like big government.
    2) Their leadership hates the 2nd Amendment...and ignore the rest of the Constitution when they need to.
    3) They believe that government creates jobs and businesses oppress people.
    4) They believe that socialism is a viable alternative to private citizens owning and controlling things.
    5) They believe that welfare and social security are great ideas without which millions would starve and die.
    6) They believe that people with disposable income don't pay enough in taxes.
    7) They believe that the federal government knows how to run a healthcare system better than a state or local government...and much better than private companies.
    8) They believe in judicial activism...that is, judges get to make laws when they see fit, not just interpret the existing laws on the books.
    9) They believe that hate speech is not free speech.

    Need I go on?
    • chase001, on 03/13/2008, -14/+19Must... resist... temptation to feed the troll.
    • frogman54, on 03/13/2008, -10/+16Please do. I think you're lying about the ability to go on. I think if you had more, you would have rounded the list off at an even 10. That makes me suspect you are out of material. I challenge you to come up with another 50.
      • chase001, on 03/13/2008, -8/+10That was The Faux "News" Ten Commandments.
    • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -28/+12You are dead on with all of your points, here's another: They agonize over threats to the natural environment from pollution, yet they're totally oblivious to threats of the social environment from cultural pollution.
      • SickMonkey, on 03/13/2008, -5/+8Oh please, save your moralizing for church. Like it or not, last time I checked it's still a free country and people have a right to do what they choose.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5What is cultural pollution?
      • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -10/+8If you could only shut the ***** up, that would end some social and cultural pollution. Take jimmy the spaz with you, and you'd be doing a great service to digg.


        • masterm1nd, on 03/13/2008, -2/+10Did he mention intolerant of others opinions?
      • alex7575, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Ahhh, here's Ell3, now where's LukasSmith?
    • chiefbttlwshr, on 03/13/2008, -9/+12I could name examples of republicans doing each of those.
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/13/2008, -2/+8Yes, that is why I vote third-party now. It's not that I left the Republican Party. It's that they left me.
        • RobotBuddha, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5It's depressing to watch an idealist who actually believes in the supposed goals of either party as they get into office. I'm not exaggerating when I say that both parties are primarily motivated by opposing the other, next by the same "cool kids table" fashion one sees in high school, and only keeps their actual intent to improve and maintain the law as a distant third. It happens to almost everyone who gets involved, and they all have a story about when and why they stopped paying attention to what they were voting on beyond doing what they were told.
          • PopcornDave, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5You've hit it on the head. Anymore, American politics is nothing more than a high school election for the student body. The popular kids win because nobody else gives a *****.
    • jamesotis, on 03/13/2008, -14/+911. They believe their own country intrinsically wrong while remaining blind to the barbaric depredations of the Islamist foe.
      • foolawrence, on 03/13/2008, -7/+1hahaha simplistic dumbass, you the enemy within
        • jamesotis, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Hahaha. No me. You. You unlettered dhimmi. Aeeiiii-lululululu. Me dance, pass out you candy. Want allah akbar? It nutty. Mmmmmm
      • guyincognitoo, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2You skipped number 10.
    • CryRightardCry, on 03/13/2008, -16/+4Yeah, but you are a rightard shill who gives a pass on ANY right wing abuses.
      You are a supporter of MOST of the most unethical Bush actions, and you not only support them, you cheer for them.
      Who cheers for spying and lies and warmongering and more lies and "signing statements" and more warmongering?
      I guess if the ***** like you hadn't been cheering Bush so hard, you might have SOME credibility.
      In fact, you rightards get it SO wrong SO often, we can safely say that any list of things you think is BAD is almost certainly GOOD.
      And since you are lying (SO typical of you, do you have an "honest" keyboard that works?) and making up those points, you once again illustrate you are dishonest and unethical.
      That's ok, we don't expect anything out of jimmyspaza but lies and made up stuff.
      You are like a broken weathervane. Whatever you said is right, we know the opposite is true.
      I wonder what would happen if you tried to tell the truth? Head explosion?

      • insertAliasHere, on 03/13/2008, -4/+5All this coming from a shill called "CryRightardCry."

        One political hack shouting down another political hack. You and Spaza are both ***** idiots.
        • JimmySpaza, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5At least I don't use bad language like he does. :-)
    • the6thReplicant, on 03/13/2008, -12/+4Except only one thing. The Democraps have never done any of those things. Again the only way you can justify your hate for anything slightly left of fascism is to lie about the left. Have you seen what a particular party is ACTUALLY doing. I know it makes it easier to hate someone if you MAKE STUFF UP.
    • wild, on 03/13/2008, -6/+8Well, the Bush administration threw out the entire constitution.

      (Notice how I said "bush administration" and not Republicans? Not all Repubs are evil, just like not all Dems are evil. WOuldn't you love to see what this country could do with a an Obama/Hagel ticket?)
      • RuffRidr, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7Before it even got to the President's desk it those Acts had to be signed off by quite a few Democrats. They are every bit as responsible for raping our Constitution.

    • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -5/+4Hate speech is not free speech? I believe I saw a lot of free speech going on with the Dick C. at a university. A great deal of free speech going on, where the students were being bashed by Republicans for their "free speech".
      • jamesotis, on 03/13/2008, -2/+9"Hate speech" is an affront to free speech. While no one should want to needlessly offend another, limiting free speech on the subjective basis of what might seem hateful -- or worse yet make the ohso tender sensibilities of some woman or minority UNCOMFORTABLE invariably results in the kind of oppresiveness one finds on college campuses. There, free expression is lost as student and administrative Stalinists gleefully apply their fevered leftist laws prejudiciously, denying free speech with Orwellian abandon to anyone who (unlike you -- I'll warrant) disagrees with them..
        • neocognitism, on 03/13/2008, -8/+3you're a fascist, straight up. You've got it down cold though, you're good now, the whole up-is-down thing and the whole oppression-is-freedom thing.

          A lot of us think you and your troupe spread pure Hate Speech. I suppose you feel fine with you and your troupe being muzzled and incarcerated? It all comes down to who controls the government, then, and very soon it's going to be 100% Democrats. I wonder if you will change your tune then, hmm?
        • bunit03057, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9"very soon it's going to be 100% Democrats"
          Sorry that's just not true.
    • ShootTheCore, on 03/13/2008, -8/+4Epic. I really hope you are not old enough to vote. You sound like a senile old man...
    • foolawrence, on 03/13/2008, -8/+3haha you so dumb... republickers like big govt too demoncrats not so socialist, that just a lie fed to brainwashed retards like you, in other country like europe democrats seem very right-wing private citizens owning and cotrollng tings, you so funny big business ***** everything up and need gov bailout
      • mikeymondavi, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3you have here by lost your privilege to call anyone dumb or retard until you give me an accent to put these words to...
    • neocognitism, on 03/13/2008, -5/+9Yeah you're right about the big government thing, Jimmy. I'm all for shrinking our government by immediately cutting all the billions of direct and indirect aid to Israel. I'm sure you're with me since you're for small government, right?
      • PopcornDave, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7Why stop there? Suspend ALL foreign aid immediately. You'd be surprised how much money we could save.
    • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -6/+4In what way does anything on there differentiate them from Republicans?
    • jackminardi, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4He never said republicans were better. Everyone was just saying how people are stupid who tie themselves to a party, but then when someone "insults" democrats you all get pissed and bash republicans and the author of this comment. Grow up, admit that "your party" is messed up, and stop investing so much in a political party.
    • jotunn, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I think you're being dugg down because people are accustomed to digging you down for being a Republican party apologist, which is a shame. Your points above are, of course, generalizations, but they're also mostly correct.
      It's ridiculous that Digg was so passionate about supporting minimal-government, low-tax Ron Paul and now passionately supports exactly his opposite: a big-government, high-tax Democrat.
      It's also ridiculous that you would attack the Democratic party for increased taxes and size of government when the current issue of Republicans (including you, I think) want to do the same thing (see, e.g., the DHS, TSA, and the Great Wall of Mexico).
      I don't really like you, Jimmy, but I respect you. Keep Digging!
    • nardokid, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0i loathe stereo types because...
    • dkern, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Need you go on? Hell yes, over to Reddit with your 35 other friends! Thanks for playing! C-YA!
  • 3tcp, on 03/13/2008, -2/+81I gradually lost my respect for them since 9/11 because they haven't had the balls to stand up to Bush on anything important. They bitch about him to the media a lot but it's all for show. They proved that they care more about politics than about the country.
    • RuffRidr, on 03/13/2008, -0/+42"They proved that they care more about politics than about the country."

      This is one of my biggest gripes about them. Their decisions seem to hinge on what they think will get them in the White House, and that's it. They'll flip on an issue in a second. I think they'd sell out their own mothers if they could get their hands on more power.
    • InRussetShadows, on 03/13/2008, -1/+25See, that's the thing. Democrats aren't principled opponents. If they really believed all the stuff they're shouting about, even I would respect them more.
      • grakker, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Don't confuse Democrats as whole with the asshats we are having to choose from. Many people liked Gravel and Kucinich. Many Democrats. They walked the walk they talk. These two... I suppose this is why the party is getting such a bad reputation. That and their inability to stand up to Bush over the past year. Or more.
    • wild, on 03/13/2008, -7/+11All fair points. But none of these points are exclusive to Democrats.

      Thats why I am an independent. Its also why I am looking forward to having Obama in the White House. He won't be the watershed moment for change, but he'll be able to set it up that his successor can truly eliminate the aisles.
      • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4I don't think that particular CFR candidate is the one the machines will appoint to be the next president. However, he is obviously a committed member of the CFR and will go along with their orders if they do choose him, instead of the other CFR candidates Clinton or McCain.
        • revisrev, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Can you explain to me how "he is obviously a committed member of the CFR?"
    • quiksliver, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1[citation needed]
    • CrunchyDeluxe, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I'm a republican (very much a conservative), and quite frankly, I think both parties have let this country down in a big way. When Bill Clinton was president, and the federal government was grossly overspending, the republicans all said that they would cut down on spending. Well, Bush had his chance, but he ended up continuing what Clinton started. If Hillary gets elected, it will only get worse.

      I'm not much a fan of Obama OR McCain. But Obama is a supporter of net neutrality... that alone may well get him my vote.
  • kemp34, on 03/13/2008, -2/+53The Demopublicans have ruined this country.
    • Daedalus17, on 03/13/2008, -2/+8No they didn't. Ignorant statists that believe the government can rule our lives better than us did.
      • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7Aren't the Demopublicans ignorant statists?
      • Erich100, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Thats exactly what NonServium said.
  • coit, on 03/13/2008, -2/+56As a disenchanted Republican, I actually was looking forward to Nancy Pelosi taking charge and making some changes for the better....

    What the hell happened?
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -0/+18As a Californian, I could have warned you that Pelosi is a joke. I honestly don't care who makes it to the white house. But I would literally orgasm if suddenly all our federal representatives in Congress and the House were replaced.
      • grakker, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I do understand this knee-jerk reaction. But if that were to happen, nothing would get done for several years. Until the political infrastructure was built back up. To about what it is now. You can't replace them all and suddenly expect everything to be better. You replace the pieces with better pieces. Which we haven't really done with both sides.
        This is because people are ignorant and uneducated. This shows up on both sides of the aisle. While I don't like the right leaning anywhere, or the Obama leaning on digg, I have to really admire the fact that these people at least care. I think the majority of Americans vote based on what they have heard, or hairstyle, or perceived whatever.
      • userperson, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Incentives remain the same, nothing changes, the fish rots from the head.
    • the6thReplicant, on 03/13/2008, -5/+4Only the neocons couldn't see that Pelosi was in bed with the Republicans. They talk the talk, but know that they will be Roved if they disagree with the Republicans.
      • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3No offense, but democrats seem mighty capable of besting anything Karl Rove can dish out...even to their own!
    • wild, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12Same thing that happens to all of them. They get indoctrinated in the system and the money and the desire to stay in power.
    • AntiRL, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Your ***** kidding me. Nancy Pelosi hasn't done ***** as speaker in over 2 years. I remember when the demecrats took over Congress and she made such a big deal that changes were coming. Well, we are still waiting YOU BITCH!!!!!
    • sponeil, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0It's called a veto. With such a slim majority, the best they can do right now is stall.
    • Herrold, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Term limits are needed. People who stay too long, get hooked by special interest.
      Look at the who opposed the MPG increase. Are you surprised to see some Dems listed? And some have been in office since the 60's!
      You need to elect people into office who are more progressive and have new ideas.
      I remember when the Republicans were viewed as the party of "Old White Men". Well the Democrats these days are not much different except they have some "Old White Women" thrown in there too.
      You need to have more "Young" in there. Ideas that worked in the 60's and 70's don't apply today.

      Term Limits.
  • phnx0221, on 03/13/2008, -2/+45I have become entirely disenchanted with our political two party system. Against my better judgment, I really hoped that things would change with a new democratic congress. The complaints had always been about being blocked with troop withdrawls, being blocked with funding stipulations, not to mention, being blocked on domestic civilian programs. Everything has always been about Iraq, money, immunity, and further solidifying the presence throughout the world as someone people should listen to, or they will be "frowned upon" "sanctioned", or worse, threatened with military action.

    I really, really wanted things to change, even though I knew better. Of course, they didn't change, and of course, we have yet again, more evidence that both parties are indeed one in the same, that there are a few individuals within those congressional walls that actually do speak for the people, and do have change in mind, but that they are indeed, few and far between.

    It isn't the democrats vs republicans, it's us against them, reason against irrationality, truth against *****, justice against injustice. It always has been, always will be. And, as disenchanted as I am about the state of this ***** up government, and the corrupted shills who pose prettily for pictures with working class citizens pretending that they'll continue to give a rat's ass when the cameras are gone....for me, it has reinvigorated something that needs to be fought for loud and hard, because it is indeed up to us, and we have to make sure that we keep these jerks in check, because no one else is going to.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3I often hear people say that they don't like the two party system and to me it's become something that is casually said without people understanding the ramifications of a multi party system. (i.e. proportional representation in legislature)

      A majority is always going to occur, whether it's through a single party getting a majority or a coalition of parties making a majority. The major difference is that while multiparty systems feel more democratic, they can be incredibly unstable due to the nature of the coalitions and can create just as many obstacles as a two party system does.

      Just a few months ago the Italian government had a huge shake up because the coalition faltered. That's a dangerous position for any government, just imagine if it happened on a larger scale such as in the United States. Coalition, multi party governments aren't any better, in fact they can be worse due to the instability.

      • Akronos, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You keep saying multi-party governments are instable, but you have yet to show why.
        Hell, screw the notion of parties. All candidates should run as independents. Of course, the wealthy will have an advantage in this, but isn't that the case nowadays. And without parties, donations would be able to contest any one single candidate, rather than fighting an entire party.
      • dylio, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Explain to me why France and England are not stable? They're multi-partied.
      • Cyrus042, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Not all multi-party are unstable, but all of them can be. Of course, it depends on the system, and some governments have different policies which in some cases help a majority party to hold power. In the UK, the Labour party is the majority party and doesn't need a coalition, thus the stability. In France, they use a combination of a Presidential system and a Parliamentary. The President is elected separately, and is insulated from parliament in some sense.

        Many other countries have a parliamentary system like the UK, without a popular majority party like the labour party. In these instances, a coalition party is formed to create a statistical majority (Can consist of a few or up to a dozen small parties). In these governments, positions like Prime Minister and all the ministers are determined by the coalition in Parliament. The instability stems from the necessity of many party coalitions to hold a statistical majority in order to maintain minister positions (In many cases these parties can also have widely ranging views)

        When a party breaks from the coalition, it can lead to a break up of the coalition and the dissolution of the parliament and the minister positions. (And can happen at any time, and new elections are held almost immediately, not at the next scheduled election year) This is why multi-party systems can be unstable. If there's no popular majority party, an alliance of many small groups is necessary in order to get a majority, select ministers and hold them in power. In short, due to the wide ranging political views of these groups, disagreements can lead to the dissolution of a coalition and can potentially lead to the dissolution of the entire parliament including the Prime Minister. Ex. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/europe/ital ...

        I'd also like to mention that Senators and Representatives in the US aren't elected at large (by the entire country) but are elected by district and state. This allows for certain districts or even states to elect independent or third party individuals. Also, because of our two party system there's undoubtedly a large amount of people who align themselves in name only to a political party. I think there would be a much larger amount of independents in congress if legislators felt like they didn't need to align themselves to a party. (RINO (Republican in name only), DINO (Democrat ...). There's plenty of them. ) There's many independents out there, they're just hiding. :)
    • myills, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4I really liked your comment - especially the last paragraph: "It isn't the democrats vs republicans, it's us against them, reason against irrationality, truth against *****, justice against injustice. It always has been, always will be. And, as disenchanted as I am about the state of this ***** up government, and the corrupted shills who pose prettily for pictures with working class citizens pretending that they'll continue to give a rat's ass when the cameras are gone....for me, it has reinvigorated something that needs to be fought for loud and hard, because it is indeed up to us, and we have to make sure that we keep these jerks in check, because no one else is going to."

      I want to put forth an idea thats been growing in my head. I couldn't agree more that our government is all ***** up, but the question has always been why. Cause if we knew why then maybe we could fix it. And I think I've found the answer... whats wrong with the government?

      Well, its us. I really think it is us. We don't fight our government enough, we don't watch them enough, we don't hold them up to the light and see if they're rotten inside. Scrutiny is the only thing that will keep us honest and for some reason, in the age of the internet and so much ***** information we can't contain it all our government has not been held up to the light by the people. We need to hold them accountable for every last thing our government does and we don't. And you're right, it is up to us, we need to stand up to them and keep them in check. Because no one else will.
      • dylio, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2You're absolutely right. Inaction leads to action by those wanting to do evil.
      • CrunchyDeluxe, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, the government will continue to restrict what we can do about it. Big government is slowly creeping up on us. And when we turn around and see the monster ready to devour us... will we wonder what happened?
  • OBDriftwood, on 03/13/2008, -9/+46The Liberatarian Party is still open for business. www.lp.org
    • boxybrzown, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
    • jackminardi, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8This is why i wish paul would run as a libertarian and get enough percentage to be eligible for federal funding next election...
    • dylio, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3If only the Libertarian party was advertised as much as the Democraps and Republicants, but that would mean they'd have to sell out. I hope in the next 50 years Libertarians become bigger.
  • slvrbullet87, on 03/13/2008, -6/+14"I’ve given Bill Clinton a lot of credit for being a political genius, a mastermind, a one-of-a-kind politician, possibly the best politician in American History."

    Really?
    • iraq, on 03/13/2008, -8/+6There's a difference between being a great President and a great Politician. Sans Monica, he was without a doubt the smartest politician to sit in the White House.
      • slvrbullet87, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Jefferson? Lincoln? Teddy Rosevelt?
      • vault, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8Yeah I mean that quote was just troll bait, wasn't it? You don't really think Bill Clinton is the best president of all time, do you?

        Even if you were going to say the best liberal, that wouldn't be true.
      • hardwickj, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7Best POLITICIAN, not PRESIDENT. There is a world of difference. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, and believed by many (especially in academia) to be one of the most intelligent presidents we've ever had. He knew how to "play the game" better than almost anyone and therefore he was a great POLITICIAN. While it is really up to personal opinion, I think many would agree that a great president would be one who does a greater good for the American people. Clinton was a decent president in that sense, but definitely not great or greatest.

        I may be mistaken, but I think this is the point originally hinted at. There is a difference between a great President and a great Politician. Do not be so foolish as to mingle the two.
  • DrPaul2008, on 03/13/2008, -9/+39Please, people.. Stop voting for these parasite candidates from either half of the two headed monster. Do some research, and figure out who would best represent you. There are too many political parties to count, and even if you don't like any of their candidates, write someone in who you do like. All we have to do is let the sentiment be known that we are through with the Republicrats, and it will encourage the possibility of breaking the political stranglehold the Reoublicrats have on our society.

    We have Hillary desperately trying to catch Obama who can already taste the White House, and we haven't casted a single vote in the general election yet. What if we as a society just didn't vote for either Republicrat candidate? It's not an impossibility if we stop taking the ***** fed to us, and wake up. Take some responsibility for ourselves, and use some reason to try to improve our situation.

    I obviously support Ron Paul. I've never voted for a non-Libertarian before. I've never cared about the either half of the Republicrat primaries before. When an option like Ron Paul comes around, and we allow the media to convince us that he is somehow not a viable candidate without offering any substance to back those claims, what chance do we have? You can't have a better track record the Ron Paul. All of these parasites are liars, and he, more then any of us, can prove that he isn't. What more could we have asked for in the integrity of candidate? I fear that if we didn't take this opportunity to turn things around with him, we likely never will. We aren't going to have another opportunity to vote for a candidate with a 25 year track record of voting for smaller, Constitutional, government, and being honest, and doing what he says he will do. So, who are we waiting for? Are we really all about form over substance? Would someone like Will Smith win the presidency without any track record, or being asked of any of his philosophies, just because he is one of the coolest, most charismatic, people on Earth? I'm beginning to think so.
    • vault, on 03/13/2008, -8/+14Yeah I'm sure liberals are just lining up to vote for Ron Paul. What common ground is there other than the war? Paul wouldn't even legalize pot (something I support), he would just make it a state issue if he could even do that. A state in East ***** like Idaho isn't going to legalize anything.

      And liberals don't want smaller government, they want to improve big government.
      • DrPaul2008, on 03/13/2008, -3/+16I don't have as much time as I'd like to respond to this, but I do want to say this much... Regarding the different states, and their policies; don't vote in republicrats at the state level, either. How absurd is it to cry for change, and then say that you won't support a guy who intends on changing, because the rest of the nation will fight to stay the same?! Start with this election, and insist on honest politicians at the local level. If you believe in small government, make a candidate sign the limited government oath. If your a socialist, take steps to insist that you politicians know what you want, and if they lie to you, get rid of them!

        Remember, regardless of your political philosophies, with a limited federal government, we'd all have a place to live. In this winner take all method we have going now, the largest group of voters (Important to realize, not necessarily the majority of voters, just the largest group... Certainly not the majority of citizens) steer the entire country for the duration of the administration. It seems to me that, accept for the religious out there who want this nation to be a big theocratic state, we'd all be better off with a Libertarian, or Constitution Party, president, and then we can live in Taxachusetts, or California if we're socialists, and the fascists/neocons could move to Texas, or Florida. That way, 90% are happy, rather then the usual 40% (or, currently, 18%).

        Look, my point was really this.. I want to see signs of intelligent life. Let's have a rational reason for doing what we're doing, and not just because this is what we think is inevitable, or what we're told to do by the propagandists.
        • vault, on 03/13/2008, -4/+5Well I'm not 'crying for change,' you are. Conservatism and libertarianism are not the same thing...I don't see why I should have to move to Texas, a state I've never even been to, because I'm a conservative. And Florida is too humid.

          My main problem with Paul is his foreign policy. Sorry, I don't believe in isolationism, non-interventionalism, or whatever label Paul wants to give to it. As far as legalizing pot, while I support that, no candidate is actually going to do it so it's a moot point. I want it legal federally.
          • DrPaul2008, on 03/13/2008, -2/+6If you don't want change, congratulations. You're part of the 18% that approve of this crash course the country is on.

            Lets pretend you didn't like it for a minute. If you were part of a displeased majority, wouldn't you hope there would be some way of changing things?

            I chose the neocon, and socialist, states as examples. Obviously, the other states would go whatever way the people in the state wanted them to go. Moving to either of the two extreme states I mentioned would not be necessary.

            It's unfortunate that your main problem with Ron Paul is his non-interventionist ideals, which the country was founded on, and you don't seem to have an understanding of what it means. The states are supposed to be sovereign. If we continue on this line of reasoning (and the path this country is on), our nation would no longer be sovereign, and people like you will be fine with that, as long as planetary law suits you, no matter how small of a minority you and like minded people, are.

            Again, Ron Paul was an example.. Most non-republicrat candidates would be willing to end the ridiculous criminalization of pot. What you're talking about, though, isn't a drug policy. It's federalism. For some reason, you want the entire country to go in one direction, or the other. Whether you realize it or not, what you're supporting when you call for the right of the federal government over the states is, the forced change of the entire nation with each administration, whether or not you agree with it.

            If for some reason you are married to the idea of federalism, so be it. I think you're in a very small minority. I think the vast majority would both want, and enjoy, the region they live in to have congruent, and stable, laws, and philosophies.
          • Heywoodj, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Idaho is in west bumble-***** not east,thats Kentucky (I know same thing)
            We need a "No confidence " option on every ballot presented to the american people.
            I'm so sick of voting for the lesser of two evils.And I feel like I've been doing this my whole adult life and I'm in my 40's.
            At least Dr Paul got the libertarian concept out to the masses.
          • vault, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2@DrPaul2008

            I'll use your example of Florida...in 2000, the elections were split extremely evenly between Democrats and Republicans, hence the controversy of voter fraud. It was down to a razor-thin majority. So if you make Florida the 'neocon' state, that would likely piss off half the population.

            Same thing in Pennsylvania...Philadelphia voters have radically views than the Amish in rural PA. You're trying to make the argument that states are homogenous enough that having radially different laws in every state would work out. It wouldn't. You'd just end up dividing and segregating the country further than it already is and pissing off more people than you'd make happy.

            I know you meant the 'neocon' and socialist states as examples, but the reason I bring it up is I'm from a state where I disagree (politically) with the majority of the people and the state typically swings in the opposite direction I want it to in the general elections. I don't see why I should move to the South over that, as I'm happy where I am.

            I completely understand non-interventionism and disagree with it. This is another thing about the Paul crowd that bothers me...you guys act like he's the only one who can save us and if we don't vote for him we're facing certain doom. Has it occurred to you someone can completely understand his positions and disagree with them? I mean are you that brainwashed you think anyone who disagrees with you simply needs to 'wake up' and we'll see your side of this?

            I want a strong US presence in every part of the world where there are US interests. I want the US going after Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Qadaffi, bin Laden, etc. We have the world's largest economy to protect, obligations to our allies, and "foreign entanglements" are a fact of life in 2008. The founding fathers could never have dreamed of how airplanes and technology would interlink the world more than two centuries later.

            And there is no "forced change" of the entire nation every election. Very little changes, really...I think you actually made that point above. I also don't think I'm in a minority...*you* as a Ron Paul voter are in an extreme minority that couldn't even win one primary even with all the cash you had. How do you explain that honestly? I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious to know. The obvious conclusion is the people disagreed. That happens in a free country, you don't always get your way.

            @Heywood

            Yes, I was just using a figure of speech. I sort of knew when I called Idaho 'East *****' that someone from Idaho, as your profile says you are, would come in here and respond to that. :)
          • Heywoodj, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1@vault
            No offense taken. This is a wrong headed but rite hearted state.
            I agree with you on P.A+FLA being schizophrenic states. I've lived in them as well.
            They are capable of change too and that's how it should be. talk to your neighbor, talk to your city counsel, talk to your state rep.That's how change should happen not some edict from D.C.
        • binjder, on 03/13/2008, -2/+6you need to look up what isolationism is, because apparently you're confusing it with noninterventionism. isolationism is like castro. noninterventionism is like thomas jefferson. if there's any political figure we could learn from, it's thomas jefferson, wouldn't u say so?

          nonintervention means that we won't use our CIA black ops to start international propaganda wars and assassinate elected leaders around the world if they don't agree with us. it also means that we don't go to war without a declaration of war and without the support of the citizens. it also means that we don't pressure and subsidize countries if they do what we say, and setup puppet governments and political figures that ALWAYS backfires (saddam, the shah, bin laden). non-interventionsim also prevents america from pressuring the world to create artifical countries that incite future wars (israel, iraq).

          an isolationist, on the other hand, is a bum who doesn't want to communicate with the rest of the world and belives in extreme economic nationalism/socialism (no trade with other nations). example? cuba or the ming dynasty.

          capiche? if people were actually educated ron paul would win in a landslide victory. too bad, too bad....
    • Jimmyb207, on 03/13/2008, -1/+18From my political perspective, i really never gave a whole lot of consideration to party affiliation. I paid extremely close attention to "the individual". Their history, voting record, listening to them talk and getting a sense of their overall intelligence and demeanor. Will they bring war or peace. Are they connected with the people or are they just another middleman for the banks and mega -corporations. Economic philosophy. And so on and so on. If they seem ill intentioned or if they don't have what it takes to LEAD America in the manner that this country was meant, then it doesn't matter what party they are affiliated with. I will also vote for Ron Paul. write him in if i have to.
      What I despise most about the so called democrats that were voted in in large numbers is that, they knew exactly why we voted them in. It was to make big changes concerning Iraq and the erosion of our civil liberties. But so far they have done nothing but enable Bush with his sick war as more and more liberty killing acts get signed by the mad man that sits in the oval office.
      • Waterrat, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2 I won't vote for Ron Paul,that's for sure.
        Anyone who dos not think we evolved will not get my vote.
        I plan to vote independent as both the Reps' and Dems' are part of the same,as another poster put it:"Two headed monster."
        • binjder, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1it is impossible to prove evolution so far, so it is not FACT...it's just a BELIEF with a lot of holes (like creationism). have u entertained the possibility that it might be a little of column a, and a little of column b? ....oh no, u haven't thought about that since that would require open-mindedness and respect for others' beliefs.

          btw, barack obama calls himself a christian...which means he believes in creationism too. as for me, i can't prove against creationism (in terms of a primary mover) in the same way that i can not prove evolution (missing link problem for one). however, i don't have the gall to pressure everyone in this world to believe in what I do. i respect what ron paul believes and would look at his political track record to say that he would be the most amazing, diplomatic, and OPEN-MINDED president in the history of cur country...if people were a bit brighter, they'd see that.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Column A (evolution) has tons of evidence on its side. Seriously, it's the single most researched and investigated scientific theory we have.

            Column B (creationism), on the other hand, has a book going for it. That's it.

            I'll take Column A, and toss Column B into the trash, where it belongs.
          • emmeron, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, for sure. However, one is a theory. A pretty good one. Everything we learn continues to point that way. The other is faith, and it lacks any claim to science. That said, is there a problem with electing someone who claims one or the other as long as (s)he is cool with the other too? I mean, it's not like he's running claiming to set the record straight for good in legal terms -- that's the opposite of what he supports (re: Paul). Now, Obama has no problem legislating on his beliefs and inflicting it on everyone: he'd have us all be world-socialists.
        • nardokid, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3its amazing what people will say in order to support Ron Paul. this might be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen. Christians automatically believe in Creationism? you have to be kidding me.
        • blackinthmiddle, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Usually when the whole argument about creationism vs evolution comes up on digg, I just move on, as it's usually too emotionally charged. As a Christian who also is technical (programmer, degree in mechanical engineering), I agree with binjder and think that we evolved but through a mechanism.

          I've read many a book on this topic and because of my line of work I deal mostly with atheists and we talk about this topic a good deal. I know the subject very well and could probably argue both sides where you wouldn't even know where I actually stood. In the end, we almost always amicably come to the conclusion that we'll never know completely and that there are a ton of valid points on both sides of the argument.

          Not voting for someone on a topic that doesn't have a definitive answer is, in my opinion, equivalent to voting for someone based on superficial things like skin color or gender.
        • Jimmyb207, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Do you need to believe in evolution in order to lead America down the road of liberty, freedom and justice for all? I think not. What Ron Paul DOES believe in is the U.S. Constitution, more so than any other candidate at the present time.He has a concrete understanding of what is fundamentally wrong with our monetary system (the federal reserve) and how the value of U.S. currency has been steadily falling since it was taken off of the gold standard during the Nixon Administration.
          I whole heartedly believe in evolution. I am an agnostic. I am pro choice.
          Ron Paul is none of these. Do I care 'at this present time'? ....a resounding NO. They are all distractions and side shows. At this present time in American history it is not important. What IS important right now is that a major correction happens within the U.S. Government. The three branches of government MUST be balanced. Civil Liberties MUST be restored. Patriot Act, military commissions act, Protect America Act, SR 1959 and all these executive orders that are taking America away from the Democratic Republic it was meant to be and more towards a Fascist, totalitarian dictatorship. Because if that happened, you can just forget about whatever it is you believe in. You will be told what to believe and keep your mouth shut.
    • colincornaby, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2I'm a liberal and I would never vote for Ron Paul. I'm not suckered in by the "he doesn't support the Iraq war too!" thing. He won't do squat for net neutrality (Yeah, let's leave it up to the telecoms, I bet they'll be BIG supporters of Net Neutrality), I'm not for him eliminating the EPA. I'm not for him eliminating the department of education, and despite the mismanagement of FEMA, I'm not for eliminating them either. IMO, Ron Paul supporters try to mask these less desirable things that Ron Paul supports with his Iraq rhetoric, and again, I'm not falling for it. I mean, eliminate the EPA? How insane is that? Whether or not you believe in global warming, FEMA is kind of important so that, you know, we all don't get cancer from the air we breath. And unfortunately, this country is far too intertwined for this "let's let the states do things" crap. I mean, look at gay marriage for one example. If we let the states decide that, how does the federal government deal with that? How would a gay couple, allowed to marry by the state, file as a married couple for a federal passport? The federal government would have to recognize the marriage. Or what if a gay couple gets married in California, and they move to Texas, who in imaginary land wouldn't support gay marriage. What would happen to that marriage? Would it dissolve as soon as they stepped foot in Texas? Would the medical insurance they had in California continue to cover them in Texas as a married couple? I'm sorry, but this "let the states decide it" business makes things far too complicated, would endlessly tie up our courts squabbling over national issues, and waste tons of taxpayer money in paperwork. The reason we have a federal government is to get things done, and keep things running smoothly. Yeah, our federal government has sucked as of late, but let's not get confused here. Having a bad federal government doesn't mean that federal governments are bad.
      • kirstpo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5I am also a little confused about what Ron Paul would do for net neutrality, but I suppose he would probably argue that in a truly free market telecoms would not be able to stay in the market if their consumers demanded net neutrality and they weren't providing it.

        On the topic of EPA and FEMA, they do serve a purpose now because of how society has been built around these bureaucracies. However the EPA and FEMA have MANY problems. I agree the department of education should not be eliminated completely but it needs to shrink. The department of education has become an obstacle to many of our school's education. A lot of these bureaucracies are a big waste of resources and inefficient. In many ways, state and local management of things could replace a lot of what current bureaucracies and federal agencies do today. It's just that our current generation isn't used to this nor is our current governments infrastructure geared for it.

        Ron Paul supporters are not suckered into anything. There are legitimate reasons people support Ron Paul's platform. You may disagree with those reasons, but it doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong. Some people don't even completely agree with the whole of Ron Paul's platform but still overwhelmingly support him. As president, he only has the real capacity to correct and change our foreign policy for the better. The other things he stands for would most likely need to go through congress.
    • binjder, on 03/13/2008, -5/+0you are so wrong on all counts... i would spend an hour proving you wrong, but it would be easier for both u and me to say that u need to just "google it."
  • allowners, on 03/13/2008, -7/+31Unfortunately the libertarians offer an illusory solution, they are the invisible hand that powers the two party system: big money and corporations. Any fundamentalist ideology leaves a person unable to see things without the filtering mechanism of their chosen ideology. Hence we see the illogic of libertarians calling for the elimination of corporate regulation after the global economy has been brought to the brink of catastrophe by bizarre pyramid schemes. I'm a social libertarian tempered by the realism that any faction can't be trusted. The government has been destroyed in a self-fulfilling demonstration of how evil it is by those driven by increasingly fundamentalist ideas.

    Freedom and democracy are not synonyms for free market ideology. There is a place for market forces just as there is a place for addressing common interests beyond blind greed. Market forces efficiently produce and distribute products, whereas social forces determine whether there will be a livable world in which to use those products.
    • Daedalus17, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4"Freedom and democracy are not synonyms for free market ideology."
      That's because freedom and democracy are NOT THE SAME THING. Often times they are at odds with each other. Having the majority make the decisions for everybody is not the same thing as everybody making decisions for themselves.
    • Hananda, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Right. I'd just like to point out that in most libertarian systems, corporations wouldn't exist as the status of corporation is granted via government charter.
      • Pherdnut, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Uh huh. So we'd have corporation-equivalents without a government charter and a much higher barrier of entry for entrepeneurs since they'd be liable for any losses. I'm sure the big kids would be much better behaved.

        Good point you made there.
    • emmeron, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3...I'll take some time to explain. Libertarians are NOT pro-democracy. Democracy does NOT equal freedom, it equals oppression. In cases where there are more than two points of view, it can mean oppression of the majority even! Free market ideology has NEVER seen the light of day. These arguments are as useless as debating the pros and cons of communism. A real one has seldom if ever existed, and when they have they were small and short lived. Usually because someone on the inside sells out and lets the thing become corrupt.
      The free market concept only works when non-centralized, minimal infrastructure and transportation conditions exist. Buy local, be local, etc. On the other hand, most of the big business everyone loves to bitch about has its roots in America from royalty of other countries, starting in the 1860s. Oil changed that, to a degree, as did the railroad boom. These legacies bought up and, indeed, bought in to the Senate. From there, everything was regulated to please them. The Free Market that we "had" in the 1880s-1920s was rubbish: it was purely statist masquerading as a free market in our history books. The people of the time knew better!
      You do make a fine point about fundamentalism, however. You are fundamentally cynical, I would say. Having no hope and thrashing those that do is no means to any good. Fundamentally, I am a libertarian. In action, I might be socialist. In theory, perhaps anarchist, but I realize that also fails ultimately. America, I suspect, will go the way of Europe eventually. Likely complete with a failed market, war, and eventual socialism restructuring. All for the sake of compromising ideals -- fundamental concepts -- that the Constitution was written to support.
    • allowners, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Addressing the issues raised
      * I did not claim that freedom and democracy are the same thing, that was part of my point, that I've repeatedly observed libertarians, as well as conservatives, conflate democracy and / or freedom with free market ideology.
      * Removing government sanction would not cause corporations to go away, it would remove what little oversight they currently have, which is close to nil.
      * There are many ways to structure a democracy, democracy most certainly does not equal oppression.
      * No political ideology has been realized in some Utopian pure form, including communism, socialism, capitalism, etc. The differentiating factor is one's bias towards a given "ideal system."
      * We don't have the situation of a non-centralized, minimal infrastructure and transportation environment and, short of collapse of our civilization, that is not likely to be the case anytime soon.
      * Indeed our forefathers rebelled against taxation without representation and placed safeguards in place to reign in corporations by making their charters specific and limited. That is exactly the problem, their regulation failed because corporations were allowed to override the original laws. This happened because they became too large. It is a rather odd logical fallacy to think that corporate-like entities would not have taken control had there been no control on them in the first place, it only means that people were not vigilant, just as U.S. citizens have not been vigilant about safe-guarding representative government.
      * It is humorous to hear a libertarian call me cynical when that is the argument I have heard the most in support of their fundamentalist ideology. I merely agree with libertarians on that point. There is no thrashing about involved, I flat out believe in a mixed system that does not cater to impractical hard core ideologues.
      * You make a good point that any fundamental ideology "fails" in the end, that is precisely my argument, that fundamentalist ideology is unrealistic and dangerous in the real world because it is inflexible and must be imposed on most people.
      * In my humble opinion, the mistake the founding fathers made was failure to take into account the most powerful force that needed countervailing balance. There was provision made for the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch and finally the people, but there was no provision made for the most powerful faction of all: big money and corporations, hence our starting assumptions and documents were flawed.
  • uziko, on 03/13/2008, -11/+6I hate them too especially obama, i hate republicans too though, the libertarians suck too. I don't support anybody.
    • NightVortez, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Anarchism ftw?
      • Hananda, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2If only there was a low enough population density somewhere for a anarchist system to be tried. I'd be interested to see how long it lasted, and if it would end with the formation of government and/or a general state of warfare between competing factions for food or slaves or somesuch.
    • swordmaster29, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7Ah, feed the hate. Feed the anger. The dark side of the Force will make you stronger . . .
    • colincornaby, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Ah, so you're the guy who refuses to vote for anybody and let Bush get into office.
      • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2If you actually care about people voting, why don't you stop pretending we are capable of it and instead focus your energy on going after the fraudulent voting machines?
  • NelsonR, on 03/13/2008, -5/+5It's not just the Democrats, the Republicans are as much a blight. Leadership has failed us all on both sides of the aisle. That is the one reason I vote for CHANGE!! Maybe it will be another farce with Barrack not delivering but it's hope, plain and simple. Almost every incumbent on both sides should be thrown out next election, they earned that right.
  • deadlogic, on 03/13/2008, -2/+9Replace every reference to Democrats with the word "politicians" and I agree with most of it.
  • uziko, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7I support good ideas not organizations. If mccain has a good idea i support that idea, if obama has a good idea i support that idea too.
    • dualboy24, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Too bad you don't get to vote on their ideas for the full 4 years, because sure as heck those good ideas get worse the second they are in office.
    • cheeseysynapse, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1generally, candidates will have to vote on a plethora of issues. thats why we have parties - so we have an idea of how the candidate ought to vote when a given issue comes up, so that way we aren't surprised when a candidate votes the way he does.
      • Akronos, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1That's not why we have parties. Parties aren't there to make it simpler for you to understand or alleviate your ignorance. They are there to systematically help their ideology control Washington.
    • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2A lot of great ideas have been submitted by all kinds of politicians while campaigning...
  • goodinohio, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6Maybe it's time for a 3dr party. Libertarian or Independent. R and D all crooks.
  • americangoy, on 03/13/2008, -2/+14Wait - there are 2 parties in the Yoo Ess Ey?
    I thought there are 2 branches of the SAME party.
    Silly me!
    • Draxius, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3You thought right.
    • jawnboy, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure one is a wholly owned subsidiary. Technically a separate party, but ruled by the same board.
  • eggy123, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Our current political system is perfect: the political machine, along with the help of the media, absolutely ensures that anyone who can sell their soul enough to survive the process and become a presidential candidate is ipso facto unfit to be a great leader of this country.
    • radiantarchon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2pretty much anyone who wants power for powers sake should not be given it
    • stonklit, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0It's perfect in that you have a society filled with idiots, then they're surprised when their elected leaders follow suit. Example: Bush.

      I cannot believe how many idiots fell for the 9/11 *****. Even a year after it happened, they still went ON AND ON about it, and people ate that ***** up. Then all the flat out corruption and lies that go on before our eyes - which no one does anything about, nor speaks out against when action isn't taken.

      At the same time... it's surprising because with Obama pretty much solidifying his nomination, it APPEARS the general public has snapped out of the stupor they were in. But in just 4 years? Wow. That's something that takes almost a generation to happen.
      • eggy123, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Not good news for you, maybe your children will be OK
  • pjr12345, on 03/13/2008, -4/+6I came to loathe them long ago. The D's goose-stepped down the road of special interest pandering. This strategy has led to the outright support of all kinds of perversity and immorality. It sickens me that nary a one of them seem capable of basic human shame.
  • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4I will write in Howard Dean even with Obama getting the nomination.
  • ricky125, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Fred Soto is a motivational speaker, who lives in a van down by the river.
  • NightVortez, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13I'm going to get buried into hell and I hate to say it myself but that's the exact reason a direct/near direct-democracy would never work.

    I'd say a good 90% of all voters either have no idea about the political positions of the people running for office, get their own political position off different media outlets/their party or just heard a couple of hours of empty ***** promises and think they will deliver. Yes we already have plenty of restrictions such as super-delegates and no I don't propose a socialist system but there has to be some sort of test to at least prove that the voter knows simple things such as the Constitution, perhaps the same test immigrants are forced to take in order to become citizens? Doesn't have to be super hard, but come on, voting shouldn't be advertised as a fad just so young people get involved, they say the more voters the better, I believe that's the wrong way to look at it, the more educated voters the better.
    • NonServium, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3I agree, so long as I get to create the test to determine who can vote.
    • myills, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I couldn't agree more. Citizenship should be prized, the damn problem is - that those with money tend to float to the top and maintain an educated status and those without money tend to float to the bottom and lack education. Education has always been the key - even in the first democracy - In Greece those that could read and write had a leg up on the rest and used that as a political weapon. Thats my two cents.
      • emmeron, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1And in Greece, illiterates were sometimes paid to carve names in the obelisk, having no idea what they were voting for.
  • minox, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4The author is close to highlighting the problems with the democrats but slightly misses the mark. I would argue that the infighting about race and gender are not foreign to the Democratic party but are the logical conclusions of their views. Racial essentialism and identity politics lead to this kind of infighting because they presuppose that race and gender are political issues. Of course they will come into play during an election.
  • Xihix, on 03/13/2008, -1/+10Finally, an article on Digg that isn't sucking on Obama's dick. I feel sick from all of them. Hell, I'm pretty damn sure his own campaign is digging all of them... There's a damn article on everything the man does, even if it's the littlest thing, and it always has a few thousand diggs. It's absurd.
  • motiontomove, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7I loathe both parties.

    End of story.
  • tinybubs, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Has there ever been a time where voters have felt more disenfranchised about their choices? There is a real loss of hope for the political process in the US and I can't remember when I've heard more cynicism about an election. Can't say I blame the electorate considering the results we've had over the last 20 years.
  • RRJackson, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4Basically another Obama puff piece that claims Clinton's campaign has used, “Would you vote for a *****?” as their party platform. Maybe Obama's people can re-think that one while he searches for a new career this fall.
    • 88iou, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Two words: Geraldine Ferraro
      It's sad when Clinton has to resort to the Southern Strategy in order to get votes, and I'm not even an Obama supporter.
  • anttanant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0I'm right there with you. There are just a few individuals in the party I appreciate at this point. The rest of them are no better than the scum over in the Republican pool.
  • CaptainCool53, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6I'm surprised at the lack of mention of Mike Gravel in that article.
  • IamKyle, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8Pelosi is a tool.
  • headinthesand, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5I don't trust politicians very much. The DemLieRats and RepubLieRats have gone too far that last two decades. I have become disgusted with your government. The government used to be for the people by the people. Now it is for the Corporations by the Corporations. That being said Barack Obama is the closest thing to a honest person that is considered a Politician. I have been a Democrat in the past because they are lesser of Two Evils. If the Democratic Party pulls a shady stunt and gives Hillary the votes in Michigan/Florida I will vote for a 3rd Party candidate. If anything shady does go down are we all going to sit on our hands and watch or are we going to do something about it. "It takes a revolution to make a solution"(Bob Marley)
  • Berek, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Michigan and Florida will not give Hillary *****. Barack will win MI and FL will be split. She's finished and should just admit defeat and move on.
  • mattmollysdad, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2your problem is that u actually espouse standards and relate them to politicians. you r either incredibly naive or a fool. politics by its nature is forcing someone's will on someone weaker... be it done for worthy purposes or not it's just what it is. it's not the last 10 years in Iraq or 30 yrs ago in Viet Nam, or 250 yrs ago with Mexico (California)... or 100s of years ago or 1000s of years ago... u either r on the winning side or u can cry about it.
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/13/2008, -1/+16This will get dug down but I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul. He ran a ***** campaign, a lot (most) of his vocal base are ***** wack jobs, and he didn't stand a chance when he started but he really had a lot of good ideas. I didn't necessarily agree with them all but I really liked his foreign policy and his honesty. Frankly, for me, the bad outweighs the good in all the candidates I see now.
    • Draxius, on 03/13/2008, -0/+10Well, Ron Paul is clearly the best candidate based on foreign policy alone. I don't care what the big government people tell you, we aren't going to have medical care, social security, or any of it if we don't change our foreign policy. I wish people would actually read Obama's website so they could see his foreign policy is exactly the same as we have had for 50 years.
  • growler1, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I'm an independent, but if Hillary does anything nefarious to get the nomination, then I'm writing in my choice for president on my ballot in protest.

    I can't vote for her after seeing her true colors over the past 7 months.
  • nmanguy, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Lol, 15-1 digg to reddit ratio.
  • piratearggghhh, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7Let's not forget it was the BUSH administration who ***** us up - not Bill Clinton's. If I remember correctly, we had a budget surplus and and balanced budget back then. This is not counting all the soldiers we lost with this ***** war. McCain winning is like having Bush in the White House a 3rd time, which means we need to move the movie Idiocracy to the non-fiction documentary section.
    • rgersmrk, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah, you'd think with "all the good the Clinton's did" while in the whitehouse that Gore would have won without even trying. Funny how the reality of things put us in the situation we are now. The Clinton's did more to hurt Gore's campaign in 2000 than Nader could have ever done.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah Realy! Clinton had no help from the Republican Majority at the time! Jee Wiz
    • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah Realy! Clinton had no help from the Republican Majority at the time! Jee Wiz
  • futureisours, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Keep in mind that in actuality the President has very little power, the founders were smart enough to put it on Congress. Would be nice to see a bit less Bush bashing and more on the democratically-controlled Senate.
    • rgersmrk, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0The President has the ultimate power. The power of veto. Bush has vetoed more legislation than any other president in US history since the democratic senate has taken over. Although that is not an excuse for how poorly the democrats have performed in the US Senate since taking over. I'd have to say they are the biggest bunch of pussies I've ever seen in office in my life. It will be nice to see the whole lot of US Senators get voted out of office in a couple of years.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah! Bush has a gun to the Dems head! You didnt know that!
    • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah! Bush has a gun to the Dems head! You didnt know that!
  • PURPLEDRINK, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2protip: your vote does count, even if it doesn't elect anyone. Your vote, and how citizens answer polls greatly effects the 2 big parties funding. Just voting for a dem/republican will show support, increasing support, and is a great step for change, not obama.
    • muckemuck, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2aaahhh.. so you think the votes are actually counted accurately? And polls are accurate? Have you been following this election at all?
      • PURPLEDRINK, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2how would it matter if they were counted accurately or not? They are still counted. Maybe if more people actually voted for ron paul, instead of a few losers who thought they were "part of something", you would actually have a positive/realistic view of how voting works? Oh wait, an rp supporter having a realistic view..... lolol.
  • novenator, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I find it strange how when the Republicans and conservatives abuse their power, act like fascists, and bankrupt the nation, somehow it becomes "both parties" fault. Remember where to put the blame, Bush and the neocons have had a supermajority for a while now (except for the last year). it takes time to undo th