What is Digg?104 Comments
- emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -13/+69
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
-Thomas Jefferson - kakeam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+68thank you keith olberman for giving us words and feelings to describe the experience of living with these nightmarish ghouls who have invaded the white house and much of congress.
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36Absolutely agree... this guy has an incredible way with words and shedding light on the right wing nightmare we have all been living. There is a chance we will all wake up on November 7th... lets hope people will not vote with their fears... but with their minds...
- pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28In that other video he actually quoted about 25 lines of Murrow after quite humbly introducing the quote as beyond his own ability to express the thought more eloquently. It was a tribute.
At any rate, it's nice to have ONE national correspondent who looks at these issues with reason and historical perspective, instead of the usual mindless repetition of partisan soundbites. - Sanchez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28This keeps on getting marked as inaccurate and lame, I notice as i watch digg spy.
How the hell can it be inaccurate, it's political opinion. This is the republicans trying to bury stories they don't like surely. I think olberman's opinion is how a lot of people outside the U.S feel. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20he ends every broadcast with that... in tribute...
- swax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Great Jefferson quote in there, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.."
How would our government today react to a statement like that? Subversive maybe? That's Keith's point. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Sorry but CNN is NOT and has NEVER BEEN liberal news.
Also, KO is NOT a liberal! He has said so many many times. Even in the 90s he went pretty hard at Clinton. He is just speaking the truth about our nation. If speaking the truth means he is a liberal, then ***** you, you unpatriotic bitch. - SilentSpyder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I'll admit I like Keith Oberman, it's nice to know there's at least 1 liberal to counter the 50 conservative commentators on the news channels. Nevertheless I wouldn't say he's an Edward R. Murrow though he obviously and admits that he is a fan.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20That's actually not a real quote, you realize that right?
Uh, obvioulsy not if you used it. John Kerry used used it, it is actually a quote from a writer, not Jefferson.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/146858.htm - pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18That's just the RWDBPM (Right-Wing Diggers' Brain-Police Mafia), they bury & mark as inaccurate every front page story that dares to question the infallibility of the Holy Bush Administration.
#1 reason why Digg is starting to suck serious ass. - oooo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Look, Bush isn't known for being eloquent, exactly. He doesn't mean it is unacceptable for people to hold contrary opinions. What he means is that it is unacceptable, in his mind, for people to compare the actions of the US and the actions of Islamic extremists."
No, you have to be able to compare first to then judge whether it is right or wrong. Even if Bush is meaning to say it is unacceptable to do the comparison, per se is saying it is unacceptable to think.
We should be free to compare. Free to put both US actions and the extremists actions side by side. Free to draw subsequent conclusions. Bush can then call the conclusions unacceptable from his point of view, but not the action of comparing in the first instance. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You can remove it from your prferences if you please.
- akwhitacre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It's sad to me that someone can editorialize about universal principles--the freedom to think and speak what one wants, the deplorablity of state use of torture, the expectation that one's government will be transparent and truthful--and that that person would immediately be shouted down as a "liberal hack".
Olbermann's editorial was neither liberal nor conservative. It simply held up, as a provocative image to our current govenment, the values enshrined in our country's founding documents.
Drop the ad hominem attacks, at last. When thoughtful people have something to say, consider their arguments. Just listen for once. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19The quotation from Bush:
"It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists..."
Look, Bush isn't known for being eloquent, exactly. He doesn't mean it is unacceptable for people to hold contrary opinions. What he means is that it is unacceptable, in his mind, for people to compare the actions of the US and the actions of Islamic extremists.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but, right or wrong, he's not implying that it is unacceptable for people to actually think. With all that's wrong with this administration and this president, I think we can find a few more things to find offensive than this phrase. - phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And Murrow didn't take shots at McCarthy during his time?
- sambtravis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So he has to be totally and infallibly neutral as a political commentator? He can't comment on something he sees as wrong? Which by those standards he shouldn't congratulate the leaders either. So why be a political commentator when all he can give is facts?
- pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11While I agree that Bush probably didn't mean that the way it came out, since he's someone whose words have profound and far-reaching consequences, he should choose them with greater care.
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Still a good quote, I don't care who wrote it. (But glad to know the truth)
- Idealistic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"God willing, the nightmare is just beginning for socialists, communists and Demonrats like yourself.
Leftists deserve to be tortured and murdered by the Bush Administration,"
... ... .. ...wow... are you serious, I'm sitting here staring blankly at the screen trying to wrap my mind around what it means if there are people in this country that actually think like that, but every time i come back with "no, there is no way someone can be that ignorant, and close minded, and so.... wow.
If you really want that in a country, i could suggest a few for you. Most of them are third world. You know, the ones where the "citizenship" constantly fears for its life, be it from the government or some local tribal or gang leader. The ones where you hope you can work enough hours in your sweat shop each week to provide food for even one of your family members.
I had a low opinion of conservative (extremists) before, but this takes the cake by far.
"If you don't think like i do, you deserve to be mutilated and in pain for the rest of your life, right up to the point when others like me decide they are done with your sorry ass." That is what you said, that is what your statement implies, read it. Is that really what meant? Because i cant believe that it was, i just cant wrap my mind around that. - snoozzell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7just by not agreeing with o'reilly doesn't make him the opposite.
He doesn't make ad hominum attacks against people, he calls them out for making ridiculous statements.
Perhaps you could enlighten me with some examples of his "punditry" because I haven't seen it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"But no one watches Olbermoron, his ratings are the worst out of all the "news" shows"
So what? Brussel sprouts are some of the least eaten vegetables but they still have pretty good nutritional value. Just because something isn't widely heard doesn't mean it is false; those who speak the loudest aren't necessarily right.
And for the future: ad homeniem attacks don't win you arguments. - Setari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What does it matter how they're affiliated? IMO, what should be important is the quality of their statements and opinions.
- john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think Bush was just trying to say that the comparison was ridiculous, not that it's "unacceptable to think".. Olberman took that out of context and overreacted, as he's paid to do.
I disagree with Bush as much as anyone, but let's try to look at this rationally instead of yelling "1984" whenever one of the talking heads overreacts. - Phonespider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But didn't Tomas Jefferson own slaves and therefore make everything he ever did or said invalid? (At least that's what I hear every time a Conservative quotes him)
- pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@neszis
It's pretty lame to bury every article that doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Informed, reasoned debate would be a more respectable approach.
I guess there'll be a "pro-Bush" article on the front page when he does something that benefits the American people at large instead of his corporate cronies. I'm not holding my breath. - Baddox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@mwilding
In a mostly anti-Bush community such as Digg, the only quotes highlighted by Bush will be the "bad-sounding" or ineloquent ones. So it's pointless to say that "[he] requires people to constantly explain 'what he meant to say'"--because the constancy of the requirement is directly caused by the community's choice in which of Bush's quotes to highlight. - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, it was written in 1948 and Orwell simply reversed the numbers.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"'It is unacceptable to think that it is okay to rape and kill a small child.' - how about that?"
If I were a mind reader and "saw" someone think such a thing I would disagree with that thought, but I would defend that person's ability to _think_ or even _say_ that thought with all my breath. The moment we deem what people can and cannot think or say is the moment we give birth to thoughtcrime. - VikOlliver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And you're free to express your dissent behind the wire in the "free speech" zone, conveniently established behind the bus station several kilometres from your president for insecurity reasons.
Vik :v) - SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"I'm not a fan of Bush, but, right or wrong, he's not implying that it is unacceptable for people to actually think"
You're right; he's not implying it. He's saying it through his actions and through the legislation he proposes and goads this Republican congress to pass. Like warrentless wiretaps, to name but one of a neverending stream of examples.
"not implying that it is unacceptable for people to actually think"... Are you ***** kidding me?... - whisk3rs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Every time I see a clip of Bush (which is probably biased), he keeps repeating a variation of the same line over and over again: "The terrorists! They're coming for us, for our freedoms, and for our country! They're horrible, we must stop them at all cost". It's become such a cliche now, it feels like propaganda.
He's like a stuck record.
Olbermann is a bit dramatic at times, but he still brings up very good points. - cisaza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Reagan regretted his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal (which was eventually considered one of the "ten worst mistakes" made by a US president). Muslim extremists express no such remorse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_scandal - cisaza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm gonna have to agree with cubiculum on this one. Bush is emphatically condemning the idea that the United States would ever be compared to Muslim extremists and endorse the tactics *applauded* by several militant, extremist terrorist cells: sending suicide bombers to kill civilians, including innocent women and children. It's not that the United States has not killed women and children in the course of war, but the United States is horrified by these casualties while Muslim extremists encourage, applaud, and praise God for these deaths publicly as a cornerstone of their battle against infidels.
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@cubiculum
Thank you for posting that.
While I dont agree with Bush or his administration, that quote was taken completely out of context.
If somone says "It's unacceptable to think that..." you cant just cut them off at the word "think" and pretend thats exactly what he said. - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, the quote is closer to Teddy Roosevelt's. A well-known Republican, of course.
- aaroncampos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great post @john2kx. Of course it's not unacceptable to think in America. It is, however, not as popular as flying off into hyperbole or hysteria as it takes more time and effort.
- andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Erm, isn't that what Reagan was doing in Nicaragua?"
No.
"The U.S. paid for and trained anti-democratic guerillas who tortured and killed civilians in an attempt to undermine a democratically elected government."
Except you can't have a democratically elected government when the opposition is violently suppressed. - ScottyMo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@JamesWilson
So it doesn't matter that the actual source of the quote's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn
A quote such as this only has as much credibility (and therefore weight) as the one who is quoted. - neszis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@pardonmedoug
Since when, of all the political articles that have come up, have you seen a pro-Bush article EVER make it to the front page?
And you say the right wingers have a conspiracy? - Phonespider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He could get away with anything now and anyone who tries to speak up would just be seen as another nutty moveon.org type.
But personally I find the politics of the "Bush is always wrong" amusing. Bush is hated so much by the Dem base that even agreeing with him on one issue makes you as a pariah (Lieberman vs Lamont). Democrat candidates can't even take a clear position on anything just in case the president may agree with them at some point before the election. - coolmos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@rokdcasbah:
If you haven't started worrying by now, don't bother. You're *much* too late.
'the united states is an experiment in reviving democratic ideals after their disappearance in the west. we need to make sure that the "experiment" is a success.'
RRRRight.......i'm baffled you even dare to make that statement. The USSR is more democratic then the USA these days. Why? Because the USSR is working towards democracy, and the USA is speeding away from it.
Unless, by democracy you mean imposing your twisted ideas upon the whole free world.
Dream on. - gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Keith Olberman the new Edward R. Murrow?
Can I have some of what you're smoking? - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In addition to Coulter, you could also add Rash Limbo & Bill O'Ruly, of course... }:)
- mwilding, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4If a politician requires people to constantly explain "what he meant to say" it is time for him to shut the hell up and stick to reading prepared statements that have some thought and eloquence behind them.
- Idealistic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"For the past 75 years, leftists have conspired to steal our money, property and liberty. Some of us have been trying for decades to stop them, with no success.
Now is the time for an extremely bloody and violent Civil War II, but we hope to wait until the Bush Administration, which is a fascist torture and murder regime according to leftists, does some of the dirty work for us."
Steal money? Right wingers are pro tax too... (as is anyone who has a basic understanding of government). They may not give it to who you think should get it, but is that grounds to execute someone?
Steal property? Not sure what you mean with that one (because you cite no facts or even follow a line of reasoning). Sounds like you are grasping straws here, please elaborate if you think there is a point to prove.
As far as taking liberty; i cant recall any leftist holding people without trial or charges, torturing people without even proof of guilt in the first place. Oh yeah, tapping phones without getting the easily obtainable warrants, the list goes on. The left is the side of civil liberties. They want more freedom for the people on almost every issue. I find it laughable you even brought it up.
If you want a civil war 2, I'm all for it. If you remember correctly the "left" won that war the first time around. Though i find it a bit sensationalist to throw around statements such as this. Goes nowhere really.
If i misunderstood anything you were trying to point out, please feel free to elaborate past "you guys are dumb cause i said so" and post something intelligible, or at least logical and based in fact. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"lets hope people will not vote with their fears... but with their minds..."
But if people vote out all the respective office holders out of fear of the continuance of the current regime, would it be any better?
I'd like to take your statement one step further, and say that voters MUST educate themselves and vote for how they feel, and what they want. If the incumbents have been saying one thing, and doing another, they are not holding up their end of the bargain, and need to be voted out on principle. But if one is simply voting out an incumbent just to vote out an incumbent, then the process is still very far from working.
I'm and Arizonan, and I don't want Kyl because he wants a border wall, and he's a supporter of the Iraqi war. He's not serving my best interests, and is far outside what I want. - coolmos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even when it was taken out of context (which it isn't), the comparison is not in any way ridiculous. Why is the value of a killed American citizen higher then that of an Afghan citizen?
If the US kills people they are just as dead as when Afghanistan kills them. There is nothing that makes a killing right, from either side.
And then there is your president, saying that he is on a Jihad to fight the terrorists. His own 'holy war'. And he will use any means to that end, including torturing anyone who disagrees, throwing them in jail without charges or rights to an attorney.
Please, tell me what real difference he has to dictators from other countries?
For the USA, the solution to a problem comes from a gun. For most of the civilised world, the solution comes from their mouth.
Welcome to 1984. - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Per ScottyMo: "@JamesWilson
"So it doesn't matter that the actual source of the quote's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy?"
You're kidding me, right? Here's a quote that expresses almost the same exact sentiment: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." -- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn
"A quote such as this only has as much credibility (and therefore weight) as the one who is quoted."
Which is why you quoted Wikipedia, known to be suspect, right? :)
Now, then, I believe you were making comments about the credibility of sources & socialism, etc., etc.? [evil grin] - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"And you're free to express your dissent behind the wire in the "free speech" zone, conveniently established behind the bus station several kilometres from your president for insecurity reasons."
That could be because these "dissenters" have a disturbing tendency to smash stuff and prevent people from going where they will. -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is