What is Digg?155 Comments
- MooseOfReason, on 10/06/2008, -18/+65It's true now. It'll be true when the bury brigade is done labeling this as "inaccurate." It'll still be true if Obama wins the election and ignores Ralph Nader.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/06/2008, -9/+51"The principle difference is the velocity at which their knees hit the floor when corporations pound on their door"
I've never heard anyone call politicians ***** in such an awesome way. - JATCA69, on 10/07/2008, -14/+54Why is the truth so offensive to so many people? Is it just to much to digest? Obama is globalist, who supports the industrial military complex, multi-national corporations, the Federal Reserve, the corrupt pharmaceutical industry and so on. All the Obama zombies will continue to have you heart broken by him...like the FISA bill. A supposed constitutional scholar that votes to destroy the 4th amendment...change you can believe in? Please.
- inactive, on 10/06/2008, -4/+38lol, he must've seen "Obama" in the title and thought, "oh, I gotta digg this."
- PresidentWikis, on 10/07/2008, -4/+33"We don't want to say to them we were to busy updating our profile on facebook, do we?"
Ralph Nader - gibbwake, on 10/06/2008, -19/+47Are you blindly digging anything with obama in it, clay empire?
- iamcitiz3n, on 10/06/2008, -11/+35hahaha ***** sheep!
- eldudereno, on 10/07/2008, -7/+29This is a real interview by the people for people but the MSM continue to ignore him. The minds of the masses are truly enslaved and the US is looking like a modern day Roman empire, keep the mob content and you can do pretty much what you like until they reach the edge of the cliff. wake up America
- vt007ken, on 10/06/2008, -15/+36See, people will not let their candidate be criticized at this point, they are too invested and take it as a personal attack on themselves. It's like those who are die-hard sports fans who stand behind their team, even when they are losing badly and half the players are arrested for something.
It's almost a lost cause at this point... - JagPop, on 10/07/2008, -6/+27Great point by Nader:
Obama, if elected, is going to have to sever his connection to the continuing crimes of Bush.
The crimes have a life of their own, Bush initiated them but they continue.
Does the criminal label get attached on day two or after the 100 day honeymoon? When? - SeraphimJulius, on 10/07/2008, -0/+18I may not agree with Nadar on all or if any of his points; but he does point out something that is true. If Obama doesn't end all of Bush's illegal policies when he gets into office then he would be just as guilty as Bush for letting them continue. If Obama pushes for impeachment of Bush for war crimes; he better condemn and put a stop to all of Bush's wrongdoings unless he himself wants to be put on trial for the same crimes.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -1/+18Bush, chenney, rumsfled are the War Criminals.
- libertygal76, on 10/06/2008, -1/+16LOL Thanks for the laugh!
- vbullinger, on 10/07/2008, -0/+15What's so funny about having sexual intercourse with sheep?
- JagPop, on 10/07/2008, -0/+14I can't believe I responded to someone that didn't even watch the video, but can call it crap.
NO WAY, NO HOW DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO. NO WAY. - Adamande, on 10/07/2008, -0/+13I don't see why this video is making Obama-supporters so angry. If anything, Nader is making that statement out of concern for Obama (or McCain) as it is completely correct what he's saying, that they might incriminate themselves by continuing some of the current presidential policies. Do Obama-supporters wish for Obama to become a criminal? It almost seems like it.
- Mekanikles, on 10/07/2008, -1/+14Wow, Digg, seriously? Did you even watch the video? He's saying that IF Obama doesn't break the chain of war crimes he will become a war criminal too. Surely this is logic at its most basic level.
- JATCA69, on 10/07/2008, -1/+12Shoot, I gave you a thumbs up. How do I give that back so you can use it to stick up your ass?
- geddon, on 10/07/2008, -2/+12Visit your local Starbucks and purchase three commemorative Obama lattes with "fudge you can believe in," then cross the isle to Borders and find three Oprah magazines that list the top 10 things you didn't know about Obama. Recite these lists to yourself until you've finished your lattes and Obama will forgive you.
- geddon, on 10/07/2008, -1/+11I don't think you made it to the end of the video when Nader asked what you were doing when the Corporations overtook your government -- you don't wanna tell your kids you were too busy Digging. Remember that the media was a lost cause until the people started blogging. Same with music; the Corporations owned everything until the people started podcasting. We can do the same with our Government. Think of it as Democracy 2.0.
- 00z003, on 10/07/2008, -10/+19"I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
Barack Obama. - anonymiau, on 10/07/2008, -2/+10Wow, the Obamabots managed to bury this article. The propaganda machine seems to be working just beautifully.
- MrsButtersworth, on 10/07/2008, -1/+9This is blatant ignorance. All funds he campaigns on is rased solely by individuals. He has thousands of volunteers organized all across the country to make phone calls, gather signatures to submit to the states to fulfill ballot requirements, organize rallies, what have you. And as he says, its not just for his benefit, but for that of the volunteers as well, gaining experience in the political process for their futures. And he campaigns ALL 50 states, not just 'blue' or 'red' states based on how likely he is to win the electoral vote for that state. Grow up and have respect for a free democracy which allow him to participate in the political process in this manner, and would allow you to do the same if you saw fit. Its democracy. Get used to it.
- mshtml, on 10/07/2008, -1/+9Removed from the front page? Digg is rigged.
- JKap, on 10/06/2008, -31/+39Obomba IS a war criminal for funding King George W's wars of aggression and for voting against withdrawal.
- anonymiau, on 10/07/2008, -0/+7What? He's running for president and his flaw is supposed to be that he's not supporting someone else running for president? Perhaps he doesn't support their policies and actually has the integrity not to endorse someone he doesn't want to see in the Oval Office? Your critisism is weak. The generic statement on how he "hasn't really offered any solutions to any problems" can be applied to any candidate out there. He presented several concrete solutions in this video alone.
Read about the man's career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
He is an American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and independent candidate for President of the United States in 2004 and 2008 as well as a Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000
A little piece of info: "In 1965, Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, a study that revealed that many American automobiles were unsafe, especially the Chevrolet Corvair manufactured by General Motors. The Corvair had been involved in numerous accidents involving spins and rollovers, and there were over 100 lawsuits pending against GM in connection to accidents involving the popular compact car. These lawsuits provided the initial material for Nader's investigations into the safety of the car.[6] GM tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.[7][8] GM failed to uncover any wrongdoing, and never explained resorting to smear tactics instead of defending the car in the popular press"
As well as this snippet "Nader also reported in the documentary An Unreasonable Man that many wealthy Democratic donors offered to give money to his public interest groups if he declined to run, however, none of these groups would go a step further to guarantee that his issues would get a fair hearing in Washington. Nader replied, "why should I spend all of your money working on issues that are just going to run into a brick wall in Washington?"
Now that's integrity. Moving on to this: "In 1999 an NYU panel of eminent journalists ranked Nader's book Unsafe At Any Speed 38th among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century.[62] In 1990 Life Magazine,[63] and again in 1999 Time Magazine,[64][65] named Nader one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century."
Also: "Nader's 2004 campaign ran on a platform consistent with the Green Party's positions on major issues, such as opposition to the war in Iraq."
He could have saved the US a couple of dollars and a few lives if he had been elected. Is this what you call "Zingers"? - algaeturd, on 10/07/2008, -9/+16Really? If you honestly believe that, you need to go back to high school and study american history, civics and government. I'm all for keeping an open mind but suggesting that a senator who voted AGAINST the occupation is a war crime for voting against withdrawal (which you need to read up on that vote, by the way) is retarded. No wonder people think 3rd party supporters are crazy. You're digging up this guy.
- SuperNinja2008, on 10/07/2008, -1/+8rmeddy,
That is exactly what I've been trying to tell Obama supporters.
And, you should recognize something similar to what you've just said: what you've just said can be applied to 'negotiating with the twisted WTO' or 'repairing the twisted Free-trade Agreements' -- Obama can't (and so won't) undo either of those two messes, so he won't really do anything at all.
Thanks to Obama's inability to actually "Change" Foreign Policy or Trade Policies (due to the fact he WON'T change such things, because he is a puppet for the worst kinds of Globalist), you will only see Obama kick America's economy/existence into a bottomless pit, but Obama won't scream "THIS IS AMERICA!", rather, he'll scream, "THIS IS GLOBALISM!"
Obama or McCain, either one will bring chaos and death to America. - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Care to address any of the issues he raises?
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Bread and Circus. That's what it is. Keep the masses entertained and give them a few crumbs from the table.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7Care to address any of the issues he raises?
- clat98, on 10/07/2008, -2/+8Nader is true though. and seriously, obama spent MILLIONS just trying to get power. Only people like Ron Paul who actually are too busy actually helping instead trying to get power actually deserve it. The system is *****, id choose a random 6th grader before I'd chose a super-old rich ***** bush supporter paired with a bitch who cant even properly form responses. Props Obama, way to somehow magically be at the right place at the right time, somehow mainstream media and American ignorance did all of your campaigning for you. haha imagine Obamas chances if Ron Paul was running and every American still read books... seriously imagine that.
- Adamande, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7Oh, come on! It's implied and pretty obvious. If Obama continues current policy in several areas he WILL become a war criminal. It's not mislabeled at all. And anyone who actually watched the video will see that. If I were an Obama supporter, I would consider this to be a very useful heads up.
And even the comments here are fair. Digg has become extremely one sided when it comes to Obama. I mean, I like the man and he's looking awfully good compared to McCain but any story about him that points to faults in his voting record or policy are getting the same manic treatment. The man has Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan among top contributors, voted for the Patriot Act and supported the bailout. He's not the polar opposite of McCain. The most responsible voter is the one who knows both the strength and shortcomings of his candidate. - miggyb, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5In Volusia county, Florida, Gore received -16,022 votes. Explain that one to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error
I understand that people are angry at Nader and feel as though people who vote for him are "wasting their vote," but I think it's time to define what "wasting" really means. If Nader wasn't running, I wouldn't vote for Obama OR McCain. There is a time where the "Lesser of two evils" doesn't cut it anymore. Do I expect Nader to win? No, of course not, come election day, it is my hopes that people will realize that ~10% of us believe there is something /seriously wrong/ with the two-party system. - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5Care to address any of the issues he raises?
- stockgotti, on 10/07/2008, -6/+11If Obama wasn't committed to being a war criminal, he wouldn't be the nominee. Instead of praise him, the media would attack him. If Obama wasn't a total enemy of free humanity, his name would be Ron Paul and he wouldn't have a chance of being the next President.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5Look at what he's accomplished in his long career.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6Obama has promised to expand the occupation of Afghanistan, has threatened Iran and Pakistan. If anyone is paying attention, you'll notice that Obama has not even mentioned closing the permanent occupation bases in Iraq.
- kraant, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6Dugg for what Nader actually said... G*dd*mn is the digg submission misleading though.
- JATCA69, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6Trust me, I am not drawing a difference between Obama and McCain. They are two sides of the same worthless coin.
- geddon, on 10/07/2008, -6/+11That's a real shame, too. I would have thought that all of his ties to Corporate Banking would have been a dead giveaway when Obama was out terrorizing everyone over the bailout. Even my Obama supporting friends are finding ways around attacking Afghanistan. It's like we've got a whole new generation of Bushies to contend with!
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -2/+7This is an interesting argument I had with a friend,that if Obama is elected what is the probability that he will be a War President?
assuming he severs the Links and Solve the Iraq and Afghanistan mess(which is highly unlikely) he can still go on to invade another country probably Sudan which will be the next oil war which everyone will back him because of the Darfur situation.It'll be Afghanistan all over again. - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6@Affect, the FISA vote is one of many examples where Obama rails against something, and then votes in favor of it. He tricks people like you.
1) War. Sounds all anti-war in speeches, votes to fund criminal wars whenever possible.
2) Telecom immunity. Tears into it like a lion, votes in favor of it like an obedient kitten
3) Bailout for Wall Street. Jumps up and down about it for the cameras, obediently votes for it.
4) Mighty speeches against PATRIOT act. Obediently voted to extend it March 2, 2006.
Other neocon friendly actions by Obama:
1) Siding with Georgia when they went on the offensive.
2) Pandering to the Israel Lobby.
3) Taking huge contributions from Wall Street and nuke power industry. - leonelvis, on 10/07/2008, -9/+14Vote for Nader! Don't fall into the empty promises of Obama. Obama promised that he'll be above politics but so far, it's been politics as usual for him.
- nickespinosa, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5Dare I follow the argument to its logical conclusion as it usually goes in these threads?
Vote third party!
Also, voting is far from the most effective way to address these issues.
Lets hit the streets! - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Care to address any of the issues he raises?
- anonymiau, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Yeah, the Obama crowd keeps saying that. But they can't really seem to explain how a headline that's repeated in the actual video is misleading. I guess they percieve it to be misleading cause at the moment they read it, they instantly thought it would be an attack on Obama and just decided it was a bad headline and didn't even bother to watch the video. But you might be the first one able to explain where the headline misleads you based on something other than your own prejudice?
- MrsButtersworth, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5He's accomplished more as a simple citizen of this country than any single one of your members of Congress has achieved in his or her life. Irrelevance?
- JATCA69, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5No sir, he voted for it. He voted for immunity for the telecom companies that Bush had break the law (invasion of privacy to better protect you...my dear). Look it up on the thing in front of you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is