What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Amphibian invaders! Can frogs conquer the Earth? view!
funimation.com - Stranded frog platoon battles for Earth and our sushi. Season 1, Part 2 available 11/24
80 Comments
- onelikeseabass, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40we are not nazis as you so eloquently put it
Idiot Bush is in power because he stole the election. his approval rating is in the toilet.. everyone i know or have met thinks he is the stupidest person alive. we are all hoping for impeachment or some other way to remove him from power
trust, not all of America is like Mr. Bush. we're with you - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35We have 54% voter turnout here in America? If you people are sick of the government, get off your lazy asses and vote next time. That means that for all of you fanboy-esque Bush haters (don't get me wrong, I hate Bush, too, but you don't have to act like a child about it), half of you didn't bother to vote against him or even vote at all, for that matter.
Our civil liberties have been continuously stripped since Bush has taken office and we have engaged in an unforseeably long war in the Middle East.
The moral of the story: stop being an armchair critic and vote next time, damnit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Unfortunately, because they were voted in to 'REPRESENT' Americans under an effective FPTP system, it doesn't mean they 'REPRESENT' alll American's views - in actual fact, they 'REPRESENT' very little.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26They obviously planned on having some kind of great propaganda drive to commemorate 9/11 and bolster support for iraq, but they didn't seem have a meeting to get their story straight.
in the days surrounding 9/11 2006:
Condaleeza Rice says there is still a definite connection between saddam and osama
Cheney says they were going into iraq whether or not 9/11 happened (which they were)
Bush says there's no connection, but he never said there was.
And now Rumsfeld says the reason was gas prices...
FFS these guys are so unbelievably incompetent they can't even get their goddamn lies consistent, let alone protect the american people, bolster stability in the middle east, rebuild at the WTC site, or find Bin Laden.
The last 10 days have been the single largest collection of outright lies from this administration, with the clincher coming from Bush:
----
Matt Lauer: And yet you admitted that there were these CIA secret facilities. OK?
President Bush: So what? Why is that not within the law?
Matt Lauer: The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law.
President Bush: Well, we just disagree with him.
----
We disagree with you Bush. Enough is enough. - roquetin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Not all Americans accept their government, but revolution isn't a reasonable option at this point.
Only when revolution is a reasonable option can you condemn an entire nation (besides revolutionaries and dissidents) for the action of its government. - a99tandem, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Well no.. America did NOT vote these douchebags in... they voted for Gore.. but due to our ***** Electoral College system- Bu$h won the presidency.
yeah so what.. i used the cliche $ like in M$.. but this time its blood money - Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The main purpose of the Iraq War is to raise oil prices. Look at the profits of the oil companies.
Other reasons are to funnel money to cronies, destabilize the region to benefit the Military Industrial Complex and finally to plant the poison pill of debt in the Government to force a reduction in program funding.
Mission Accomplished! - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Dumb Rumsfeld...disgrace to the country. Enjoy your 'legacy' of failure Rummy.
- PAStheLoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This was posted in the political category.. so the comments are 'appropriate'.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"And he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program, and he’d say well why shouldn’t he - and he would."
LOL, so why didn't you attack Iran, Rummy? Or North Korea?
I think you answered the question yourself, Rummy. OIL.
How ridiculous is it to claim Saddam could suddenly develop nukes out of nowhere when he didn't even have a program started? Who would help him? Iran certainly wouldn't. Iran might have nuked him first themselves! - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I couldn't agree with you more on that. Bush acts more like a puppet to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a few others. My frustration is that Bush was elected to be in charge. Rumsfeld's resignation was probably more of a ploy, like when parents tell toddlers "We're leaving, are you staying?" However, that was yet another missed opportunity for Bush to take control and start leading.
Leading Bush or not, Rumsfeld seems to have run out of ideas himself. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"This guy is just casting about. It's too bad George Bush didn't accept his supposed offer of resignation years ago."
Are you kidding? He's one of the people giving orders to Bush. No way will he be fired. And if he's forced to resign by some investigation, the Bush administration is going to have a meltdown. - wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -57/+65These people REPRESENT Americans. Americans voted them into power to REPRESENT them. They speak for Americans.
The majority of American's are like them if they voted them into power.
I view them as Nazi's and thus the majority of American's are to be seen as Nazis.
You chose to associate with them so expected to be treated like them. That is all :) - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@wibblewobble
Why do people like you always assume that everyone who speaks out against the current administration doesn't vote?
You do realize that we have to WAIT for the elections to come around. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This guy is just casting about. It's too bad George Bush didn't accept his supposed offer of resignation years ago. Not only are gas prices currently on their way down, but much of the recent premium is caused by uncertainty about the supply of Saudi and Iranian oil...With decrepit equipment, Iraq's actual production was dwindling, even though the potential was still there.
Now it is getting late in the war to determine how it got started, although I am still interested. We need to find a way to tie things up and instill some peace. That is a far more difficult problem than the original reason for the war. I suspect that the original path to the war will eventually come out in impeachment proceedings or some other court case, but currently we are still responsible for the mess in Iraq. The administration should stop trying to explain why they started the war...that is a very bad weakness of theirs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There's a 'technology' section. Click that, and you don't have to see "Anti-American" stuff any more.
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8i didn't vote for those guys but I am hardly going to shoot them. it's democracy (or I think it is, after the diebold videos)
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm usually in agreement with posts on Think Progress, but this time I think they've misinterpreted Rumsfeld's comments.
He's not implying high oil prices are a justification for war, but that IF Saddam were in power, he would have a lot more money because of the current high oil prices. He's just saying that it's a good thing we removed Saddam from power.
That said, I don't agree with Rumsfeld and think he should be fired. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unfortunately, many of our politicians misrepresent their positions when campaigning (remember Dubya was against nation building in the 2000 election). So I wouldn't say Dubya and company represent the American population. In addition, voter turnout for primaries, which select the candidates, are very low and unfortunately comprised of the extreme ends of the parties. So you now have someone selected by a minority of actual members in their party. Then you have momentum in the primaries, where early primaries allow candidates to build and carry momentum. Now you're talking about a extreme members of a party in a few states, not even the entire nation selecting the candidate. Then you have the relatively low voter turnout in the actual election.
By the end of everything, you have mediocre candidates representing the party outskirts where the winner rarely represents the values of the majority of the population.
@a99tandem - the electoral college is a result of our federal system and actually magnifies the impact of your vote. - digguser949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually Saddam wouldn't be rolling in "petrol dollars" if he were still in power today as he actually switched to Euros in 1999 for his oil. Some claim this is the real reason for the Iraq was in the first place. The move actually would have made him alot more money based on the current standing of the Euro vs Dollar.
Quote from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm
"In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching." - AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5...Oh!
After the destruction of an entire country, the boost in determination to Islamic terrorists worldwide, and the utter obliteration of American foreign relations with a good portion of the planet, NOW he says it's "all about the oil"?
He's living proof that euthanasia needs to be legalised. - dinobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5quoting Penn & Teller!... And then, there's this *****!
Reading about how ***** up our politics are just gimmes be a headache because you really cant do anything to change it without going to jail for just thinking about killing a stupid politician who has ***** us over and over again... - kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Hey, wibblewobble, where are you from? The UK? I hear you're having about as much trouble with civil liberties as we are over here. I guess you don't have a problem with it since you elect your parliament, though. I'm sure you agree with UK soldiers helping the US in Iraq, too. After all, the majority of your people elected the parliament, which in turn elected the prime minister, correct?
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Well, the first thought is what a wonderful country we have and how fortunate we are. I mean, we took the biggest blow that we've ever taken in a single attack in the September 11th attack five years ago. The purpose was to terrorize the American people, and the American people have not been terrorized.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Congress needs to pass the legislation that the President put forward. The people who masterminded 9/11 and a number of other activities that were stopped and thwarted will not be put on trial unless they pass that legislation. And I don't think that members of Congress are going to want to be in a position of having prevented that legislation from passing and preventing the United States government from bringing to justice the people who killed 3,000 Americans.
Americans have not been terrorized? the neocons have been doing a good job of that. Anytime an action or person speaks out against the company line the reply is always the same, "it's a win for the terrorists if you do/think that". Americans have definitely been terrorized, so much so that they are willing to give up their freedoms and watch as this administration slowly brings down america to it's knees.
It's obvious from the second quote that this admin obtained information illegally and now they are trying to back peddle and if they don't get their way they will put the blame on congress when it was their original screw up that caused this in the first place.
Absolutely disgusting!! - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@wibble
What are you going to do besides "Whinge and gurn on an internet forum"? You Armchair Brit... or whatever you are. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's how the US government treated German citizens after WWII
zing! - cyroxos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/17/1845248&from=rss
- riven0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Man, I knew I shouldn't have missed that interview!
- SledgY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nothing is going to change with Donald Rumsfeld, he's been making ***** up since the 70's. Remember how "bad" the Russians where back then.
- AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kakwakas
The operating difference here being that we've forced the leader responsible for entangling us in the mess in Iraq to pack up and set a date for buggering off. Bush is still sitting in the White House looking smug. - nicstevens42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Rumsfeld wasn't elected.
- Vogateer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just because the headline is inaccurate in the original article doesn't make it accurate because it was copied onto digg.
I meant Rumsfeld, stupid mistake. Was reading other comments, and thought of him, too.
This is another time that I don't understand why my comments are being buried. I can understand when you bury people who obviously didn't even read the article or contributes nothing meaningful or even humorous to the discussion...but that's not the case here. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3and how the united states old companies have more money to do what with??
strengthen their hold on the energy market? i would give saddam weapons over giving corporations more money - metsfan489, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5First of all, the headline is not inaccurate. it is the same headline as the article posted. Second, if you would even read the article or the headline its about Rumsfeld, nothing about Cheney.
- dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I guess all us "Americans" think Oil > Life.
- GreatGrizzly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is, of course, comes after every Bush supporter screamed, " You damn liberal hippy conspiracy theorist! Its not about the oil!!!11one"
Well look at that, it is about the oil, according the the Administration. Lose-lose situation for the supporters. - rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@onelikeseabass
He probably stole the first one. There is little doubt he won the second one.
Yes. I am sorry to say that, if you did try to convince people not to vote for him (or to vote against him), you didn't do enough. - Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately, a LOT of Americans DID vote for this guy, TWICE. Now that he is finally showing his true potential everyone is trying to distance themselves from him. They thought they were buying a winner, turns out they bought a lemon.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So we invaded Iraq to stop Sadam... from being so ***** rich. Somehow I don't think they'll stick with this justification.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although he is not stating that it was a reason to go to war, he is stating that, looking back, it adds to the argument.
This is totally false, as the high oil prices are a direct result of the war in Iraq, and therefor it renders his logic as, well, illogical!
@roquetin
While I agree that this is not justification for condemning an entire nation, I feel that your assumprtion that 'revolution isn't a reasonable option at this point' is naive.
Your government is leading your country down the path of warfare with half the world, as is ours (I'm a Brit). I hate our 'elected' leader for his stupidity in this, and I feel you should too. I don't want to be killed for someone elses *****-up beliefs, and I assume you don't either.
Neither to I want to be forced into a situation where I have to kill for those same beliefs.
However, this is the way things are going at this time. We are on the brink of another great, possibly world war, and your administration, along with mine, along with Irans, and numerous others ARE leading us all down this path, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that we do have to take action against this.
"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
E Burke - SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is too funny .; so howcome the oilprices are this high? Exactly .. the war in afghanistan. Amerika's war on terrorism is what made the oilprices rise. Not Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan .. NO!! ***** Mr President Bush and the entire Bush administration. I just can't believe this is all happening .. it's too stupid to be true.
- Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who cares if it's 'marked as inaccurate'. we know it's not, it just means we're getting to them. Personnally when I see 'marked as inaccurate' it makes me more interested in reading the article, to see what people are so afraid of.
P.S. I'm not going to insult you xen0blue, your comments do enough to show you up as it is. - Vogateer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Your comments are being burried because, by your own admission, you are prone to stupid errors from lack of paying attention.
I never said I was prone to making stupid mistakes. When one grows accustomed to hearing the words "Cheney" and "oil" used in the same breath so often, I'd say it's an easy mistake to make.
>Why would anyone be interested in your inarticulate, inaccurate ramblings?
I did notice a bad edit that left an "s" on the end of a verb, but digg doesn't allow for a whole of time to make edits, and I noticed that error too late. Making simple mistakes like those mentioned hardly makes my writing inarticulate or rambling, and it certainly doesn't make my point any less true. So, do you disagree with what I said in my earlier comments, or are you just looking for a chance to prove how pedantic you can be? - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@roquetin:
Actually it is.
The military powers aren't exactly thrilled with the neocons.. they see them as lying cheats and war mongers. Believe it or not, military powers do not like war mongers. Generals like to bring the troops home and only want to pick fights that they think have to be fought.
The problem is that there aren't enough Americans willing to give up their cozy little cubicle dwelling lives and fight for their beliefs. Or are there?
I for one would be more than happy to walk away from what I have and bear arms against those who would destroy what this country stands for.
Maybe if people started believing in it and thinking it, it might just happen.
A 2nd civil war doesn't sound so implausable these days. - mmortal03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the electoral college is a result of our federal system and actually magnifies the impact of your vote."
Actually, it depends on where you live. In some states it magnifies the impact of a person's vote, and in some states it lowers the impact of a person's vote, EVEN with the automatic 2 votes per state. - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also, there are many fundamentalist Christians in our country and government who believe there has to be a massive war in the Middle East before their god, Jesus, can return. There are many fundamentalist Muslims who believe there has to be a massive war in the Middle East before the Mahdi (or 12th Imam, a messianic figure) can return. The president of Iran believes in this and has stated it directly. Does Bush believe in the literal return of Jesus and the biblical prophecies of massive war? I can't say if he actually believes it or just pretends to get votes, but it's possible. So he actually may see a massive war in the region as a good thing, because it means soon his god will appear.
Of course all these beliefs are total BS. So we have two sides with the same kind of prophecy, the kind that tends to be "helped along" by those who believe in it. They are so eager to meet their gods and saviors that they're willing to screw up the whole world and cause untold suffering. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is