What is Digg?202 Comments
- Harboggles, on 11/03/2007, -6/+52as much as i support this,
10k is not many people. We need to have 50,000 showing up. Weekly. There needs to be REAL activism that will stop wall street from functioning for a day. There needs to be passive resistance. if 10,000 people showed up at the NYSE and prevented people from getting in, then we would have something. - swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -4/+34The marches yesterday were part of a nationwide mobilization of activists in 12 cities. I haven't seen a report yet estimating less than 10,000 at each city, some as many as 30,000. So the real numbers for the Oct 27 event are somewhere in the range of 120,000 to 360,000.
- pcflea, on 10/31/2007, -18/+45This country is becoming the next nazi germany. Invade poland? Invade Iraq, Iran, hell the whole middle east! We'll top whatever evils the nazis committed. Are we brainwashed? That's what the german people said once WWII ended. History repeats itself at an exponential rate! The greatest lesson in history, IS THAT MAN DOESN'T LEARN FROM HISTORY. true.
- cocreator10, on 10/29/2007, -1/+22 Go snowball, Godspeed.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -3/+23I wonder how many of the people posting in this thread about how "boring" dissent is, have EVER stood up and expressed their opinion in the public sphere? How many of you have once stood up for what you believe in?
- soomprimal, on 10/29/2007, -8/+26Why don't you go to those Islamic countries and protest for them. We're trying to change things the US government has direct control over.
- JD52, on 10/29/2007, -3/+20To put things in perspective there were about 4 million who showed up for the parade when the Sox won the World Series in 2004.
Draw whatever conclusions you like. - swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -8/+21Yeah maannn, I'm like, so sick and tired of people voicing their opinions on foreign policy in public. Why can't they be more like us "inactivists" and sit on their couches all day complaining?
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+13Your comment doesn't make any sense, who is being 'whining little bitches' when they're actively involved in antiwar protests?
That's REALLY sad, and that speaks volumes about the atmosphere of complacency that's keeping us from getting anything done. - swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -2/+13LOL what a logical and well-considered comment. War IS peace, comrade!
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+13What? Are you serious?
Are you sick of your First Amendment rights too? - swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+10the internet != real life
Its a lot harder to get people to turn out in "meatspace" - pieinthesky, on 10/29/2007, -4/+13So are you going to keep reaming him out, or correct him? Because we would all like to hear your version of what is 100% accurate.
- barandon0D9, on 10/29/2007, -2/+10I'm always trying to tell myself that not all conservatives are idiots. Why must you make it so hard?
- cessax, on 10/29/2007, -0/+8i was at this rally. 10,000 strong if not more. protest was at boston commons, then another gathering at copley square, and a massive march to complete it. need to see pictures? get off your lazy ass and go down to one because the main stream media doesn't have the balls to cover the truth. they'll just keep feeding you nonsense to keep you at home. more should have been at this nontheless...
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9according to Reuters news agency, San Fransico had 30,000 protesters.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+8actually we have been pissed and demonstrating in far larger numbers than this since 2002
- tcasey22, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7Yes but preventing people from doing something violates peaceful assembly... so it would be kind of a ***** idea.
- annonimality, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8Are you in Iraq right now? If so, you walk the talk. If not you're describing yourself, pussy.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7Sitting at home typing words on your computer isn't exactly "in public" now is it. Surely you understand the difference.
- verusdies, on 10/29/2007, -4/+10I guess it doesn't help that half the crooks and liars running for office support the war and now propose the new war against Iran......Enough blood and oil. Bring the troops home and stop the new world order. We are not the sheep nor slaves of the government or this corporate combine. I am glad i took part of this protest and hope it spreads the word of action.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7As much as I oppose the war, I bet more people showed up for the iPhone :(
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -2/+8So in one post you declare that I've never been to a peace march, and in the next one you include me with the activists that do attend the peace marches. Seems like you'll say anything if it fits your agenda.
Question, do you consider the dozens of members of Iraq Vets Against War who got themselves arrested in an act of civil disobedience during the Sept. 15th rally in DC to be activists? Do you consider the folks who organized a nationwide rally (yesterday) in which hundreds of thousands of people turned out to oppose the war to be activists? Sounds to me like you have a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of activism. - KyjL, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7WALL OF TEXT IS BAD
- Zomar, on 10/29/2007, -3/+9I was at this and posted roughly 100 flyers at two Boston college campuses. I wonder how many people actually showed up. The reason why the war continues despite the fact that the majority of American's are against it is because the people don't put go to things like this. People don't attend protests even if they are against the war for many reasons. Maybe they think it wont accomplish anything, maybe they think they have no say. There is something like 600,000 people living in Boston, and only 10,000 people from around New England showed up. This is why the war doesn't end. Us activists who go to these protests arent enough. We are the leaders of the movements. We need to do everything in our powers to get others to get politically involved. Else, we will never have change. Democracy only works if the people are involved. Change only happens through movements. Voting never accomplishes anything.
- 0xFEEDFACE, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6Because at this point, we shouldn't be protesting the Iraq war (regardless of who's responsible).
We should be blaming America.
We should be blaming America for decades of trying to control other countries. We should be blaming America for relying on the Fed for short-term fixes to long-term economic problems. We should be blaming America for spending the last few decades of her life more or less oblivious to the operation of her government. We should be blaming America for her faults, regardless of party.
And then we should fix them.
We should fix these faults, not just elect the group that's not currently in power. We shouldn't point fingers -- it doesn't matter who was a worse politician than whom -- it matters whether or not we'll get up off our Pringles-padded asses, turn off the NFL, and run every last money-grubbing, power-hungry, traitor out of Washington DC.
And that... that we won't do. - empirefalling, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6No. We are coming to you to change your hate ...and you can not stop us.
- FunkyJunk, on 10/29/2007, -3/+8In Other News....
Tens of millions show their contentment and gratitude towards the government by leading happy lives, paying taxes, and quietly loving America. - TwistedSheep, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5is that all you can ***** say in retort to someone's opinion?
- TwistedSheep, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Because democrats voted for this war as well? Have any of you been listening for the past 5 years since this occupation started? The Congress didn't see the same intelligence reports as the President. All they saw was that Iraq posed a threat to the United States, and was actively trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Should they have seen through that and voted against the war? it would have been nice if more had, but for ***** sake, stop trying to act like we should all support this was because 5 years ago so many were convinced it was a good idea.
Remember during the Presidential debates where Kerry suggested that this war could potentially cost upwards of 200 billion dollars, and the media blasted him for such an outrageous statement? Now we're looking at over a trillion before we pull our combat forces out of there.
So lets place blame where blame is deserved, and stop trying to act like it's a witch hunt against Bush. - fishwhistle, on 10/29/2007, -2/+7Ron Paul is the only candidate who will stop the war now and bring all the troops home.
- MixMastaKooz, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6If the Sox win the World Series tonight, I bet there will by many more celebrating downtown than protested this weekend....I guess that's what our priorities are (and this wouldn't be different for any town, I bet).
- DracoFlameus, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6yep... absolutely right, ***** free Speech! We shall obey and work! ...oh look, the 1930's are back!
- annonimality, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5> 3,000 U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq for an unnecessary war. "Yawn".
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4accountable for what, not having enough votes to override a veto?
- licnyc, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4Thats really not right- we attacked Iraq and now occupy that country based on falsified information- so we are more like germany in the analogy, we created the war. Its astonishing how many people neglect to reason there was peace in Iraq and now there is not. Secondly it is actually possible to negotiate and come to a peaceful settlement, that does happen from time to time in history. But I do agree that kancho sounds like a real tool.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4I don't think you understand how our government works.
- jmpeagle, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4seriously? Government spending has risen faster under GOP controlled congresses and GOP presidencies than under Democratically controlled ones. GOP couldn't balance a budget if their life depended on it. Cutting taxes but raising spending or keeping it the same is a tax deferrment not a tax cut.
- annonimality, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4When I read your earlier post I thought you were making a joke. But now I realize you really are confusing LED's with WMD's.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4like I keep trying to explain to you, the "solution" that you are (devils) advocating would be totally irresponsible and the Democrats have very good reasons not to do it. The fact is, they ARE trying, and they are being successfully obstructed by the minority party.
- DracoFlameus, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4compensating the lack of arguments with insults... weak... very weak... but then again: no brain - no gain.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4I'll refer you to my previous comment about not having enough votes to override a veto
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4yeah but TRUE CONSERVATIVES love STEVEN COLBERT!11111111
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4Any sane person knows that a withdrawal will need to be funded to go smoothly, and fillibustering a National Defense Authorization Bill would result in all kinds of unintended consequences. Realistically, cutting off funding cold-turkey would not be an option even if the funding was not tied into other national defense programs as well as the war.
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4A fillibuster is refusing to end discussion on a bill, preventing it from being voted on. I believe I misspoke, implying that the Dems would "fillibuster" a national defense authorization bill. The Dems write these bills. If the President doesn't like the language in the bill, he vetoes it. What the Dems can do is refuse to submit any authorization at all, effectively cutting off funding for the war. This is a terrible idea for the reasons I already stated.
- BrandonMills, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4As long as Libertarians are so determined to dice up government programs for tax cuts, they're dead in the water. If you really wanted to be a viable party, you need to start making a list of government programs you believe in and swear not to try to dismember. Hint - If EPA, FDA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest aren't in there, then you aren't getting elected. Sorry.
- Ellipsys, on 10/29/2007, -3/+7Honestly, why do you say that? The Military Industrial Complex thrives on one thing: BUSINESS! This is exactly what Ron Paul promotes. Libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. If its good for business, do it! Damn anything else! It would be logical to assume that more wars would be started if it was good for profit, just like the current administration. Ron Paul may shrink the military, but create 10,000 Blackwaters.
- chsbrgr, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5You should reexamine your party affiliation, Republicans give tax breaks to the wealthy, not the middle class.
- worldsbestgamer, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3I hate Bush, but not the war. How does that fit into your convoluted idea of how things work?
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4If sfpfc is saying is "just because you post something doesn't mean you do jack ***** IRL" then we are all in agreement. What we have here is a whole lot of rabid partisan retards posting something, AKA not doing jack *****, complaining about the people who are brave enough to leave their keyboard and DO SOMETHING.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is