What is Digg?58 Comments
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36Great, just what we need, a presidential candidate saying "FRIST POST!!!11"
- Seidoger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Whatever happens with that debate, you Americans better not pick a freaking moron this time.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -5/+19mccain3320: omfg barack stop u fag
Obamarama: AAH SKEET SKEETS KEET SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET
hill4ry08: wtf stop spamming teh deb8
Obamarama: vAAH SKEETS KEET SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET fasdasfghjlkl~
j3dwurds: omg go away u dick
[Obamarama has been kicked from the server]
[Obamarama has been banned from the server]
hill4ry08: stop pls
hill4ry08: omg finaly
mccain3320: lol
mccain3320: /salmon
[mccain3320 slaps hill4ry upside the head with a salmon]
hill4ry08: wtf
rudyG123: lol how do u do that - jayfarer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Message board flame wars go official.
"lol stfu mccain" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Cool idea, but why not just make it simulcast over both TV AND the Internet?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Lets outlaw the scripted horse ***** that is passed off as a debate instead.
- Eyeooga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"And if I am elected (buffering....................................................
- CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"FRIST POST!!!11"
Even funnier if Bill Frist runs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Where is that picture that says "Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded." when you need it...
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Normally, if you call someone a thief, a liar, a child molester, an *****, etc. you would get banned from a forum. Do the rules change in this case since all their statements are in fact true?
- guyinthechair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg down because you can't spell "Colbert"
- DeltaX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Democrats will, don't worry.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I feel sorry for all of you guys who simply 'block' anicejew. His posts are so colorful that its always worth the laugh to read them
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can just imagine dubya doing that and his signature snicker afterwards.
- sirjimbob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd love to see 3rd parties be able to participate toe to toe with the major party candidates. Its terrible that there is such a disconnect between the two.
- tekmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Unfortunately, they probably won't heed Ariana's invitation as she's a controversial figure and neither side would want to associate with her during an election to grab the central base of voters.
- thecolor11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can't you already stream the debates from CSPAN?
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Awsome. Finnally we can have debates with spam messages (consisting of "U R GAY LOL!!!!!1!!!")
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they might use webcams
- Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does this mean they might actually be able to address each other?
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I really don't even see democrats showing up for Mrs. Huffingtons debate. Her site is a collection of conspiracy theorists and extremists. Most people going into elections tend to move towards the middle, not towards the extreme.
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Debates in other countries are usually rather interesting. Well the Canadian debates have been anyway, IMO. The problem is that the presidential "debates" in America are actually just parallel campaign speeches. They're a total joke.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We must shut down the federal reser . . *CONNECTION RESET*"
- ecorona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but at least now candidates have to memorize the speechwriters' responses. At least we know they can memorize a great deal of information. Make them work a little!
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul had better be included in the debates have no purpose.
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Asking the hard questions is always good in my book, particularly for debates. That will show the candidates character and how cool and collective they can be in tense situations.
Questions from the press or debate host shouldn't be worried about if they are going to upset candidates/president with touchy issues. - Erich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is a silly idea and I'll be embarrassed for any campaign that says yes.
Allowing the candidates to "debate" via video conference will further make debates less like conversations and more like commercials. - daypah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@killinger777
The Huffington Post debate is supposed to be for the democratic primary. - enewsreference, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't understand this....I think Huffington wants to get a piece of the action...most of the debates were held on C-Span the last time. People all over the world, including Osama can watch the Presidential debate. If you remember, he issued a warning to the US right before the Kerry/Bush debate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Headline is inaccurate. Candidates have not yet agreed to online debates.
- enewsreference, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dah!!!
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whatever.. the presidential debates I've seen are just the respective candidates repeating whatever canned lines their speechwriters wrote for them the previous night anyway. Heck, all political candidates around the world prepare for questions and likely have a great deal of responses written for them by other people. Just cut out the middleman and have the speechwriters being the guys typing. lol
- fogelbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uh... just because she is offering it doesn't mean anybody will agree. you can hardly say this _will_ happen.
- smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone actually glean anything useful from the debates, regardless of who moderates it?
It seems like the questions are mediocre and the answers are as useful as a roll of wet toilet paper. - ecorona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a retarded idea. There is no way to know who the hell is typing. I'm willing to bet each candidate will have a whole freaking team of sub-moral master-scheming bastards on their end.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ROFLMAO
Anything with the word Huffington should be discarded immediately. - Gesiwuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh no! I can see the flame wars coming :(
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I just hope we dont have to use Godwins Law.
- Ligeia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I hope Edwards does well; he seems like a great candidate by my estimation.
- the1kingarthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If there is the slightest possibility of editing, splicing, remixing, or other manipulation. Then all of these debates should be boycotted.
It is so wrong for so many reasons, and sets a very dangerous precedent. If any debate is released to the public, it should be released in its entirety, and let the public decide. Too many politicians and reporters have for years promoted the idea that the general public is not only too stupid to decide on issues of importance, the politicians and reporters feel they HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL THE GENERAL PUBLIC what they should and should not think.
I advise anyone reading this post to not only boycott any uploading of any debate that has been edited, spliced, or other wise manipulated. But to also e-mail the sight that has received the upload, and tell them you are boycotting them. Let your voice be heard! - JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2edit: this is how i imagine it might go-
McCain: haha, know what Hillary?
why dont you just stfu for once
with your insane yammering, and go
***** your husband for a change? From
the looks of things i'd say he's still branching out...
hillary: hahaha if only ***** your wife didnt
take up so much of my time... - raybury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@mike1630: Way to miss the point.
@Erich: Well said. A tool is only as good as how you use it. I specifically recall good candidate websites at least as far back as 1999, when I downloaded a registration from Bill Bradley's site. (Ah, how I pined for a Bradley-Wellstone ticket in 2000. Alas, I had to settle for Al Gore, but he was still better than that anti-internationalist George W. Bush, who would never do anything about middle eastern threats like Saddam Hussein.) Anyhoo, point is, right tool for the right job. A presidential debate will reach far more people (as is desirable) on the universal wireless broadband received: Tee vee.
Or we could just elect the faster typist. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1God help us if Huffington is involved. Another whacked out partisan liberal with the IQ of donut.
- JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1not that they ever would do it like the way i'm about to suggest...but i would love it if, when they did it online that the debate was very laid back and uncensored...some would call it uncivilized...i would call it entertainment.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Hmmm don't debates usually take place at a neutral site? I really don't see this happening.
- mike1630, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Huh? Really? You're arguing that web-based video is somehow more commercialized than national TV?
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2If Arianna Huffington was going to run a debate, it would run something like this:
Arianna (to dem candidate): So how about those child molesting republicans? Do you think America should trust the presidency to a bunch of kid touchers?
Arianna (to rep candidate): So, we already know that republicans have killed the constitution and are child molesters, would you like to admit that you are also murderers and rapists?
I cannot see her being fair, as she is completely out of her mind. - musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Are these far right liberals some new breed; perhaps the result of stem cell research...
- twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Vilsack will win, cuz you can't go wrong with ducks.
- DeltaX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@ enewsreference
I don't think defending the country is wrong. I think the Democrats will pick a moron. Their good at that. -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 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