What is Digg?52 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22I'm not quite sure there's ever been a time there weren't toxic politics. Media is more accessible today, so you more easily hear about it. At what point in American history--or world history, for that matter--was national rhetoric not divisive? There are always political conflicts, radicals wanting to secede from their nation, historical crimes that could come back to haunt current citizens--these are the histories of all nations of the world, and the history of humanity itself. I don't believe America is tearing itself apart. Things ebb and flow, society occasionally modifies itself, but the nation still stands. Texas prides itself on its license plates not out of defiance, but out of empowerment. It is the strength of the U.S. that the states are allowed to self-govern to some degree, and a marketplace of ideas is allowed to flourish, spread, smash into itself, explode, fizzle, and grow. The very conflict and diversity of our nation is its strength. Those talking heads you see arguing on TV are exercising a beautiful right to free speech--the right to openly bash each other, bash the government, and bash detractors. Cherish it, because a lot of nations don't have it.
- hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Hey, nice map. What would a map that showed shades of purple as blends of areas with red and blue? Let's see... http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
- johnnyrocket, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16The right wing is SO divisive, SO hell bent on winning ( elections, arguments, all the money, etc ) that they have created an atmosphere of division and strife. In my unbiased, non-partisan opinion: It's all the right-wings fault.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10We made it through the Civil War. We made it through the 1960's. We made it through the late 70's and early 80's. I bet we'll make it through this period of rougher politics as well.
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9actually a lot of federal income taxes come from blue state economic powerhouses, such as LA, NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, and are diverted to the more red areas, subsidizing farmland and the like
- Medgar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Funny how responding to a story about toxic, divisive politics, we use toxic, divisive comments. I just wish everyone would take a step back and stop the "sports fan" mentality so many people seem to have. It isn't my team or your team, right or wrong. If we can't find the middle-ground we are all screwed...Both parties are corrupt with big money. Support publicly financed elections and maybe we can get some real people with passion and integrity.
- geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And let's not forget instant runoff voting:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
It would be a miracle if the Two Parties ever passed it, since it would be their death knell, and there are some constitutional entanglements, depending on how you interpret the "one man, one vote" thing. But there's little doubt in my mind it would lead to more political diversity. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Erm... just to clarify, in case people think I'm just a raging communist. The revolution I think is most under threat right now, is the American revolution and it is the ideals of the founding fathers of the American nation that are under threat.
I think in that sense I would be happy to countenance another revolution in order to reassert those ideals and to enshrine them and enforce them much more strongly than is the case today - so that presidents and politicians and big business, or anyone with a political axe to grind could not pervert these ideals or simply choose to ignore them for their own selfish political ends. - Clockw0rk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Honestly?
I think we're due for another civil war, plain and simple.
The 2004 election proved that one half of the country was willing to say "We believe what our elected officials tell us because they are elected offocials". The other half said "This is supposed to be democrasy, and we cannot abide by the course our government has taken".
Two years later, the 2004 Bush supporters are schitzophreic. Some are rebuking the entire republican party, others are confessing to mistakes; a brazen few claim our president has done no wrong at all while others selectively decide Bush is an idiot but the republican party is still able and stable enough to make up for him.
It's not a matter of prejudice or rhetoric. It's the origin of the very words themselves. Democrats believe in democrasy, the will of the people. Republicans believe in the republic, that our leaders are our leaders because they are fit to lead. The only outcome at this juncture of a failing republic and a stilted democrasy is war. The will of the people will rise up and overtake the corrupted throne, or the government will revoke our freedom to do so.
It is increasingly appearent that the latter is taking place, which will only provoke the former. - WDot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Now I know I may sound a bit unpatriotic, but honestly, would it be so bad if this country came apart? I mean, not in the sense of another Civil War, but something more diplomatic. 50 states is a lot to deal with, and it shows. We have way over 500 people in Congress, and it isn't just Congressmen. Lobbyists, Whips, everybody vying for their interests. There are bills coming out the wazoo, and each bill is peppered with pork for programs across the country, and to represent a good compromise bills have to be watered down to a shadow of its original purpose.
What if instead of a United States of America, we have an "American Union?" Have a whole bunch of smaller regions that share a currency, a language, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Other than that, it's a clean slate.
Right now America is trying to handle more than it honestly can. Hey, Two cooks can make more meals than one. Two cores in a processor can crunch numbers more efficiently. That's high school economics right there. Why not trying to apply it to the government? - stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Look how effective the government's weapons of mass destruction were against Vietnam, or how effective they are against Al-Qaeda. How effective was the overwhelming might of the British Empire against the American colonists? The advantage you speak of will easily win battles, but not wars. Only the hearts and minds of the people can win a war, and when a government turns its might on its own people, it does so at enormous risk of gaining the moment and losing the day. This fact is the only reason revolutions ever succeed in toppling authority.
- NptPrchr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7bonch,
Although I know nothing about your personal politics -- we might be on completely opposite sides the political spectrum, for all I know -- I wholeheartedly agree with you. An excellent reply to the "We're just too mean in our politics" claptrap that so many all over the spectrum are spouting these days.
Keep it up. - geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hooray! For once, I agree with @bonch. Helps to remember that there's still common ground, even during this disturbing uptick of divisiveness.
- subterfusion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I actually think that our politics aren't toxic enough. Have you ever watched the British Parliament on CSPAN? They openly argue with each other, boo and hiss, and are generally a bunch of rowdy bastards. I saw Tony Blair giving a speech in Parliament once, and I thought they were going to start throwing rotten food at him. The benefit of this, I think, is that is comes off as a bit more genuine. Politics is a dirty business, and the "politeness" of our government, even between sides that would like to destroy each other, just helps to further the surrealism. Have you ever watched a congressman give a speech? They look so ***** awkward and robotic.
And on a side note, term limits wouldn't hurt either. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ok here is something to consider.. BOTH sides are full of douchebaggery. It isn't the right wing destroying America by legislating their religion and invading half of the world to steal their oil while ***** all over the constitution. It isn't the left wing destroying America by loving terrorism and killing babies and hating Jesus while pissing on a burning flag. Both of these "sides" have very different opinions about a lot of things, but instead of even attempting to compromise on anything, they just yell their own ideas louder and louder and stick their heads in the sand when anyone disagrees. Now the sides even have their own news networks, so people can only watch the news of "their side." This helps them avoid potentially agreeing with something their "side" officially disagrees with. This thread is a perfect example of this. Idiots arguing about nothing. Stupid stereotypes about "rural boondocks" and "one huge taxpayer subsidized retarded cluster-f*ck." Politicians going on about 40 year old candidate military records and "flip flops". This entire country should be ashamed of what we have let our political system degenerate into. If George Washington were alive to see this he would cockslap every last one of you.
Hopefully a presidential candidate with ideas on how to eliminate all this ***** will show up and run, although he probably wouldn't stand a chance. He would have to compromise on things, which means disagreeing with some aspects of both "sides" opinions. People will just vote for the guy who says everything they agree with and nothing they don't agree with, and this same ***** will continue to destroy the greatest nation in the world. I guess this is what is like to live in the decline of a great civilization. - ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Those "radical" rights you refer to are the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They have been steadily eroded for the last 50 years by both parties. (In case you haven't noticed, the so-called "liberals" are only for exapnding rights when it fits their world-view... if you stand for something they are opposed to, they are every bit against rights as anyone else in American politics... perhaps more so, because they can't tolerate dissent).
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't know if the status quo can be preserved. I have thought about it for many years. I am on the whole a big supporter of democracy - BUT I have also seen in the last 6 years how easily democracy can be perverted, so that even people with some very extreme views can obtain power and can set about undermining everything that the democracy everyone enjoys is supposed to stand for.
So I guess in that time I have become much more radical too (perhaps as the article argues as a direct result of the divisive nature of modern politics?) in that I can see the logic now in what some might consider a less democratic system - or at least one that seeks to enshrine the rights and privileges of the people over the government much more strongly in law than is currently the case.
To understand this you have to understand left wing revolutionary politics somewhat, in that although communism proved to be a corrupt and unworkable ideal - it sought too, to recognize that there are elements of society (or so called 'anti-revolutionary' forces) that actively seek to work against the better interests of the people and of the country and to pervert the course of justice and social equality to serve their own individual selfish ends. It postulated too that in order for a truly free, democratic and socially just society to exist that these forces should be prevented from gaining strength and that they should be resisted by all and *any* means possible - specifically because the threat that they posed far outweighs any benefit there might be in allowing them to participate fully in the whole political process.
Clearly, you can't have a truly socially just society, when there are people openly willing and able to resist and wreck any attempt you make to build such a society. They are two fundamentally incompatible ideas, from two fundamentally incompatible ideologies.
I don't believe that this also requires the suppression of the free market or anything like that - but I think I have become very much radicalized in recent times in that, crazy as it may seem I do not think I would have to be pushed too much further to be prepared to act violently in order to prevent any further erosion to my freedoms, if that need ever arose.
Fortunately I can see the irrationality of it - and my skepticism for all forms of ideology keeps me from acting - but always and more with each day that passes and with each new assault on my liberties, this does become more and more difficult to accept.
I often feel nothing but rage for the way that the most greedy, the most self serving and the most ignorant sections of society are allowed to gain so much power and influence over others and it becomes harder and harder to find reasons to convince myself why they should be continued to participate at all, or to benefit from the wonderful things and the fantastic potential that our society has to offer. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Looks like you are the -16 (and counting) scum. Let me educate you what it means to be an American: The Founders never meant us to go all over the world "fixing" things. The Cold War is over. 9/11 amounts to 10% of annual car crach fatalities. It is time to dismantle the surveillance state and hang the people most enthusiastic about spying on Americans.
The purpose of being an American is to be free, not to be a fraction of a percentage point safer than we are in our daily lives by enslaving ourselves to a surveillance state.
Our government has become the enemy of our Constitution. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. - xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@GeterixMaximus
"I hope you are kidding. The left is willing to give away national security to terrorist and demoralize the nation as a whole in order to try to win congressional seats."
huh, Somebody been reading too much of the freerepublic.com I see. Anyhoo, I want you to provide one example of how the left has gave away national security to the terrorists. You want to talk about giving away national security? How about Bush selling our ports to his (possibly terrorist connected) business buddies in the middle east?
"They constantly shurg off any good economic news while beating themselves off at any signs of a slow down. They use racism to divide blacks, whites, and Jews."
There has been some good economical news. The mythical "liberal" media has been reported that consumer confidence has been up and there has been some job growth. What the "liberal" media has not told you is that a decent chunk of that job growth has been ***** jobs at McDonald's and wall mart that nobody can make a decent living at while all our good tech jobs are going to China and India. And you want to talk about the left using racism? I don't think the left has to use racism with the likes of Trent Lott representing your party or when Bush sat on his ass with his dick in his hand while the blacks were drowning in New Orleans.
"Democrats see nothing wrong with trashing America, Christians, the flag, and our past heros. And you have the nerve to say its "all the right-wings fault"?"
You conservatives think that you are the only real Americans. Nevermind that liberals also go to work, pay taxes, and some even join the military as well. But if we don't agree with your opinion or wrap ourselves in the flag then some how we must be communist anti-Americans. Your right when you say that the divisions in this country are not all the right wing's fault. However, Rove and Co have sure have made a decent contribution. - theLEGENDisBACK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Entropy... Im a big fan of entropy, everything just starting to come apart at the seems... -George Carlin
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4[quote]Anyone who thinks it was peaceful and serene in the past needs to turn off the Daily Show and pickup a history book.[/quote]
Now has the Daily Show ever implied that it wasn't? Nice try, RadiantBeing, but it didn't work! - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That purple map link is wicked-cool. Thanks!
P.S. All politicians suck. - geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Geterix:
Please don't be so...what was the word? Toxic? - ultraken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's how it was originally supposed to work; the Federal government was only supposed to handle issues outside and between States (interstate commerce, national defense, international diplomacy, and the like). The States themselves were meant to be separate countries, a sort of "infinite diversity in infinite combinations". The Constitution specifically describes what the Federal government can and cannot do, and leaves everything else up to the States and the People. However, politicians being what they are, the Federal government aggrandized power unto itself over time and became what it is today.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8If the country were "torn apart" as in parts of it seceeding, the U.S. would not longer be a global bull in the china shop, and that would be a very good thing.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you misspelled Democracy twice...
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well don't confuse me with a Liberal. Maybe I once was, but I am certainly not now. (which I guess is the whole point of the article).
Nonetheless I think your assessment of them is wrong. It seems to me that particularly over this last 6 year period it has been the right (not all of them - but those whom I would describe as 'ideological right wingers' - or more specifically the neocons) who have been far more interested in suppressing the rights of the people than any previous administration before them.
Perhaps the rights of the people have been eroded over this last 50 years as you claim, although I have seen no specific evidence of this - but if that has been the case, it is unarguably true that this process has in almost every way been vastly accelerated since this government first came to power.
More than that, they aren't going away. Even if they are defeated at the next election - each time they come back they come back more radicalised and more vitriolic and more destructive than they were before.
I am all for dissent - but for all of the reasons I stated above I think there are some circumstances where a certain kind of so called 'dissent' may be far more dangerous and potentially destructive to our freedoms than would be the case if that dissent were genuinely resisted. Dissent sounds good, it is a neat catch phrase that makes it sound like you are defending freedom - but it is meaningless when you use this right to 'dissent' to take freedoms away from others.
Of course there are different definitions of freedom. But for me at least, my definition of freedom does not grant unrestricted and unquestioning power to an executive branch of government, it does not allow for a government to ignore the constitution (which was after all designed to protect the rights of the people and not simply to serve them) or to treat it as though it were irrelevant, or to keep trying to amend it to reflect their own unique political ideology; nor does it grant the executive power to spy on its own citizens without reasonable cause and due process of law, nor does it allow for the imprisoning of political prisoners for indefinite periods without trial (no matter how hainous the crime they may (or even may not in many cases) have been accused of), nor does it permit torture, nor for the myriad of other abuses we hear of almost daily that are committed by this current regime.
So if there are vagaries in the law that permit these kinds of things, then yes, I say by all means have another revolution and correct this imbalance and stamp them out in the law by whatever means are required, so that they can never be repeated again - and then perhaps at last, some form of normality and hope can be restored to America and to the rest of the world, who may then once again look to America for their leadership. - floopy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The nature of the beast of politics is that it is divisive. That is the way our republic was set up in order to prevent "mob rule". If all politicians were kissy kissy with one another (even more than they are now), the money bleeding from our pocketbooks would be even worse. I don't want my representatives to all agree with one another. I want them to open honest debates with one another, preferably not mudslinging, to revitalize my community and my country. What we need more of are independent politicians that aren't puppets of one lobby or another and are willing to state their own honest opinions.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You mean get a huge dose of disinfo on www.infowars.com
All designed to keep your mind off the real issues. Stop looking for chemtrails and start doing something about the rampant corruption in our government.
It's all about the $$$, not some fairy stories and supernatural conspiracies. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@niffer
The civil war was VERY deadly, and fueled by the first mass-produced rifles. .50 caliber lead balls are not good for your health, and they shot an incredible number of them.
By comparison, fighting the Iraq insurgency has light casualties, and it is still on the verge of driving us out of Iraq.
The U.S. Federal Government has about 200,000 armed agents. If they even took 20,000 casualties, it would be over. There are tens of millions of rifles and handguns in the U.S., , and billions of rounds of ammunition - far more than any insurgency would need. The CIA arms insurgencies with a few containerloads of used SKSs and Kalashnikovs to fight against governments armed with T72 tanks and jet fighters, and the insurgents win. The Soviet agents of influence came closer than most people think to tipping the 60's protests into real revolution.
Why do you think sedating the people with American Idol and other pabulum is so critical to national security? - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, first of all, I did not say the civil war was something to scoff at. I watch enough History channel to know that.
I see your point, however, you're assuming there will be massive revolt. I highly doubt the ability to get a mass following of dissenters in this day and age. Then again, maybe I just don't have enough imagination. - ultraken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm more a fan of Approval Voting (http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html) myself, as it could use existing vote infrastructure and treats under-votes and over-votes as a feature instead of a bug. However, geoffp's statement applies to it equally. Oh well...
- johnnyrocket, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15All that map portrays, is that right-wingers live in the rural boondocks, with lots of land separating them from each other, and separating them from common sense and logic.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3[quote]yeah, but lets face it, if there was a civil war 2.0, the rednecks would win[/quote]
Why would they? Just because they have some guns? I've got news for you, there are armories all over the US with emergency weapons stockpiles. The "liberals" would be armed faster than you imagine.
Anyway, I don't think it will come to that. I think we'll get someone like Hillary Clinton in office next to satisfy the anti-Bush backlash. Yet her policies will be identical, especially the foreign policies, domestic spying, etc.
Kerry was interviewed two days ago basically saying the same thing: neither party has done anything radically different from each other in regards to foreign policy. It is all oil-driven. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not saying revolution is easy. Just that those who say a heavily armed governmnet can't be overthown are not correct. Revolution, secession, or even a peaceful restoration of the Constitution that takes a lot of power and money away from our federal government are all possible.
- Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There will not be another civil war. Why? Because back then they all had muskets. Now one side has missles and nukes and the other has pistols. Not gonna happen.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Two cooks can make more meals than one. Two cores in a processor can crunch numbers more efficiently. That's high school economics right there. Why not trying to apply it to the government?"
I don't follow... two (50) governments can waste taxpayer dollars and pass ineffectual silly laws based on a particular reading of the bible more efficiently than one?
yeah, that'd be great... - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4yeah, but lets face it, if there was a civil war 2.0, the rednecks would win, and we would be in an even worse situation than we are now.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3[quote]Now I know I may sound a bit unpatriotic, but honestly, would it be so bad if this country came apart?[/quote]
Just give Texas, California and Arizona back to Mexico and we will have eliminated most of the idiots in this country. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7You can go back and read vicious attacks against Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc in their contemporary newspapers. You can read their private letters and diaries and see all sorts of jealousies, rivalries, hatreds, etc. Politics has always been a full-contact sport. Anyone who thinks it was peaceful and serene in the past needs to turn off the Daily Show and pickup a history book.
- witte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Toxic air."
"Toxic politics"
To me, the air is clean and the country is secure.
Seems to me something is 'toxic' when Liberals just don't like it. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Thats all and fine but the problem here is that the world's changing. America is no longer going to the unchallenged superpower. If the US economy is fine and dandy, then there'd likely be no conflict-because conflicts are bred out of the lack of money. What if the US economy splutters as capital takes flight and the US$ collapses?
Popular discontent and divisive issues will suddenly be thrust into the spotlight. Something as inane as abortion right might rollercoaster into an argument about state rights. And some states which feel that laws are unjustly imposed by Washington will start to make a lot of noise.
And when the economic outlook is dire, people will start to listen to naysayers and those that promise a better tomorrow-even if that tomorrow is under a different flag.
It's the same situation in the holy land. If tomorrow, Israel says that it'd provide jobs for everyone in the West Bank and Gaza, ensure 100% education in exchange for settlement activity-people will just stop fighting.
For the US to split up, the economy must crash first-that's the first rule. - benz57us, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yes, and people don't understand "compromise". Compromise is what you may END up with after the fight. Leadership means fighting for what you believe in a civilized manner. Leaders don't compromise. In our system, the dealing voting in places like Congress and at the polls decides what happens - or is supposed to.
(For you liberals out there, let's try an experiment: just compromise with the Republicans to "make things better". This way there won't be any fighting. See, it doesn't work. And it doesn't work with terrorist that want to blow us all up.)
I think the bad tone that people think is getting worse has to do with the more uncivil manners that permeate Washington. In terms of the war, it used to be that "politics ended at the shores". In other words, the divisive politics was for internal issues and not for dealing with foreign elements or in war. The obvious reason is so the country isn't hurt. This is called civility.
So when the Democrats do things like totally ignoring any positive aspects of the war, or blow stories like Abu Gharib out of line, or do things that hurt our efforts with our allies, or ignore the evil of the terrorists, then this is uncivil behavior.
I know the Dems want to get back into power, but does it make sense to tear down the country to get there? Do the means justify the ends? - ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3He misspelled it 3 times, as well as "schizophrenic". "offocials" was probably a typo.
As to the comment, I think he's wrong.
Half the country said that the sitting President did some goods or did some bad things, but we trust him more than the guy who's views are so nuanced and subtle that he is unable to succintly explain them. Also because he has the charisma of moldy cheese.
Let's face it, it was voting for a known evil (or good), against an unknown evil (or good). I'd rather go with the devil you know, because at least we know what he stands for. All Kerry could muster was "I'm not Bush.". Well, Stalin wasn't Bush either and I wouldn't have voted for him. The Democrats proved once again that "Trust us, we'll do better. We don't know how; we just will." doesn't win elections (see 1984 and 1996 for other good examples of running solely as 'I'm not the incumbent."). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0No learn the truth www.infowars.com
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-- William Butler Yeats, January 1919 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4" Anyhoo, I want you to provide one example of how the left has gave away national security to the terrorists."
The New York Times revealing the bank monitoring program. That program led to the capture of many terrorists, including the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali resort bombing. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5What part of this post deserved to be modded down, and why?
- witte, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Looks pretty good to me
http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap-final2.gif - GeterixMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6"All that map portrays, is that right-wingers live in the rural boondocks, with lots of land separating them from each other, and separating them from common sense and logic."
All that map portrays, is that left-wingers live in the urban cesspools, all pushed in together in cramped little apartments, oops I mean "urban lofts", forming one huge taxpayer subsidized retarded cluster-f*ck. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 