What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
192 Comments
- nova912, on 10/10/2007, -12/+94He's Right.
Love um or Hate um.
He's STILL Right. - urbannomad23, on 10/21/2007, -21/+77I wish there would be an IQ requirement for being president.
Bill is so quick on his feet, always thinking! this should be dugg to the front page, hopefully! - cptl, on 10/10/2007, -8/+51Rush Limbaugh used the term for Democratic Senator Chuck Hagel before moveon.org ran the ad:
http://www.digg.com/politics/Before_MoveOn_s_Gener ...
There has been no Senate resolution against Limbaugh, no outrage from anyone, not a peep from the supposedly liberal mainstream press. Face it, this whole phoney outrage is a sad joke designed to focus attention away from the Iraq debacle.
Does anyone see a problem with the US Senate officially voting to condemn an ad by a non-governmental group? Free speech implications, anyone?
Does anyone see a problem with Democratic Presidential candidates being hounded by the press to distance themselves from this ad, which has no official ties to any one of them or the Democratic party? Why are they so focused on a bad pun using a General's name when there are real, important issues that need to be addressed?
The whole thing is calculated and phony, and as usual, a lot of people swallow this ***** up. - spinchange, on 10/10/2007, -10/+42I can't recall the last time such vehemently right groups paid so much money, to do so much damage, so often, to their own country.
- ajwinder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32Several points.
1. It seems like half the posts I read said this article was spam. The definition of spam isn't "***** I dont like". This is, like it or not, a piece of news that's also up on CNN's website, and its legitimate in purpose for this site.
2. Bill Clinton, like pretty much every president before him, will say ***** from time to time about the political landscape in this country. Its to be expected, they presided over the country, and unless you're a really cynical person, they probably had some deep interest in bettering the country. Of course they're still going to want to weigh in on issues. The medium changes a little with the large news networks of today, but come on. If the former president has something to say on the interests of this country, *****, I want to hear about it.
3. Bill Clinton is a career politician, and hes probably the best pure politician to come around in a long, long time. Before every crazy rightwinger jumps all over that, just realize im not even discussing his policies. The man is strategically a genius, he has a mastery of political strategy. When he has something to say on political policy or strategy, really, hes one to listen to. He fought out some tough campaigns, especially against the former Bush. And unlike a lot of candidates, he's driving his policy decisions, not a team of experts. He's the one with the mastery of the game. Theres something to be said there, especially when he wants to commentate on current affairs.
4. The petty ***** is not legitimate rebuttal. Bill Clinton made comments on how the republicans were being disingenuous with their backlash against the MoveOn ad. This has nothing to do with his personal life. It has nothing to do with protecting Hilary or acting as her lapdog. Why don't you reply back with how the republicans are actually expressing meaningful outrage? A congresswoman stood up to say how the democrats dont care about our troops in Iraq, and shes questioned about the last soldier from her state that died in Iraq. And she doesn't know the answer. CLEARLY, the republicans care more about face time than the lives of our soldiers. That doesn't mean the democrats automatically do. But its hard to dispute that the republicans don't give a *****, which is why theres so much attention being diverted to other issues. Its a weak ***** smokescreen, and its sad that political discourse has devolved to this level in this day and age. - hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27"cheerleading for a US defeat being done by the left." Such a sad meme. Either you, and others who perpetuate this stupid slur, are too blinded by jingoism to tell the difference between criticism of the war and "cheerleading for defeat" or you are too dishonest to acknowledge the difference. Either way, it's a pathetic contribution to the degraded political discourse in this country. You do your side of the argument no favors by repeating it, as the only people persuaded by it have already bought into the "Love it or leave it" brand of Americanism wholesale and for all time. Reasonable people, even those supporting the war, just roll their eyes at you.
- deivys, on 10/21/2007, -7/+31my god the OVER IT! His lie didn't ***** the country like it is right now.
- hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27You could say the same about Little Green Footballs. Of course, you won't, since that's your "team."
- sethosayher, on 10/21/2007, -1/+22Bill was a Rhodes Scholar...and he wasn't a member of the social elite, so we know that he deserved it. He was a genuinely brilliant student.
- jsrothwell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26Yeah and Shrub hasnt done a thing. Buried for not noticing anything since 2000
- aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Exactly. If 8 years weren't the max, we would have another 4 years of GW to look forward to (thanks to 'support' from Diebold).
- zaco, on 10/10/2007, -9/+27What's with all the hatin' on ol' Bill?
- hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+25Wait, that has what to do with what, now?
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I'll bury your stupid ass, but first, I'll comment:
The Democrats do NOT have the power to singlehandedly bring home the troops, you stupid asshat! They've already made several attempts, and guess what? They got vetoed.
On the other hand, you've got those who would impeach, but for different reasons, and different people, so you have an internal divide. The Pelosis and Reeds do not represent us all. - Chompy, on 10/21/2007, -1/+16I wasn't a huge fan of Bill when he was president (I didn't know how bad it could get), but damn if he hasn't come out swinging as an ex-president.
- MacGruber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Apparently he hasn't noticed anything since 1992
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19The real reason they are outraged is that concerned citizens are daring to pretend they are part of the political process.
- DDRSkata, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19A blowjay is not sex, my friend. You can't lose your virginity by getting head; thus, getting head is not sex.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+26Bill: Best president!
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20I was a huge fan of Clinton's presidency, and I can tell you that is a horrible idea. A President must have power for 8 years maximum, no exceptions whatsoever.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I'd like to believe this, but this "study" was shown to have been made up.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Love ... - Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Yeah, but Bush burnt his brain out on alcohol and cocaine. His IQ is no longer that high as indicated by recent actions.
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Take it to a different thread.
It woud be stupid for me to bring up here Tom DeLay's investigation, Ted Stephen's investigation, Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig, Jeff Gannon, ... - satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13No justification?! Are you blind or just stupid? What the General should be is completely objective and able to do what is best for his troops - not become the President's lapdog. Did you see the video comparing Bush's speeches with what the General said in his testimony? It was scary how similar the language and statements were. Did you read the General's glowing article at the beginning of the war? He is clearly not an objective commentator on the war. It think the ad was fully justified because continuation of this war betrays the stability of the US financially and betrays our standing in the world by sowing the seeds of distrust.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Right, so its cool to smear Kerry's war record, and you justify it by repeating the smear, but the Petraeus ad isn't cool because it had no justification? Suuure, your opinion is unbiased and nonpartisan...
- Batfishy, on 10/21/2007, -7/+17Prove his IQ is that high. If he said it, ever, it was a lie.
- aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13You're crazy. 8 years of peace and prosperity?!!! Why would you want to go back to those day?
/sarcasm - for those who didn't get it...you know who you are. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11God, whenever I hear Clinton speak, it makes me yearn for the days when our president could complete a whole sentence. He can actually answer questions, too. It's impressive. Seriously, that man is so articulate, it makes Dubbya look like a joke. Well, at least it would if he weren't already such a joke on his own.
- XBunnyRacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8As opposed to a dimwit that can hardly form a complete sentence... yes.
- Batfishy, on 10/21/2007, -2/+10Don't you have better things to do? Shouldn't you be spending money like mad and worrying about what is going on in everyone's bedroom?
- mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Dear secret service, ATTACK!
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9it's not just the right wing, a lot of idiot democrats also voted for this.
- Ninjapope, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Guess you have sex with food all the time.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Allow me to bury/block you fool.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm on the left and "my own" voted against the illegal invasion and against funding the ongoing murder-for-profit scheme. Who are you talking about?
- mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Do you have nothing better to do than watch video tapes of politicians that you don't like AT FUNERALS? I am suddenly depressed that anyone has nothing better to do.
- mrurc, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7Idiot detector alert! Specifying your IQ as though we should be impressed and we did not have higher scores ourselves is a sign of idiocy. Please tell your testers to revoke your score.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8OH HAY oo11o / vvtf / sharkbump ....did you get YET ANOTHER account banned by spamming "DOPEY LIBRULL MOONBATS" all over digg?
- cptl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Which was kind of my point. They are fringe kooks who have no official capacity in the US Government. So why is everyone wasting their time on them?
- Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Oh, I am sorry
- Shirleycakes, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8FDR, baby.
- Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10WASHINGTON --In a published report, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has detailed findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)
I just found this. I don't know how accurate it is, but I completely believe the last 2. It's not easy being a Rhodes Scholar. - ArmyOfFun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hagel is a Republican.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5. . .
Compared with what Bush Jr.'s responsible for? Yes.
The worst and most horrible attack ON US SOIL since Pearl Harbor... two illegal invasions, illegal torture of prisoners, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, illegal prisons in Eastern Europe, etc, etc, etc, etc. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not a single one of those three Democrats is "left."
You don't know who I vote for. Why on earth would you claim you do? You are quick to insult people, but your strange claims don't make much sense. - Shevanel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's Politics, what do you expect?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Senators Clinton and Obama are both in favor of giving tax dollars to insurance corporations. That is in no way "socialized medicine." It's just more corporate welfare.
And please, this IS the 21st century. Can you guys step away from the "red menace" rhetoric already? It only makes you look crazy. Communists haven't been scary for over 40 years. - LordVance, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yea... because discoverthenetworks.org is also ALL about the truth now isn't it? Your arguments would be more sound if you didn't keep bashing one propaganda machine while promoting another one. Take that ***** link out of 1/2 your comments and they would be a thousand times better.
- Unrefined, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5That what, it's a stupid as ***** "resolution". Do you get what they're voting on? "...praising the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus..." Who gives a *****, this is not an issue that they need to pass a resolution on. It's just everybody getting on their knees, (democrats, and republicans) and sucking off the military. It's a disgusting display of where this country is heading.
- drew30319, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7As stated in a comment responding to the article: "By a 341-79 vote, the U.S. House passed a resolution praising the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus and condemning a MoveOn.org ad. The vast majority of House Democrats, including Speaker of the House Pelosi, voted FOR the resolution . . ." (Comment by Rory — September 26, 2007 @ 9:43 pm)
Feel free to DIGG this down but that won't change the facts. :-) -
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is