What is Digg?41 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31The big question is not who Bush listens to, but whether the conservative base will get pissed off enough to let this President stand trial for crimes committed, and to prevent crimes only just beginning.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Amen. I was as well, and have since gone Libertarian. Budget deficits, interventionism, AMNESTY, Medicare giveaway to Pharm Corps., assinine War on Drugs, the list goes on and on and on and on and on.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I voted Republican in 3 of the last 4 elections (Nader in 1) so I know what they are talking about. His stance on Immigration is indefensible and amounts to an obvious and blatant cave in to business interests who want a permanent, and sizable underclass of cheap labor...... who? Agriculture and meat-packing industries are obvious examples. In one Tyson plant that was subject to a INS raid where almost 1/3 of their workforce was deported wages were ramped up to more than 16 bucks an hour to get people who were LEGAL CITIZENS to do the job.
Tough as it was I tried to defend him on Iraq but, now Ive given up completely and Im not alone it seems. Will I vote Republican again>? Who knows, but Im definitely over Bush and as he becomes even more and more unwilling to listen to anyone, EVEN HIS OWN PARTY!
I dont think he should stand trial, theres far worse crimes being committed everyday by the govt itself like mainly the destruction of our cities and neighborhoods in the war on drugs. - sjbdallas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I used to be a Bush supporter and stuck through it during the whole Iraq thing because I think there was a lose-lose situation anyway. Immigration however is where he and both versions of the congress have failed us miserably. If they at least enforced the law i'd be happy but they're not even doing that.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The link also contains this: "White House officials said [the backlash] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites."
Has anyone seen a White House defense on any site other than perhaps Hugh Hewitt, RedState, or The Corner? Yet, that makes it sound like there are lots of sites involved. And, where are the leftwing sites where they posted defenses?
Hmmmm....
I put on the tinfoil hat here:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006729.html - johndoenumber2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Corporations are not the problem with Corpratism, it is the corporations that are directly fed by the government that are the problem The mounting deficit is going straight into their pockets and they are getting fatter by the day. I own stock in and sit on the board of several corporations but they are not these elitist war pig types that eat at the government trough. They are hard working inventive and productive companies that produce goods and services for the consumer and not the government. Libertarians are pro capitalism but we do not have to be pro corporatist or pro war profiteer because these work against the freedoms we all need and enjoy.
There should be some distinction. For one thing companies like GE that make war profits and are into every large government pork program they can also own major media outlets. This goes against the fairness doctrine which has been discarded but was a wise policy and more needed now than ever. If media is concentrated into the companies that make war profits we can never escape this endless cycle of war. They will never let the people see anything that will turn us against them making more war profit. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11You've picked the wrong boogie man, jim. "Globalists" are a neocon invention to try and deflect the blame for their misdeeds to those who are pushing for more international law and accountability of national governments to the world.
The real "globalists" you should watch are none other than the multi-national corporations who most benefit from free and unrestricted trade, and know no nationalism or owe loyalty to any state. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Nah, I'll just digg you down for being a dumbass.
- tekz0r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@donwilson2
I'd like to think in this day and age that the pen IS mightier than the sword. The internet (the pen) is our tool, and we are the intellectuals of this century, not the bible belt, or the main stream media, or Hollywood-- who all pander to the lowest common denominator of society to sway public opinion the way they want. Bitching about Bush on the internet (Digg especially) will soon garner enough attention (read: support) for ridding ourselves of this vile administration. Every story and every move this administration makes is concealed by the MSM, but it's revealed here on the internet, which reaches FAR beyond CNN and Fox News among intellectuals who have a brain and are realized enough to use it, and beyond that are willing to stand by the side of reason and decency far more than our current leaders have shown themselves to.
excuse me for ending that paragraph with a preposition please. - carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6so the white house is astroturfing?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8@Merced, well, the war in Iraq is at least as bad as the war on drugs. Both are based on lies, and stupidity, and corrupt orders from the top. But I think it'll be easier to prove the lies relating to Iraq. And the difference is that we really do have an interest in keeping our kids off drugs, whereas our dependence on oil is a national addiction for which we need to kick the habit.
I will say this -- if I were a Republican, loyalty aside, the best chance of the GOP winning in 2008 is to see Bush impeached. That's why Democrats don't want to touch it. That's why Republicans should. - MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Reaching across the aisle? He's been wanting this since he took office. One word - LEGACY. With Iraq being a big albatross around his neck he'll do anything to try and get something done which will make him be remembered in a positive way.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Bush losing support among Republicans? Yeah, I can vouch for that. Of my two extremely Republican friends, one suddenly declared he no longer like George W. Bush and now rants about him daily. The other doesn't like politics any more.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Rumsfeld's Information Operations Roadmap
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/index.htm - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I agree that the idea of the "corporation" itself is not the problem. The problem is actually related to treating the corporation as a "person" under the law. There isn't as much of a problem as long as the interests of a corporation and its employees are in line (it is the employees who have the true human rights we should protect). Local corporations, at least enlightened ones, see the value of investing in their employees, in the community, and in their country, because they understand that externalities are simply fictions -- everyone pays for everything.
But not so when a corporation is multi-national. It is no longer so simple. It owes no allegiance to a country, to a community or even to its own employees, who can now be discarded like used equipment in favor of cheaper labor. Externalities can be passed on to some government to whom the corporation owes nothing and has no reason to consider in its accounting. Those are the true "globalists," not some secret cabal that meets in a hotel once a year. - MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Pretty hesitant about it but, might be a good way to show the rest of the world we're truly intent on "changing course," like a good house cleaning.
- mishabear, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4so YOU are one of the 30 remaining supporters!
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Put him on trial and watch the Republicans take back the house and senate, and retain the Presidency in 2008"
Yeah, just like what happened when the Republicans impeached Clinton.
Oh. Wait. You're pulling political fortune cookies out of thin air, eh? - Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3i'd say that doing nothing is a hell of a lot better than the 'something' that we're doing now.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How long must the madness continue? Corporate 'blood-for-money' profiteers support both sides of the isle and in return get a continuous flow of tax-payer dollars into their coffers, some of which get's thrown right back into the political process again - on both sides. Break the cycle and put Ron Paul in office.
- sjbdallas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And now, to makes things worse: http://digg.com/business_finance/Illegal_immigrants_now_get_our_Social_Security_too
- Guydevice, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@EntropyMan:
"'Globalists' are a neocon invention to try and deflect the blame for their misdeeds to those who are pushing for more international law and accountability of national governments to the world."
It was George H.W. Bush who repeatedly expressed his desire for a New World Order.
"The real 'globalists' you should watch are none other than the multi-national corporations who most benefit from free and unrestricted trade, and know no nationalism or owe loyalty to any state."
Corporations can't force states to do business with them. - DruSam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Corporations? More specifically bankers. Federal Reserve anyone?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=aaron+russo - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Yeah, just like what happened when the Republicans impeached Clinton.
Oh. Wait. You're pulling political fortune cookies out of thin air, eh?"
Actually the Republicans lost seats in the midterms because of it - totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wait..you mean he's only started losing their support..now?
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2EntropyMan:"You've picked the wrong boogie man, jim. "Globalists" are a neocon invention to try and deflect the blame for their misdeeds to those who are pushing for more international law and accountability of national governments to the world.
The real "globalists" you should watch are none other than the multi-national corporations who most benefit from free and unrestricted trade, and know no nationalism or owe loyalty to any state."
International law is bad. If we can't get accountability from national authorities, why expect accountability from an organization even further removed from one's local life and situation? We need more self-government.
If globalization means NWO-style control, then I disagree with that. If globalization means international law, I disagree with that too. Neither jim1s or EntropyMan seem to pin down the problem, and I think the reason why is because I support open immigration, true free trade, and liberty. - wreckosaurus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's true, I sometimes watch religious programs because they're so ridiculous it's interesting. Well the other day the topic was that people must still support the president because he's helping to reshape the country into a more christian nation. The one guy said that not supporting the president anymore "just because you don't like him or agree with him" is a sin and it's pathetic, and that you must continue to support him because he's christian. They also said they want a 100% of the country's judges to be christian and they want to overturn roe v. rade and put bibles in schools, etc.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"The big question is not who Bush listens to, but whether the conservative base will get pissed off enough to let this President stand trial for crimes committed, and to prevent crimes only just beginning."
Put him on trial and watch the Republicans take back the house and senate, and retain the Presidency in 2008 - ghamal, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8Not to be obvious but....
Ron Paul 08 !!! - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1But he is still working with democrats, which seems rare for him.
- MercedRocks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Sad but buried. Guess none of my Republican brethren can handle a good debate. Very sad as it makes us look pretty lame in the eyes of the Dems as all our rhetoric about wanting a meaningful debate looks downright stupid. Plus,. I ask you this. How many of us Rep's have been pissed off by Bush's BS amnesty push? I know I have. Enough said.
This isnt some Liberal disguised thread meant to spread propaganda but rather a heartfelt post by a person who WAS seriously a Republican. ((7 years Navy active duty). Anyways, burring this makes us look pretty retarded. - brandf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I dugg you down because you asked for it. :)
- jim1s, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4It is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is, however, a government of globalists, by globalists and for globalists. Mainstream America, the people, are against globalism. And who is the best representative for globalism right now other than George Bush?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+10Bush listens to Israel.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Hmm, so when Bush finally attempts to reach across the aisle, he looses the support of his base. I don't like Bush at all, but all this seems to be indicating is that trying to work together will make everyone mad at you. Sigh...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3I agree with Ron Paul on most issues, except one major one; non-interventionism.
I know the US used to be isolationist, but the world has changed, it's "getting smaller". Think about what would have happened if we didn't enter WWII, and didn't fight proxy battles during the Cold War.
I can't help but feel that Russia, and China are hoping that Paul will be elected.
I'm not being an apologist for some of our more...murky foreign policy moves, but I think Paul's view of Isolationism will be detrimental to the US.
Any thoughts? - ZigVicious, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0he had republican support in the first place?
- redstateproud, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1And I'll digg you up for being RIGHT.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Sorry, but his base is no where near "weary over defending [the] president."
You guys are so diluted with your own base that you have this delusion that the opposing side is dying away. I hope to god that we have a liberal president come into office because I simply cannot take this excessive amount of evil coming from Hollywood, TV, and the internet (digg especially).
Don't you guys get tired of spewing so much hatred when your "leaders" aren't doing what you want (impeaching the President)? Why don't you guys stand up against them?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is