What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
108 Comments
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -8/+95Or maybe, Connecticut is the al-Qaeda state? Come on, he won the primary, he's not a homeless guy spouting philosophy on the street corner - he was voted to be the Democratic senator. Which comparison is more accurate:
VP Cheney == Sen. McCarthy
Ned Lamont == al-Qaeda flunky
Neither are really right, but claiming Ned Lamont is the "al-Qaeda" candidate smacks of McCarthyism.... This comes from CNN, which some people here claim is biased against the republicans! - KidAirbag, on 10/12/2007, -8/+66Bush's approval is at 33% and the majority of Americans say they are voting Democratic this fall.
I can't believe the Republicans think the best way to win over voters is to call the Democrats terrorists. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63You guys need new political parties.
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -10/+57and the myth of the liberal mainstream media still persists.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52It's the only way they can win it. The Republicans are basically going into full-out mud-swinging approach since they can't/won't distance themselves from the president and neo-cons in the party. (Remember the republicans tend to stick together) So they have to start throwing out buzz-words and make their opponent look bad...hence the tags.
- dallen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Somehow, I doubt Osama will be voting Democrat this fall
- hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36But this is the exact strategy that has taken the Republicans this far - vote Republican and be safe, vote Democrat and the boogey men will come get you.
What is frightening in this case that it is coming from a "journalist" who in the eyes of the American public is unbiased. - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Might some argue that CNN has started to suck pretty bad lately?
You know our Republican senator is against child molesters. I guess that means his opposition is for it, right? - transfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@moonshn
There is a real exit strategy. And it's been bloody known for a long time. It's called letting bygones by bygones. If the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds don't want to live together, there is nothing we will ever be able to do about it except setup yet another tyranny to keep them in line. After 80 years (since WWI) isn't it about time to bring peace to the region? That can be acheived with the Three State Solution.
There are only two paths left for Iraq. A multi-state solution brought about peacefully, or a multi-sate solution brought about by mass grave. Which do we you prefer? - Akyan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33First of all I just wanted to say that I am based in the UK, and just wanted to say that I was horrified by the coverage from the US based media outlets during the latest terror incident. I was using SKY to switch between the UK based media (i.e. BBC News24, Sky) and the likes of FOX News and I can honestly say that I am surprised that America is not more screwed up that sometimes it is. The Fox News coverage was so inflammatory, but not just that but many of their so called in house experts were plain making things up to make the situation sound even more frightening that it already was. I think the perfect demonstration of this was the headline shown on the banner for sometime:
"Terror in the Sky"
I mean seriously for a start there was terror anywhere in the sky since the plot was foiled, so this title is stupid. Anyway I could go on but don't have the energy, so just my 2 pence on the "American Media". - mrspeel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Since Osama's stated objective is to destroy the US, he of course wants the Republicans to stay in power, because the Rethugs are destroying our democracy, our civil rights, our environment, our world reputation and our economy.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Our news stations have turned into horror fiction since 9/11, it's all about making the biggest splash possible and not about reporting fact.
- ph33d, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Reality has a well known liberal bias.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25You need to understand that Fox news is extremely biased towards the conservatives and they stand to lose big-time in the upcoming November election. The people at the Republican National Committee call up Rupert M. and say "make people afraid again, we have an election coming up" and so they do their usual twisting and bending of the truth for their own benefit. That's standard operating procedure at Fox. CNN and MSNBC occasionally do it as well, but since they don't do it all the time, and they also report the bad things that are going on in the real world, they are branded as the "liberal media" and there is supposed to be a "mainstream media liberal conspiracy".
All of that on top of the fact that the news is now considered entertainment. Anything for the ratings - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23==============================
CCN NEWSFLASH:
NED LAMONT IS A CHILD MOLESTER
==============================
An essay and opinion piece by:
Chuck 'Please take me d.e.a.d.l.y. seriously' Roburps,
Dick 'Shoot him in the face' Chayknee,
and Jolie Berman
Some would say that Ned Lamont is the child molester candidate. You see, he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq.
And that would mean that the child molesters in Iraq would have free reign to molest children - placing American children around the world at great risk of molestation.
Fact of the matter, this is exactly what Al Qaeda child molesters want as well. And Ned Lamont is willing to support their cause.
Ned Lamont is a child molester. Don't vote for him. Vote for us.
We want to stay in Iraq. Don't f*ck with our plans. - CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19>>> a "peach loving" liberal in office
damn tree-hugging peach lovers. You'd be all safe with someone who likes cherries! - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21woops - little correction -- should have said "voted to be the Democratic senatorial candidate".
- daeyeth, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31Okay, this is f***ing ridiculous. I don't know what to say. Wait. Yeah I do. WHAT THE F***. Is this what the state of politics has f***ing come to? What the F**K is wrong with people, calling him a TERRORIST? What the f**k is that? For f**k's sake...This is absolutely f***ing disrespectful.
This is totally unwarranted slander, they have no f**king right to say this *****. The worst of it is that these aren't random f**ks...they're f**ks with influence. These ***** might as well just run up to him, flipping the f***ing finger five times and run away before he can do anything about it because that's what they're doing.
Please, Lamont, do the right thing...be an American...AND SUE THE F**K OUT OF THEM. PLEASE.
("*****" is an English word which, when used literally as a verb, means "to have sexual intercourse". It is generally considered one of the most vulgar words in the English language and a classic example of the swear word. Because of its offensive nature it is sometimes referred to as the "f-word" or "f-***".) - dvws, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26@moonshn
why can't we? us being there for the last 3 years havent exactly improved the situation. - sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16That's because here, news is a product that they must sell. The BBC is not so they report real news. They don't care about the ratings, they care about the news. Here in the states, It's ratings first, because ratings = $$$. That is why i don't even watch the news. I get hives from all the stress they cause with all the doom and gloom sensationalism that is going on. I'd rather be ignorant on the news, than have to watch 4-5 different news channels to try and figure out what the REAL truth is. BBC, keep doing what you're doing.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Hipocrisy? I hate them both.
- transfire, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Except the voting mechinism is now rigged. So it doen't matter. As long as the neo-cons can uphold a perception of close races they can skew the results without consequence. This is waht's gogin on in Mexico as we speak.
- FredSanford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Sure it smacks of McCarthyism. Which is exactly why people like Anne Coulter are trying so hard to rehabilitate the reputation of Joe McCarthy.
This is how facist states get their start. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You need to work on your punctuation and sentence structure. It's hard trying to understand what you're trying to say.
I guess what you're trying to say is:
"People that blindly follow their political party are stupid." - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Yeah i'm with ya brother... feel that rage...
I've been a nice cuddly friendly person (lot a liberal, but one who believes in equality and objectivity) for 5 years and when you've got these pr*cks relentlessly abusing their power and creating this "ruling class" eventually it starts to grate and you erupt into a tirade..
sometimes when someone says something so incomprehensibly moronic, infantile and manipulative the only response is "my god you're an utter F*CKwit!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@Kenmo
Lamont was Fred Sanford's son's first name, not last (the candidate is Ned Lamont)
We never should have been in Iraq in the first place, and Iraq has had plenty of time to get their ***** together so we could pull out most of our troops and equipment, stick a lot of them in Afghanistan and get the actual person behind 9/11.
All of the problems in the middle east are not caused by the U.S., they are caused by 1500-2000 year old religious dogma that the "locals" and the U.S. President use as a nice fuzzy blanket. However, a LOT of the recent problems (the last 50 years) have, at least indirectly, been caused by the U.S. all in the name of securing the oil supply. Our current occupation of Iraq created a crapload of insurgency that wasn't in Iraq before we arrived, and "fighting them there instead of here" is a circular argument because they wouldn't have been there if we hadn't shown up, not to mention the fact that we still might be fighting them here (read the stories about the recent airline terror plots)
Bin Laden probably doesn't care who is in office because as long as Bush and the Republicans stay in power, this country is divided (thanks to Karl Rove) and a divided country doesn't have the will to fight a prolonged war. If Bush had just done his job and left Iraq alone, as opposed to making his war profiteering buddies richer, gasoline prices wouldn't have tripled in the last few years and we wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars that we basically didn't have. Worldwide hatred of the U.S. wouldn't have spread like it did (at least not as rapidly).
And your last point about leaving when things get a little tough, well, Bush put us in an impossible position. He was told by pretty much every department involved in the middle east that invading Iraq was a no-win situation, he and his friends chose to ignore that and do it anyway. Those people that are fighting us, just like those in Somalia, are insane. Staying or leaving won't change that, but what will change that is Iraq being able to wipe its own ass so we don't have to spend billions of dollars on toilet paper and have our troops wipe it for them. - izzie2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"do you want to see the Saudi Arabian monarchy overthrown by an radical islamic army?"
Theres a difference? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16What are you, 7? Just say "*****"
- wolfzbane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14oh god, the mental images!
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Actually, I think he filed for an absentee ballot from Florida.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Cheney pulled the same crap with Kerry during the 2004 elections. How is it that these thugs can go around spreading lies and not be held accountable for any of it? Can you say, “WMDs”? It’s pure *****. And now this dumbass news idiot is caught spreading the manure even more.
Lies, Lies & more Lies …
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/303390 - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I love how he uses the "as some have argued" as a way of slinging mud without actually taking responsibility for it.
***** Coward. - nfph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10There's a really good reason why Chuck Roberts is on the news equivalent of MTV2.
- mu1ti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14full-out mud-swinging eh?
Woohoo..cant wait to see Hillary versus Condi get down and dirty in the fight for the congressional mud-wrestling title.
ahhh...you would mean 'slinging' maybe? - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Shouldn't we have two political parties to... oh, I don't know... get the best of both worlds? We shouldn't be fighting over which side controls the most, what we need to do is get the RIGHT people, while unfortunately the people that actually want to make a difference are still slowly working their way up, getting more disillusioned by the day. I can't believe this country. I can't ***** believe it. If it isn't worse than usual now, then its the most open my eyes have ever been, and I genuinely want to close them. I mean, I understand the reasoning behind mud-slinging and getting your candidate in office, but they act like ***** children.
Wait, why am I preaching to the choir? Either way, I'm so worried about my future when I look at the decisions made these days. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Stay and fight.
- blogsceptic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13ajb2015: make sure you vote in November first...
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Terrorism: Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
By that definition, the Bush administration are terrorists.
Who takes away your freedom? Who gets reelected out of fear or terror attacks? Who wants to tell other countries how they should run themselves? And how do they achieve these goals? And it's not lawful just because the US gov does it. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Or follow George Washington's warnings and avoid political parties altogether.
George Washington was the first to warn of the dangers of the Party (party politics). Below are portions of his Farewell Address of 1796. Very relevant to today's situation. Seriously, I hope you all will read this. He knew exactly what he was talking about.
"However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
...
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
Full address at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm - TexasCanuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Could not agree more with you, regarding CNN sucking. It started sucking around the time they lost Aaron Brown and started giving more screen time to Anderson Cooper and Paula Zahn.
Lately, it seems like MSNBC is the station that sticks closest to the middle, IMO. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9...because al Qaeda is so anti-war. *****.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16That's why a two party system sucks.
Vote Libertarian, we've got the best of both worlds. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Suggestions are always welcome
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Clinton never claimed that those who oppose the war were hurting the country by undercutting the president. Lieberman did, he wanted to silence the voice of opposition to Bush.
- dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm sure the problem that they have with the three state solution is... who gets the oil? This is all about oil. Otherwise, most external governments wouldn't give a rat's ass what the Iraqis do to themselves.
- cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, I love how those that have blindly followed the Republicans have gotten their rewards (tax cuts, not being called terrorists, etc.), and they cry their eyes out when somebody pokes fun at Dear Leader or points out that their viewpoint is retarded/baseless/fictional/ingrained by brainwashing. Boo ***** hoo for you, go find somebody that gives a damn while we try to fix the country you broke.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I am leaving the country as soon I can.
- jessssse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7what a dumb-ass. he answered his own question. "might some argue, as some already have...?"
well chuck, it looks like they might. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Hey I got an idea, BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME FROM ALL AMERICAN BASES AROUND THE WORLD.
Don't give me "They asked us to be there, their governments did, not the people".
Then you won't have to worry about terrorists. This is not isolationism. Products and goods should cross borders, not soldiers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14i can only tolerate Clinton because her husband was such a great president. i can only hope his competence rubs off on her.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 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