digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Calls Out Lynne Cheney For ‘Sniping At My Patriotism’

thinkprogress.org — On Friday, Lynne Cheney repeatedly attacked CNN for having a liberal bias during a combative appearance on the Situation Room.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -17/+52Looks like Cheney's a bit rattled. This is an example of how our current administration would rather ignore Iraq then face up to their mess, which may have worked in 2000 and 2004, but now that more and more is coming out and people are taking an interest in Iraq and the Bush administration, they need to wipe the slate clean with Iraq or loose all their majorities in both the House and Senate.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -20/+85CNN doesn't have a liberal bias. Wolf Blitzer _never_ asks the hard questions to folks like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or Power.

      He never asks stuff like like "The Downing Street Memos indicate that you knew Iraq didn't have WMD, and yet your administration told us otherwise during the state of the Union address. The memo says you were "fitting the facts to the policy". Why did you mislead us into war with Iraq? Why didn't you go after the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11"

      Wolf might be getting some "teeth" now, but its 300 Billion dollars, about 3000 US lives, and several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths too late. Yipee . . .
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+47Be a lemming, or be unpatriotic.
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -42/+17Be a lemming, or be dugg down.
    • kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -45/+10Wolf Blitzer needs to be deported back to his beloved Israel...
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -35/+5Yeah, and she also has a daughter who is a, um, a lesbian . . . did you know that?! She likes to rub crotch knuckles with other women. I'm, I'm just saying. John Kerry and I believe it is important that this news be told to the american public. Summary: her daugher is a lesbian . . . lesbian. Isn't that kinda hypocritical?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14"One major casualty in the war on terror is the liberal press in the USA. Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact."
      Bill O' Reilly
      I think that is why Rush now refers it as the "drive by" media, i think he got tired of people pointing out the flaws in calling it the liberal media.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1digg down somehow double posted
    • JimmyIkon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's the actual interview.

      http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Dobbs_Fox_differ_on_outcome_1028.html
  • doffill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Don't these Repug talking heads have any self-awareness of how ludicrous their statements are?
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Their fabric of lies has become so self-entangled they're now just spitting out random lies. "So, Mr. President, nice red tie you have!" "My blue tie supports my agenda in Iraq, either you're with us or against us, we can't cut and run until the homeland is secured against terrarist threats, we do not torture, nor has anyone ever been tortured, war is peace..."
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Funny, I often think the same thing about those who support social programs that cannot possibly be funded; like universal health care. I am not a democrat and tend to find their views illogical, rash, and poorly thought through; if at all.

      They seem to me to be young idealists who have no real life experience. I used to be like that, but I've lived in socialist countries that have "universal health care" and the health care absolutely sucks. There is a reason people fly to America from countries like Japan to have major surgeries, but the socialist proponents in America don't think beyond the tip of their nose, so they don't see that. They just want power.

      I think Republicans focus too much on corporations and big business, and I think Democrats focus to much on social programs that can simply do nothing but fail. The reality is that neither party cares about you as an individual, nor about your ideological views. By in large, members of both parties would step over their own mother's for a bit more power, and that's the unfortunate truth of it.

      But I ramble...

      If you read down to here before the knee-jerk click on the bury button, thanks.
    • ketemphor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Hero-
      I don't know what countries you've lived in, but the American healthcare system is not some pinnacle of excellence. We rank dead last among industrialized nations in life expectancy and infant mortality. Universal healthcare has the opportunity to take up a lot of slack out of the system that's current going to bottom-line profits and bureaucracy.
      I'm not sure you've ever had the misfortune of being sick in America without insurance, but it's no picnic. Our per capita healthcare costs are nearly twice that of the next "oh so expensive, we can never afford it" country down the list.
      People coming to this country for surgery are few and far between and are almost exclusively coming here for relatively rare and/or esoteric procedures. Oftimes at the expense of their countries healthcare system in the first place.

      I know this is off topic, but this just set me off this morning.
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Herolint, how many 'social programs' could have been paid for with 300 billion dollars? Not only that, but how many social programs could have been paid for using the Bush tax cuts alone?

      Answer? You would still have money left over in the bank.
    • rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Herolint Yes our unsocialized health care system is soooo much better because we spend way more on it per person with far worse results THAN ANY OTHER MODERN SOCIETY ON EARTH.

      BTW What the ***** are you going on about the Democrats in this regard because I haven't heard one single Democrat talk about socialized medicine in years. I guess it's kinda like the "Democrats are too liberal for America" myth. All talk and no facts back it up. Typical CONservative job.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Ketemphor

      I never said the US Health care system was a pinnacle, but it is the best available as far as I've seen.

      What I did say is that a lot of Japanese people (and people from other countries as well, I just happen to help the Japanese ones because that's a language I can speak) come to the US in order to have major surgeries. Why? Because socialized medicine in Japan is a joke (as it tends to be everywhere it has been implemented).

      I have lived in Japan, Australia, Singapore, India, Canada, US, and Hong Kong, and some other places. What countries have you lived in to make your comparisons? Also, the problems with Americas life expectancies have a lot more to do with our awful eating and exercise habits than anything else. In India, when you order a meal, it doesn't come to you in a trough and in Japan, when you go somewhere, you usually walk or ride a bike. Americans drive to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail.

      "Universal health care has the opportunity to take up a lot of slack out of the system that's current going to bottom-line profits and bureaucracy."

      I completely disagree. Universal health care sticks government right in the middle of health care. Insurance companies have screwed up America's health care system enough as it is. Adding government bureaucracy will only make things worse. Also, I have to ask, how much of this .6% infant mortality rate has to do with factors other than health care? Statistics are meaningless unless the whys behind them are answered.

      To answer your question, I have been sick without insurance and I have had children without insurance in America. I have also been sick and had children in Japan with government insurance. If we would have had our second child in Japan, it would have died. Since we had it in America, it lived. Was it expensive? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes.

      You can blame the high medical costs in America directly on two things: Americans love for lawsuits and insurance companies. Do you really think that is going to change with universal health care? It isn't.

      "People coming to this country for surgery are few and far between and are almost exclusively coming here for relatively rare and/or esoteric procedures."

      Huh? I beg to differ. I'm dealing with people coming from Japan for things like standard bypass surgery on a constant basis, and that is only at one university hospital.

      "Oftimes at the expense of their countries health care system in the first place."

      I thought we were talking about the quality of health care, not who was going to pick up the tab. If America burdens itself with universal health care, you won't go one generation before the quality of health care here is lessened to the same substandard levels it is in other socialized countries.

      "I know this is off topic, but this just set me off this morning."

      And Americans who are pro-universal health care set me off. They spout of numbers and statistics, but they have never had to live with it. I don't give a damn about the cost, if my kids life is at stake, I would pick an American hospital with American doctors over any socialized medicine every single time. Every place I have ever lived that had socialized medicine has had crap for health care. Sure, you can get some cold pills when you are sick, but only after waiting 3 weeks to see a doctor. By then, I'm usually better or dead.

      Americans that believe government handouts are the answer to everything piss me off.

      Americans are damn lucky to have what they have, yet a lot of them want to piss it away.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@firebush

      "Herolint, how many 'social programs' could have been paid for with 300 billion dollars?"

      Why should I have to work so that you can go to the government for a handout? Screw that! Social programs encourage people to be lazy as they suck at government's teat. Pay for your own crap or look to charitable organizations for help. Charity does not belong in the government.

      "Not only that, but how many social programs could have been paid for using the Bush tax cuts alone?"

      And how many jobs has Bush's tax cuts created and what effects has it had on our economy? I'm all for jobs. Social programs are for worthless entitlement pansies.

      "Answer? You would still have money left over in the bank."

      And you would have less jobs and a nation of do nothing filch-monkeys.
  • shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Wolf is trying to make himself the story (unfortunately...) He is part of the problem...he has shilled over and over (remember his post-Katrina comments, 'they are so poor and so black...')?

    Lynne has NEVER come across as a woman worthy of representing Americans' real concerns.
    • MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Wolf needs to realize that if you sleep with snakes you have to expect you're going to get bitten. ;)
  • CursorTN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Perhaps the frequent and consistent criticism of the administration has hit a nerve with Ms. Cheney. It may hit be hitting a nerve with her now more than in the past because it's so clear that her husband has no credibility--he's the most public unrealistic optimist on the war in Iraq within the Bush administration.

    It's unfortunate that the celebrity-ness of the issue has trumped the fact that there are young men and women in harm's way on the ground in Iraq this evening with no clear mission and no clear end in sight.

    If I were as much of an unrealistic optimist as Mr. Cheney, I would say that the Bush administration is in its last throes.
  • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Linky:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FYX_fH5Hs

  • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -40/+17Digg might as well become thinkprogress.org.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12What a clever and insightful idea.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -34/+10no kidding. every day there's at least one story from thinkprogress, wonkette and crooks and liars.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -31/+8all the headlines are so predictable too. "Bush incapable of speaking truth?" "Bush is fascist" "Bush is just like Hitler" "Limbaugh is clinically retarded" "Bush incapable of speaking truth?" "Bush Eats Little Children" "Bush Is At Fault For Latest Natural Disaster" blah blah blah......
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I know what you mean. What's next? "The sky is blue", "A bear poops in the woods". They should write about stuff we don't know, something not so obvious.
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/12/2007, -48/+10What crybabies! Liberals can dish it out but they caaaan't take it.
  • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -33/+7Liberalism: The New Judaism!
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12..how did you come to that conclusion?
    • DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -3/+10I would also like to know...
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8He was probably talking about how Liberals like to wear black clothing . . . and grow out their sideburns in curls . . . and wear black hats . . . and don't eat pork or something like that.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Wolf, it took you long enough, but welcome to the thinking world. Too bad you're ten steps behind those cranky old men Cafferty and Dobbs, thirty behind Jon Stewart, and 100 behind Michael Ware.
  • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -42/+6It seems digg has been taken over by a bunch of libs!

    Any views or comments favoring the left get digged while any views or comments that actually makes some sense gets digged down.

    CNN blows. It shows in their ratings. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC put together.
    • DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -6/+20"The libs have taken over!!!!"

      Maybe Fox is getting higher ratings because all the Republicans sit all day in their houses watching TV on their multiple screens? :p
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4yes, every political story is full of the same comments spewing the same anti-Bush comments. "this is awful. Bush knows he killed our troops blah blah blah." Every tid-bit of news somehow is translated as Bush sucks/out with neo-cons or something to that effect. Its the same old message and it gets very boring. We could use some good, intelligent conservatives in the digg community.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38fox gets higher ratings because there are more stupid people then smart people in America that watch TV. digg is liberal because it started as a tech news site and educated people frequent here. Educated people tend to be liberal, uneducated tend to be conservative. The digg community itself proves that.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5brilliant analysis. where have i heard every one of those lines of thought before?
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8@stylerm,

      It is well known that more educated people tend to be conservatives.

      Some area of studies also tend to attract conservatives while others liberals.

      Philosophy, economics, sciences tend to have more conservatives.

      Law, literature and literature tend to have more liberals.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -29/+9I think digg seem to have more libs because the demographics cater to a younger crowd.
      As people age and wise up, their view become more conservatives.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25"It is well known" ie: I can't find any sources that support this
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3finally some intelligent thought.

      bishop, i agree with you except on philosophy. In my experience, most philosophers tend to be liberal.

      "Law, literature and literature..." haha

      "It is well known that more educated people tend to be conservatives." I haven't seen anyone able to actually prove that one way or the other.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949
      and scroll down to "Liberal"

      not that you'd believe it anyway since it doesn't conform with your obviously preconceived notions.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Here's a quote:

      "Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test."

      A link to the article can be found here:

      http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014093.php
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Spartan,

      Notice how our comments just get buried like there's no tomorrow?
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6no kidding. it doesn't matter that there could be some valid points arising out of our comments. it just matters that we don't agree with the liberal view.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9"the libs have taken over"
      you just figured this out now? What you probably haven't realized yet is that we will soon permanently silence all of your comments if your "neocon" ranking gets too high. This will be our final solution to the conservative problem.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8the sourcing of statements by bishop and stylerm is the starting point for intelligent debate. this rarely happens on digg, and is the reason I am so aggravated at the current state of political discourse on digg. i hope people can see political debate shouldn't consist of name-calling and knee-jerk responses.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13stylerm, I completely agree with you, but I haven't had the nerve to say it publicly. +digg
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8The libs are certainly vocal but they are far, far from having taking over.

      We are already being silenced on digg by getting digged down every time we make a point. This is typical. A fair individual would read an argument and rate it on its strength; not on whether the point agree with his own personal view.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6"I hope people can see political debate shouldn't consist of name-calling and knee-jerk responses."

      Amen to that!

      We should be able to discuss differing views without being personally attacked which really does occur too frequently around here.
    • DocMalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6OH NOES! Those naaasty little libs have taken over.

      Jackass.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Bishop

      "CNN blows. It shows in their ratings. FoxNews has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC put together."

      "I hope people can see political debate shouldn't consist of name-calling and knee-jerk responses."

      Both of these are from you.....

      You are going to talk about knee jerk reactions?!?!? These are your words. If you equate ratings with truth, there is obviously much you have to learn.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@polyGone,

      My comments regarding the ratings are not a knee-jerk response. It an observation. I've tried to watch CNN and MSNBC but it's unbearable. I feel it's just propaganda. Whether you like Fox or not, you have to admit they have guests that present both point of view.

      I don't equate ratings with truth but they certainly correlate with what people wants to watch. People can see propaganda and they simply tune out.

      Truth is not showing to you videotape handed to you by insurgents and passing on as news.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7And here I thought content mattered, not ratings. I guess I'm just niave or something.


    I'm not defending CNN, that was just a stupid comment.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I think content drives rating.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is that why survivor or desperate housewives has higher ratings than the discovery channel?
  • smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Wolf Blitzer rocks. He doesn't let his guests get away with making too many baseless claims for political gain. It's refreshing.

    I know him and his big Situation Room board come off a bit sensationalistic, and he fumbles over some words sometimes when he runs out of things to say (So poor So black)..but overall Wolfy is great.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't know about all that, but his name IS "Wolf Blitzer" . . . that is a ***** awesome name.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16"I think content drives rating."

    Havent watched much tv have you? "Everyone Loves Raymond" got much better ratings then say "Arrested Development".

    "intelligent conservatives"

    Isnt that an oxymoron? =p
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"Everyone loves Raymond" got better rating because it's not on cable.

      If the 2 shows had been equally available whichever had higher ratings managed to give what the people wants. Regardless of your personal view over which one is better, you have to let the market decide.

      Libs would then say people are stupid but that being elitist.
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Two quotes from bishop in this thread:
      "Libs would then say people are stupid but that being elitist" (almost a sentence)
      "It is well known that more educated people tend to be conservatives."

      Based on your hypocrisy I would say that you are a neo-conservative.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7And while all these robotic idiots are throwing around the term 'conservative', like some kind of slogan -- will someone please tell me just WHAT they conserve?

      These lemmings who bend over and take it up the arse for the all- powerful and anti-human corporatocracy, know nothing of conserving!

      They don't conserve the planet's precious natural resources. They don't help families who are not super rich. They don't conserve peace and civility throughout the world, since there is more money to be made from continuous wars. Bush even qualified his so-called 'war on terrorism' as one that might last a really long time, maybe forever.
      A permanent state of war = big earnings for the mega corporations (building planes, munitions, and supplies for the hired killers in the military) and the lemmings who follow them.

      Where is the CONSERVATION in all that?
      All they conserve is their own lies and the obcene way the super rich constantly rob and cheat and kill everybody else!

      But in the dangerous, deceit-filled "new-speak', they call themselves conservatives!

    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4"Based on your hypocrisy I would say that you are a neo-conservative."

      Based on your use of the word "neo-conservative" I would say that you are an idiot. "Conservative" is the opposite of "liberal" . . . just because "liberal" has grown to leave a bad taste in people's mouths doesn't mean you can just make up a new word and hope people associate it with evil republicans. Go protest a war or buy a Prius you neolib.
    • Hypermarkalan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@waterdragon

      I used to consider myself a conservative, but I don't see anything the Bush admin has done as conservative. These asshats aren't conservative on anything except change and progress.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5No, we do care about the environment (I personally am an avid mountain biker, camper, hiker, fisher, and kayaker). We just don't think giving the EPA unlimited control and resources is the correct way to protect the environment.

      They don't help out the families that are super-rich? Ummm, remember that, at least in the US, the richest 5% account for 25% of all the tax revenue? Where does much of that money go? Welfare. Food stamps. etc. etc. Who is employed at the businesses these 'rich' people run? Not people equally wealthy. That's right, the 'rich' people are the reason the poorer (relatively) people have a job.

      A constant state of war? Well Bush has obviously taken a beating over staying in Iraq. No one could claim he stays there for the popularity. Also, if you weren't aware, Cheney was cleared of any possible involvement with Halliburton.

      Also, common knowledge would help in realizing that conservatives don't get their name from being conservationist (as in conserving the environment), but from sticking to tradition (as in conserving what is established).

      Conservatives have been conservatives for quite some time. Clearly they aren't the same people that were conservatives 200 years ago.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He said conservatives care about things like science!!!!!!!

      Just because someone says something doesn't make it real.
  • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6@stylerm:

    Liberals: "49% have a college degree or more"
    Staunch Conservatives, Enterprisers: "Nearly half (46%) have a college degree"

    convincing? not at all. also, considering that many professors, especially in state schools, are typically very liberal, this isn't surprising. Look at the Prof from Colorado State, the one that said the 9/11 victims deserved it for being American. Just try and find any conservative prof half that extremist at any state college.
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8 Your right about that. There are a few nutty leftwingers that suggest 9/11 victims deserved it.

      On the otherhand though... there are COUNTLESS rightwingers that are in favor of all out nuclear war potentially killing hundreds of millions of innocent people.

      This sort of preemptive attack would be considered "crimes against humanity" by virtually every court on the planet. (except of course the rightwinger nuts that advocate it)




    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Didn't Jerry Falwell say that they deserved it too? You can complete nut cases in any group. Shall I define who you are based on Falwell's believes?
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"there are COUNTLESS rightwingers that are in favor of all out nuclear war potentially killing hundreds of millions of innocent people."

      That statement is laughable. Who are these "rightwingers?" I'm not sure where you are getting this. It does sound like a liberal stereotype though. I'm a rather conservative Republican, and I don't believe in haha...ehem, "all out nuclear war." Against who? Why? What are you talking about? Is this another thing that we are doing to benefit evil big business?

      (!!) When did Falwell say that? That would be news to me.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6@there,

      This is the same rant people were giving while Reagan was in power. "He's a cowboy that will lead to WW3." Fast forward a few years later, the iron curtain falls!

      Force is a great deterrent. If we got ride of all our weapons today, we would be invaded tomorrow.

      Churchill wanted to preemtively attack Hitler but Chamberlain stopped him. This caused millions and millions of people to die needlessly. I don't know of anybody who wants a nuclear war but we have to protect ourselves.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I believe you are confused about Falwell. I do not believe in many things he says. He is a extreme, but he did apologize for saying that pagans, homosexuals, etc. brought on the terrorist attacks. Falwell absolutely does not represent most Christians.
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5so why am i confused about Falwell?
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"Who are these "rightwingers?" I'm not sure where you are getting this."

      Do a little search for www.littlegreenfootballs.com

      Have a look around and make sure you read the comments posted. Make sure you have a really good read of a lot of them to get a feel for it.

      Those are your fellow travellers. That's why 'liberals' are tired of hearing from you, & want to silence you. They lump you in with those kinds of meat heads.

      If you want to rehabilitate true conservatism, true Republican values, deal with the meat heads. They are just as obnoxious as the far Left nuts, if not more so.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Falwell did NOT say that the victims deserved it, he blamed the attack on pagans, homosexuals, etc. Not the same thing, and not as cruel. He did apologize, the Colorado prof did not, and stated that he will never rescind his statement.
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@spartan777
      ...............
      "That statement is laughable. Who are these "rightwingers?" I'm not sure where you are getting this."
      ...............

      Ever hear of Ayn Rand? Rupert Murdock sure has So has Glenn Beck who aleady rants nightly on HNN that we should nuke them. In fact a fair chunk of the rightwing is well aqquainted . (although very few actually know how extreme her views actually are beyond Atlas Shrugged )

      I'd recommend you start learning about the offical position of the Objectivist movement (Rand's philosophy).towards how we should react to the middle east situation. Then start paying attention to the ideological positions of the biggest advocates of the use of force in the middle east.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

      -from Ayn Rand's website.

      Sounds most like a typical humanist liberal to me. I don't know her political views, but she definitely doesn't fit the Christian Republican stereotype. It is obvious Bush and Cheney do not share her ideological positions.
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@bishop
      ............
      This is the same rant people were giving while Reagan was in power. "He's a cowboy that will lead to WW3." Fast forward a few years later, the iron curtain falls!"
      .............

      Pop-culture mythology. The Iron curtain didn't fall because of Reagan or the use of force. The soviet union had plenty of 50 Megaton nukes that would have flattened entire states much less cities if we had tried.

      Gorbachev is repsonsible for the fall of the USSR. Communism sucked and he didn't have the heart to use Stalinistic tactics to maintain it.

      .............
      "force is a great deterrent. If we got ride of all our weapons today, we would be invaded tomorrow."
      .............

      By who? Mexico? Canada? I think this is why we end up with wars in the first place because other countries see other countries as a threat because they have weapons in the first place. If everyone keeps nukes eventually there will be a nuclear war. Its a statistical certainty if a chance exists of something occuring.... given enough time it will happen. Weapons are a curse... not a blessing. There are no winners if a nuclear war broke out. Our childish rhetoric would seem a quite absurd reason to have gone to war in the aftermath. (for those of us left)

      .............
      Churchill wanted to preemtively attack Hitler but Chamberlain stopped him. This caused millions and millions of people to die needlessly. I don't know of anybody who wants a nuclear war but we have to protect ourselves.
      .............

      What you say about Chamberland is true. What the rightwing neglects to mention though is that we took even longer than Europe to join the war so we have no moral highground in that regard. The right suggested we preemptively nuke Staln too. Lucky for we didn't listen.

      At the end of the day, we really can't know what the future holds. All I really know is the good guys don't go around preemptively nuking millions of innocent people just in case they one day attack us. That's typically what we call EVIL.


    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@there,

      "countries see other countries as a threat because they have weapons in the first place."
      Tell me, Iraq invaded Kuwait because they felt threatened? I could go on and on.

      Under Stalin, millions and millions of people died and suffered needlessly. It might have been a good thing to have gotten rid of him.

      "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
      -- Edmund Burke

      Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@spartan777

      They believe in reason, capitalism and not initiating the use of force. Sure sounds swell doesn't it? Keep reading to the point where they argue for getting rid of democracy and for pre-emptive nuclear attacks of other nations.

      Rand a liberal? I almost fell out of my chair when you said that. Believe it or not I generally flip-flop between social-conservatives and conservative-socialists myself. Unfortunately since Randroid ideology has crept into the Republican party a far chunk of the rightwing have become a bunch of greedy crooks and liars (not to mention extremely pro-violence) I wouldn't vote for a conservative if I was paid to do so now.

      You seem to think I don't understand whats going on. From my perspective I think YOU don't understand what caused the Republican party to start acting like nutjobs. Com'mon bro since when did Republicans stand for torture or taking away civil liberties? Or even lowering taxes for rich dudes while not balancing budgets? (even Gates and Buffet disagree) You don't seem to be conservative in anything but name now.

      Conservatives need to do a serious housecleaning if they ever want to win an election again. There has been a VERY radical swing to the right within your ranks and you are now reaping the political rewards.

      Conservatives today stand for pretending to be moral by making a big deal about a few small fringe issues. Meanwhile there is a blind allegance to big business (i have a small company and I sure don't feel like I'm being helped), the slow destruction of the constitution, you're fiscally irresponsible, and your blowing ***** up like your fricken jihadists.


    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7 @ bishop

      "Tell me, Iraq invaded Kuwait because they felt threatened?"

      Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling into their oil reserves. Hussein actually got a (sort of) go-ahead from a US diplomat. I forget the details, but it is well known.

      "Under Stalin, millions and millions of people died and suffered needlessly. It might have been a good thing to have gotten rid of him."

      Nobody knew about what Stalin was up to. The Soviet regime kept things rather secret. It's all well & good to be noble in hindsight, but it's not very realistic. A war with Stalin would have left the planet devastated. The US would be a wasteland, you'd have to have the capitol in Nebraska! Not to mention the rest of Europe & any other militarily built up countries would have caught some nukes, & the rest of the planet would have to deal with the radiation & fall-out. Not very clearheaded thinking, on that one, irrespective of Stalin's evil.

      "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
      -- Edmund Burke

      It's interesting that you should quote this, since it's what people have been saying in connection with the Bush Administration's Patriot acts, & the gutting of Habeus Corpus. Perhaps we would do well to look for evil at home, rather than abroad?

      "Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?"

      You didn't address this question to me, but I'll point out that his own people tried to kill him a number of times. Bastard just wouldn't die.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Rand sounds very humanist. People who hold Humanism as their philosophy tend to be liberal in my experience. It is a shame if she really is influencing the right, like a wolf in sheep's skin. It isn't right to hold me accountable for every so-called conservative idea. I don't hold every liberal accountable for believing that the 9/11 victims deserved it, I realize that many liberals would agree that the professor from Colorado is very extreme in his views. You must understand that I don't agree with every conservative, especially the extreme ones as you point out. Also, I'm pretty sure any typical Republican doesn't stand for torture, Bush included. What we do stand for is an effective strategy on terrorism. Not some sort of, to use Ah-nold's words, girly strategy. And all this won't lead to the government beating random people senseless (or if you would cry police brutality on this, then I'd rephrase it as 'it won't add any more to what already is'). I'm not sure if you actually want to debate about these specific issues, or are simply saying that Republicans suck, so I'll end there.
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@spartan777

      .........
      "Rand sounds very humanist. "
      .........

      Humanist? Rand? Lol. ... her kooky followers are so far rightwing they make Republicans look like communists.. Profit with no concern for the lives of their fellow humans Think Ferengi not human. Extremist elitists like these are why the anti-thesis communism arose in the first place. Although they claim they support capitalism they are essentially just greedy cultist opportunists that wish to dismantle government so there is no accountability for whomever they deem "the elite" (themselves of course)..In otherwords... tyrants. I'm surprised you don't know this.

      .........
      "It isn't right to hold me accountable for every so-called conservative idea. I don't hold every liberal accountable for believing that the 9/11 victims deserved it, I realize that many liberals would agree that the professor from Colorado is very extreme in his views."
      .........

      Then why did you bring up the issue? Sorry.... you seem to want to eat your cake and have it too.

      Unfortunately partisan politics have decayed into this and in my opinion its because of far right tactics of be merciless against "the enemy ". This is silly since we agree on many issues too. However I've been listening to character-assassins like Limbaugh, Coultier, Beck, O'Reilly and others turn liberals into the anti-christ for well over a decade now. I never even thought of myself as left or right until it kept getting hammered in my ear "your either with everything we say... or your own of them". That almost sounds like fascism to me.. so I 've come to fear Republicans... not admire them.

      The vile disgust you are seeing against Republicans today are just average people tired of listening to personal attacks on their character because they may disagree on some issues with one of the two great parties in America. I believe the expression is... what goes around comes around. They also don't appreciate their civil libertiesslowly being taken from them either.

      Even though I disagree with you on several issues you seem pretty reasonable but unfortunately I can't take a chance the current generation of far right Republicans will remain in office. So no offense to you personally... I'm still going to call them incompetent heartless assh~les until both congress and the executive falls to the Democrats. (which both will)

      The Democrats might not have a direction at the moment but that might actually turn out to be a good thing. We all need a break from the rhetoric and to just get back to basics like balancing budgets and the day to day details of running government. Republicans are at war with everyone and this hysteria is no good for anyone... even Republicans.

      .........
      " You must understand that I don't agree with every conservative, especially the extreme ones as you point out. Also, I'm pretty sure any typical Republican doesn't stand for torture, Bush included. What we do stand for is an effective strategy on terrorism. "
      .........

      But it clearly has NOT been effective. How many terrorist attacks were their in Iraq before we invaded?. Do you understand Iraq is going to become an theocratic republic once we leave? Even if we stayed for decades more (at the cost of trillions) do you honestly believe millions of people will suddenly change their mind about us? Bush's rhetoric has only encouraged North Korea to get nukes and Iran to want them. Expect more nations to follow if we keep using force. No nation wants to be attacked by us simply because we're paranoid since 9/11.

      Please explain how does this macho attitude help us in the war against terrorism? IMHO It was a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars and Republican tough talk made things far WORSE not better. If anything these people demand a little respect of their sovereignty.... not us pretending like we own the world. This ain't WW2 were we shared broad political support. If anything strongarm tactics are isolating us in the world. Public opinion matters... especially if you wish to win a war on terrorism.

      Its time to start working with the UN. We've tried the opposite and it DOESN'T work. If you think that being toughguys doesn't come with the threat of being nuked you are mistaken.
      We are not in some position of strength here. We may have nuke aces but if we use them it will pretty well guarantee our own cities will be eventually secretly nuked in response. Mad will not work against people willing to die for their cause.

      Time for America to join the international community again not continue to make enemies by flaunting everyone else's opinions.

    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there:

      in place of responding to many of my points, you attack people like Rands points as if they were all mine.

      Just to connect the dots-
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      there: "...the slow destruction of the constitution, you're fiscally irresponsible, and your blowing ***** up like your fricken jihadists."

      spartan777: "It isn't right to hold me accountable for every so-called conservative idea...”

      there: “The vile disgust you are seeing against Republicans today are just average people tired of listening to personal attacks on their character because they may disagree on some issues with one of the two great parties in America.”

      Falwell blamed pagans for 9/11. Then he apologized. As I've been saying, you shouldn't hold me accountable for Falwell. I am reciprocating the best I can. I am not personally attacking other people, you should not make Ad Hominem attacks on me.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “I've been listening to character-assassins like Limbaugh, Coultier, Beck, O'Reilly and others turn liberals into the anti-christ for well over a decade now.”

      have you? or have you been listening to liberals describe them as character assassins? Have you taken their comments out of context?

      "your either with everything we say... or your [one] of them". Who said that?

      Also, policies take time to come into effect. If we institute tougher policies in dealing with captured terrorists, we can't expect terrorist attacks to magically, drastically decrease.

      What has Bush done to promote N. Korea to get nukes? By a liberal's logic, I could argue that Bush did his best to stop Korea from getting nukes (short of invasion). What I mean is that if Bush invaded Iraq on the premise that they had WMD's, when they did not, how much more 'in trouble' would Korea be if the demonstrated a WMD?

      And about Iraq, the aim is obviously not to make everyone in the middle east do a 180, but to realize that if they try mass genocide, or try developing wmd's, they aren't going to get away with it. Obviously this isn't the sole job of the US, but the UN has been spotless in not fulfilling the job. Of course all this assumes that we care if millions of innocent people are murdered, though you could make an argument against that. This “Macho attitude” isn't being strict against the general populace of Iraq, its for terrorists. Clearly we have shown that Iraq is the Iraqis' country. We have also shown that we want them to succeed as a country by not leaving their terror-ravaged country to the wolves after all that has happened. Time to start working with the UN? You can't work with someone else if they aren't going to work at all. Tell me something important the UN has succeeded in doing.

      “Time for America to join the international community again not continue to make enemies by flaunting everyone else's opinions.” ehhhh... what? flaunting everyone else's opinions?
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@spartan777

      ...........
      "It isn't right to hold me accountable for every so-called conservative idea...”
      ...........

      Of course I don't but if you're coming to the defense of GWB it makes it kind of hard to sympathize with you. He didn't make some minor mistake where no one was seriously effected,,,, thousands have died because of his mistakes. I don't want terrorists tortured to get information. It doesn't save American lives... it KILLS them. More terrorists are created by such acts and we are viewed as evil. Add to this that the NSA is checking all sorts of information on us which means the forth is on the verge of being toast.

      To make matters worse after all these crazy maneuvers America is at greater threat of being attacked today than when he took office. I know GWB means well but at the end of the day he is a threat to America and global stability. He is CREATING terrorists faster than he is getting rid of them.

      International relations matter. Pointing a gun in everyone's face and insulting entire nations left right and center is not winning us any friends. Undermining the one institution in the world that can act as a peacemaker is incredible irresponsible. There is no institution other than the UN that is credible to Muslim world. Name me one.

      The only reason why rightwingers undermine the UN is because they know how hugely unpopular the US is today. And who is to blame for taking a great deal of worldwide sympathy and support after 9/11 and turning it into international hostility?

      The man who was making the decisions that got us into this position. (and don't even get me started on how the middle class is under attack)

      ...........
      "have you? or have you been listening to liberals describe them as character assassins? Have you taken their comments out of context?"
      ...........

      Oh please don't tell me now I'm imagining all the rightwing radio nutjobs haven't been insulting everyone with nightly sermons and rants for years. I'm sick of listening to their constant negativity towards everyone but themselves.

      ...........
      What has Bush done to promote N. Korea to get nukes?
      ...........

      The axis of evil speech and invasion of Iraq pretty well guaranteed Korean Elvis would focus on getting nukes. I remember that speech and remember thinking at the time how inevitable Korea would go for nukes now. What did you expect them to do? Wait for another US invasion? Its not rocket science. Every time you threaten other nations... they are going to respond just like America responds. You might not like having to negotiate but neither do they. This is the way the world works. Even during the Soviet Union times we negotiated. Even with Communist China we negotiate.

      .......
      if they try mass genocide, or try developing wmd's, they aren't going to get away with it.
      .......

      The already know the US has nukes. Invading Iraq didn't prove anything and IMO played right into jihadist hands. Now when we walk away their going to look like heroes. Republicans are right about that but who is to blame for putting us in this position to begin with?

      Furthermore we cannot prevent them from getting nuclear technology If we attack a sovereign nation because they have nuclear technology... its like saying its fair if someone else attacks us for having nuclear technology. In the end all the words are just hot air that is destructive to positive dialog.

      .......
      Of course all this assumes that we care if millions of innocent people are murdered, though you could make an argument against that.
      .......

      Which millions of people are murdered? Iraqis? The were better off under Saddam. Israelis? They have nukes. Who are we protecting? All I see is us blowing sh~t up for no reason and for no purpose. Iraq is going to end up as another Islamic state because of us.

      ............
      Clearly we have shown that Iraq is the Iraqis' country. We have also shown that we want them to succeed as a country by not leaving their terror-ravaged country to the wolves after all that has happened.
      ............

      I didn't agree when GWB invaded but I really hoped it would have worked out. No one is served by failure. Unfortunately it is clear he has failed. These terrorists don't view themselves as terrorists. They view themselves of freedom fighters trying to get foreign troops off of Muslim lands. They are so sure in their resolve they are willing to kill themselves. Sure we can stay there... just like Israel has occupied Palestine for 60 years and they are still under as big a threat as ever.

      The only thing we can do is respect their sovereignty. (something Israel has never done with the Palestinians)

      ........
      Tell me something important the UN has succeeded in doing.
      ........

      The UN Peacekeeping Forces may only be employed when both parties to a conflict accept their presence. Its worked in places like Cyprus but we try to fix the Palestinian situation... we are the only country in the world that vetos action. This is the single biggest contributor to hatred against America.

      http://unbisnet.un.org/ (look up UN voting records with regards to Palestine/Israel situation... I was shocked myself).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_UN_peacekeepers_are_currently_deployed

      Anyhow as I said...my attacks are generalized in the rightwings direction. If you stand up for the current crop I'm sorry but you are very wrong for doing so. Don't take it as an affront to you personally though. They stuck their necks out now they must be prepared to suffer the political fallout that are a natural consequence of failure.

      Don't worry though. Democrats aren't going to take away your liberties and we are a forgiving lot (and if they try I'll yell at them too). They'll just going to try cleaning up the huge mess the rightwing has been making.

  • fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17To those of you who feel that you need to reply with a conservative point of view -please look up what "Conservatism" actually is. -To those of you who blindly reply to anti-neocon posts please see the following: You subscribe to a belief that is grounded in the idea that people need to be lied to (Sources:http://youneed2see.com/political/57/The_Power_of_Nightmares ).
    -Leo Strauss put forward the idea that lies were worthwhile if they (the lies) provided a purpose that launched America into it's place of "Super-Power". -The fundemental resolution that *lying* to the public was justifiable so long as it launched America into a position of "ultimate super-power" was put forward by this new political ideal that we have come to call "neo-conservatism". Please note that this new political movement (neo-concervatism) was based on the value of lying to the American people. -It was
    justifiable because it would thrust America into the position of 'World Police'. Note:
    "conservatism" as a philosophy bears little resemblance to the new 'neo-conservative' philosophy: Traditional 'Conservatism' can be defined by economic conservatism, little social-change, and weak Federal powers. But the "neo-con" definition is very different: it is defined by Christian ethics, Strong Federalist powers, and, most disturbingly, a willingness to lie to the average voter. MOST IMPORTANTLY: a willingness to *lie* to the average voter for the greater good. These are extrodinary claims and so, they require extrordinary evidence: as an easy proof you can see the obvious lies about how the former USSR defended itself against the West's influence. It is a matter
    of history how able the former USSR was able to defend itself: this so-called "Evil-Empire" was always on the brink of collapse -It's defences were found to be wholly incompetent: regardless of Rumsfields claims.
    You who support the administration are so corrupted that you will be remembered historically (this is a STRONG statement) among those who allowed the destruction of the Jews during Nazi Germany. "D'uh we was just following orders" -You have to THINK for yourselves before you relegate people to be ***** TORTURED.
    .
    • fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9forgive my drunken ramblings -I think that most intelligent people can sift through my ramblings to find the truth.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Despite a bit of obvious drunken rambling (Don't we all?) ...your points are excellent, and I enjoyed reading your comment. Thanks.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"But the "neo-con" definition is very different . . . MOST IMPORTANTLY: a willingness to *lie* to the average voter for the greater good."
      Are you serious? You define the political stance of "neo-con" with "a willingness to lie to the average voter for the greater good." You seem to have good ideas and a good point to make but when you say something like that it makes me question the whole comment. It is almost as if you are aware of a political philosophy that isn't willing to lie.

      Honestly, ALL politicians are willing to lie to voters! I have trouble finding one politician who doesn't. As long as "lie" is open to interpretation all politicians will feel free to lie and accuse all other politicians of doing the same. I don't care whether it is "I am not a crook"-nixon or "I did not have sex . . . "-clinton or "we found the WMDs"-bush or "no new taxes"-bush or "no american boy is going to fight a war on foreign soil"-FDR

      Remember -- "There are Five kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Politicians quoting statistics, and Novelists quoting Politicians on Statistics”
    • fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nixonrichard -You're right: all I can say is that I was feeling particularly 'liberal' when I wrote that comment -it was a combination of alcohol and feeling fed-up with neo-conservatism (a political movement I find very frightening) . Sorry if I went overboard and mangled a few points. I hope you can take my rant with the grain of salt it rightly deserves.
      Thanks to anyone who can see through my drunken liberal bias to see a grain of truth.
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I've never been a fan of Wolf Blitzer, but if he's all that stands between us and Dick Cheney's bitch (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) then I've got his back.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Well Arrested Development was on Fox which is a network channel. Regardless it was just a joke!

    Why is everyone "attacking" people in this country? Why cant somebody just ask a simple question? Have we really become sniveling pussys? If you lie or do something wrong you fess to it. All of this passing the blame our politicians do disgusts me.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3It's hard to tell sarcasm over the net...

      You're right... I don't watch much TV (I could have sworn that show was on HBO)
  • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6the overwhelming liberal bias of digg, makes me sick. contact me if you are interested in starting a digg for those who can think rationally.

    P.S. thinkprogress is not a news source. it's a socialist rag.

    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8If you are saying you want to start a non-liberal digg, I would say not to do that. There are plenty of forums, blogs, and sites devoted to conservative disscussion of the news. Digg is a good place to have cross talk among all parties though. Unfortunately, it consists of name-calling and quoting non-existent sources.
    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8the problem is that cross talk never happens on digg, because the leftists overwhelm anyone who is slightly conservative. dugg down is everyday life for us conservatives on digg.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I know. It seems we might be the ones that have to try to initiate intelligent conversation. Perhaps this is just like trying to get people on AIM to type using correct grammar and spelling.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"the leftists overwhelm anyone who is slightly conservative. dugg down is everyday life for us conservatives on digg."

      Oh, you poor thing! The same thing never happens to those who don't hold Republican values, does it? /sarcasm.

      Check my post above, citing littlegreenfootballs.com. It's being dugg down simply for a reply that doesn't suit someone's liking.

      Don't whine about being martyrs when you practice the same things. You cannot expect to be treated with respect, here or anywhere, when the right has used bullying, propaganda, GOP talking points & attacks on peoples' patriotism for 5 years to silence dissenters.

      You lot supported an administration that has made many, many mistakes. Gross incompetence in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. Until you can face up and admit to that like adult human beings, nobody will pay attention to anything you have to say. That's just the way it is.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If I've ever dugg either of you down, it's would have been over my complete and utter disagreement with what you've said. If you watch the comments, diggers who act like fools get dugg down, regardless of political bias. Time and time again I've seen Liberal retards spouting off stupid comments and they get dugg down too.

      The reason people are on their guard against conservatives is the constant slew of conservative jackasses, present company possibly excluded, creating accounts on digg and saying the most off the wall random comments and insults. Hell, there was one guy on here that said that neo-conservative was a made up term (like all aren't?) and that anyone who used it was a ...'neo-lib'. Slightly ironic.

      I believe that these accounts for the most part are created by kids spouting off whatever their parents happen to tell them that day with no real foundation to their supposed beliefs.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Desiaa,
      Actually, I take that back, I just read your comment supporting the idea that CNN is a terrorist organization and that they should be bombed along with the entire city of New York and Los Angeles. You are a ***** moron.
    • Methodius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't know about everyone else on digg, but I (moderate-to-liberal) typically open up all the dugg-down comments to read, and I don't think I'm the only one. You may not be as silenced as you think.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1w0rd: yes, but liberals who are dugg down have comments that tend to go like this, 'F you *****.'

      conservative comments that are dugg down say something to the effect of 'I disagree.'
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3"Churchill wanted to preemtively attack Hitler but Chamberlain stopped him. This caused millions and millions of people to die needlessly. I don't know of anybody who wants a nuclear war but we have to protect ourselves."

    I dunno what that has to do with Lynne Cheney but I'll bite. I'm all for pre evemptivly attacking people who actually pose a threat to me.

    And seriously, the overwhelming tech interest of this site bothers me. I think I'll start a site about kittens. Do you go to a swimming pool and bitch about how you hate water?
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Lynn Cheney moped the floor with the Blitzed.

    I question CNN's patriotism, every day, all day. Running terrorist propaganda videos is the surest way to help the enemy. Sorry CNN, you have been caught with your hand in the terrorist cookie jar. Maybe they will just confine their bombs to NY City, Los Angeles and CNN headquarters, that way at least the rest of the country won't care if a bunch of libs are incinerated.

    Dittos the socialist rag, thinkprogress just parrot's the Sorros line, regardless the truth. It is sick. The left's Pravda.

    The more you see, the more obvious it becomes, those on the left have lost the ability to think.
    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5.......finally some intelligence... thank you.

    • fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12do you guys work for Fox News?
    • Macam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12This is neither intelligent, accurate, or anything short of appalling. It most certainly is ironic for someone making such broad, inaccurate, and hateful generalizations to criticize anyone else for an inability to think. The key players in this administration in power, let alone the Cheneys, are not traditional conservatives but much further to the right and thus any labeling of so-called "liberals" encompasses not only anyone on the left, but everyone in the center, and much of the traditional right. No traditional level-headed conservative would concede that a massive, and mounting, debt, unchecked and consolidated executive power, unnecessary foreign entanglements, a moral crisis on Capitol Hill, and an utter violation of our civil rights is in tune with the conservative values (just ask John Dean).

      Sorry, you absurdist far-right conservatives deserve to be buried under the digg train. You're most certainly not advancing the debate in this country by suggesting (or encouraging) ATTACKS on this country be limited to a metropolitan cities because the people there fairly decided to elect someone else other than your favorite candidate(s).
    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4yes we do work for foxnews - anymore conspiracies theories i can fulfill for you?
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3He obviously isn't suggesting a serious policy for the government. I agree vbbx's statements are hateful and wrong. I agree with the Pravda statement though.
    • Methodius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, showing the "terrorist propaganda" is far more likely to help the right, since Bush/etc. gets to play up the terrorist threat. That statement isn't an indictment of who's right/wrong, just an observation of who is helped, overall, by CNN showing "terrorist propaganda." Because honestly, I think that potential Al-Queda recruits are less likely to be watching CNN than, say, Al-Jazeera.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I question CNN's patiotism as well. I was floored that they ran that video of our soldiers getting killed. Bad enough if their film crew filmed it, but to get it from the enemy turned my stomach.
  • javip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19spartan and bishop, give it up

    i'm from Australia so I'm not going to be voting dems or republicans (in other words I have no party allegiances etc) but any normal intelligent person can see that democratic policy right now, their way of thinking, their ideas, their goals for the USA and the world are far far superior to those of republicans/conservatives.

    This isn't even up for intelligent debate, it's as clear as day and night.
    The only people making excuses for the current administration are hardcore conservatives..
    in other words, the STUPID people who are unable to change their opinions or points of view despite any overwhelming evidence out there.

    This "liberal bias" that you keep claiming is a stupid argument.

    Think of it this way..
    This IS a failed administration, this IS a power obsessed, lying, ignorant administration.
    This IS failed foreign policy.
    There IS a monkey for a president incapable of forming an intelligent thought and even less capable of expressing it.
    The whole world, extremely dislikes the USA and it's citizens because of this administration (and no it has nothing to do with jealousy)

    These things are all facts.

    These liberals that you keep arguing against, are a group of people who see these facts, and know that something must be done to steer America in the right direction once again, nothing less nothing more.

    The problem with you is that instead of seeing things as they are, and then how they should be. You see it as if being republican is something like supporting your favourite sports team.
    That despite any ups and downs you should support them to the death, because they're your team.

    Your arguments are like listening to a red sox fan arguing with a yankees fan..
    These fans follow their teams blindly remember, and that's the problem.

    These "liberals" aren't arguing with you because they're liberal and you are the opposite team, they're arguing with you because the views you express and represent, are stupid!
    If conservatives were intelligent people, capable of moving the nation forward, and the democratic party was incapable of doing so, I am very confident that they would gladly vote republican, because they would have no problem "switching teams" in this scenario.
    They simply want whats best for the country.

    So you clowns are being dugg down and opposed because YOU ARE WRONG.
    Because given all the facts out there, you still choose to not see them, making you IDIOTS.
    Mentally retarded, lemmings...
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4apparently you missed my point about "intelligent debate."
    • jonjon602, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7amen to that
    • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3"normal intelligent person can see that democratic policy right now, their way of thinking, their ideas, their goals for the USA and the world are far far superior to those of republicans/conservatives."

      You actually know the Democratic party's platform? You better run along and tell them, because they surely don't.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@javip,

      First, you confirm one of our points by resorting to name calling. You could simply say I disagree with you because of the following...

      Next, you are talking of liberal and conservative views but don't elaborate on any point in particular. I'll give you one we can discuss.

      Regardless of whether you think the war was right or wrong, the fact is we are now in Iraq. The question now is what should we do? Should we stay there until a stable government is in place or set a time table and leave regardless of the events on the ground.

      I urge you to think of what would happen after the US leave. Who would control the country? What will the people who control the country do? I can see nothing good of the US leaving prematurely; if you do, I would love to hear your analysis of what would happen.

      Again, our views may differ but there is no need for personal attack. I hope this can be a forum to discuss our views and see each other's point of views.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"apparently you missed my point about "intelligent debate."

      "You actually know the Democratic party's platform? You better run along and tell them, because they surely don't."

      - so much for reasoned debate, huh, guys? Even when you try your best, all you can do is use put-downs. The man makes fair comment, with a bit of personal opinion, & you've got nothing. Until you can get over that, you don't have the right to complain about being dugg down.
    • javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@bishop

      awwww I didn't realize the welfare of the Iraqi people was so important to you.
      It is very refreshing to see someone so concerned with the safety and welfare of a country with beliefs totally different to his own.

      C'mon, admit it, you've been smoking some of that liberal peace pipe that desiaa keeps talking about haven't you... =)
    • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Don't lump me in with those "intelligent debate" whiners. I've been on digg too long and know there's nothing on this site but KrAzY k0S KIdz and Huffpo sheeple spewing their daily DNC talking points. No debate there. I could give two ***** about any "e-respect" I get from the diggerals.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1No, he heard your comment, he just figured you were a "mentally retarded lemming" just like that "monkey" of a president bush . . . but he has no political affiliation of any kind . . . because he's from Australia. He wants you to stop talking. His words are more true than yours because he spells "is" with all capital letters.

      History will determine whether or not this is a failed foreign policy . . . you can't just call it "failed" because it looks bad. I agree, it looks TERRIBLE, but maybe this is the price we are paying for not dealing with this foreign policy problem earlier. I'm not trying to attack any former leaders, I'm just saying that nobody ever "wants" to go to war, they feel it is necessary, and I'll be damned if a ***** Australian attacks my president for his decisions. I don't agree with Bush, I didn't vote for him and I think this Iraq war could be a mistake, but his is still MY president and *I* will be the one to make fun of him for it.

      I am so tired of people who lose their nerve as soon as things start looking bad. Is the Iraq war over? No. Will more people die? Yes. Was it worth it? I don't know and neither do you you god-damned dingo *****! Maybe history will prove Bush right. Maybe doing "something" really WAS better than doing nothing. Personally, I was and still am all for doing nothing, but that's because I don't have any stomach for blood. Just because Bush does have a stomach for blood does not make him wrong. War sucks but it is sometimes necessary and we will NEVER see a future world where Bush sat around and did nothing about Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate him, but I also respect him and the US gave him 8 years so I will give him 8 years.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@javip,

      I didn't mention the welfare of the Iraqi people anywhere in my reply. My concerns are about the geopolitical consequences of leaving early. The welfare of the Iraqi people is also of great importance, leaving them now would not be a good thing.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4warty,
      The 'apparently you missed...' comment was to say that he didn't catch my point in several posts earlier. You must've also missed some previous posts in which stylerm and bishop backed up what each other said with a source. Bishop did it without name-calling. I agree that pos3r didn't say what he did in the best way though.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Bishop, Spartan, etc...
      If you strip the parent post of any name calling, you can see that he makes an excellent point. It's a shame that he resorted to that which allowed you to straw man it and ignore the whole thing.
      I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I believe that abortion is wrong and I also believe in the right to own arms. I believe in some socialist elements present in society. I believe in limited government. I believe in a lot of things and any Democrat of Republican reading this probably thinks I somehow have conflicting beliefs but I don't. I believe in what I believe in for my reasons.
      Voting and preaching the party line gets you nowhere. Republicans are not a baseball team. They are a group of people that share a common political belief. They have been derailed as a group by neo-conservative hateful lying Christians and instead of standing up and doing something about it, they bent over and took it when they had the chance to keep this administration under control.
      This party has failed to reach its goals and have allowed it to become something its not. These aren't some bad players on your team that will be replaced next season. These people are defining your party. It will be a long time before I vote republican. There needs to be major reform in that party and if you can't see that, you are blind with faith.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"My concerns are about the geopolitical consequences of leaving early."

      The US is not the police force of the world, & the majority of Americans don't want it to be.

      Using the Mid East as some kind of stratego board for US policy is asinine & plain wrong. Let those people sort themselves out. We should never have gone in there in the first place.

      Our continued presence only exacerbates things & makes a fundamentalist uprising all but certain. The irony of all this is, the Bush Administration presumably dreamed of creating a pre-revolution Iran in modern Iraq - a ME country supportive to US interests. Instead, they've created another mini-Iran post-revolution - Iraq is almost certain to become another hard-line fundamentalist Moslem state which ever path we now take. That irony I mentioned is the fact that as bad as Saddam was, his state was secular, & a bulwark against fundamentalist Islam. He even had Christians & women in his cabinet. Go figure.

      Pre-emptive strikes on countries we suspect might wish us harm just doesn't work as any kind of coherent foreign policy - it's not a foreign policy at all. Neither does trying to manipulate politics overseas for our own benefit. It's time the US went back to being isolationist, in my view.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2whenever the UN lets countries "sort things out" people die. If we were to let Iran & co. sort out Iraq, do you think things would go well? Do you think it would be peaceful? Where Bush takes action, he's accused of trying to play world police. Where he takes (military) inaction, he's called insensitive.

      "Our continued presence only exacerbates things & makes a fundamentalist uprising all but certain." what about Canada? They haven't done much in Iraq at all and suddenly they're target #1.

      The US used to be very isolationist. Then WWI and WWII happened.

      w0rd, I agree to a degree, Bush hasn't handled everything in the best way, ignoring Iraq. The whole 'No Child Left Behind' thing is bust, and I can name more. I do believe that he's doing a better job than Kerry could've.

      Yes, Saddam was secularist; he slaughtered Shiites by the thousands (not to mention he gassed Kurds too). He cut off the tongues of those who didn't do their job. I think, given the way things are now, we could improve on that.

      javip's points:
      conservatives are stupid.
      liberals embrace reality.
      conservatives make everything up.
      conservatives deserve to be dugg down (for being conservative).
      Bush & co. suck.

      Did I miss anything?
    • Macam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@bishop

      With regards to the following excerpt: "I urge you to think of what would happen after the US leave. Who would control the country? What will the people who control the country do? I can see nothing good of the US leaving prematurely; if you do, I would love to hear your analysis of what would happen."

      It should be noted not everyone is suggesting LEAVING entirely nor immediately (some are, but that's largely a RNC talking point); the premise of the opposition to Bush is to instigate real change. There is some consensus around Murtha's plan of redeployment which is, perhaps, the most logical of our current options. McCain's idea to send more troops is far, far too late to do any good and will only further exacerbate the situation. The bottom line is this: American troops are being targeted and killed by the small percentage of terrorists moving into the country and mostly by sectarian violence that wants us out. Thus, we should REDUCE our presence as that's fueling a lot of the current violence in addition to any sectarian violence -- and unfortunately, hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis are going to end up dying as a result of our poor post-war planning until either the Iraqi government can get up to speed or an international peace keeping force can be allowed to enter by the government; but neither situation is likely. The redeployment should help minimize some of the current targeting of our soldiers and allow us to target the actual terrorists that are in Iraq rather than attempting to cover a massive country with a thin spread force that mainly deals with insurgents and sectarian violence. That's the best we can hope for at the moment.

      Again, WE are going after terrorists (and I refuse to call it this absurd & ambiguous "war on terror" as if it were anything new) and we need to focus on doing that so that we can reallocate our foreign policy assets to where they need to be and not draining away on Iraq along with some false debate the administration wants to play up. We'll simply have to find other ways to help the Iraqi government strengthen itself, but we cannot sit around and try to run the country like it's ours. Iraq is now our problem, but it's not our country.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ spartan777

      "whenever the UN lets countries "sort things out" people die."

      Oh, so you mean more or less than the 300,000 to 650,000 people who have died in Iraq? When the US blunders in trying to fix things, there is a protracted war & thousands of civilians killed. In what way is the US any better at peacekeeping than the UN - an organisation our grandparents & parents fought to build & support?
      The UN is mired in bureaucracy & corruption, but it is a better choice than any other we have, right now, & has arguably solved more conflicts than exacerbated. The same cannot be said for the US, sad to say.

      "If we were to let Iran & co. sort out Iraq, do you think things would go well? Do you think it would be peaceful?"
      - I don't care. It's not my business. If they want to kill each other, let them go at it. It was good enough for Reagan to support Hussein in his war against Iran, what's the difference now?

      "Where Bush takes action, he's accused of trying to play world police. Where he takes (military) inaction, he's called insensitive."
      - No, no, where Bush takes action he's accused of being incompetent & unable to grasp the complexities of world politics. This appears to be an entirely accurate accusation.

      "what about Canada? They haven't done much in Iraq at all and suddenly they're target #1."
      - Oh, please. Has Canada suffered any catastrophic terrorist attacks? Don't tell me you're suddenly buying in to some Al Qaeda rhetoric, now, because it suits your argument. The point was about exacerbating Moslem fanaticism in the Mid East, which the Iraq war unquestionably has. It is a superb training ground.

      Far from being a 'fly-paper' situation, as you just actually admitted by suggesting Canada is now at threat, it is breeding more terrorists to come out & attack elsewhere, just like the Soviet vs Mujahadeen war in Afghanistan in the 80s (we armed & supported the Mujahadeen in that one, in case you're too young to remember) created, a decade later, the Taleban & the core members of Al Qaeda itself - Osama bin Laden got his start in the Afghan conflict, & gained a lot of support among the Afghanis due to his actions there. You see how messing around in such business has unintended, disastrous consequences for us here at home? It's beyond asinine to continue to fiddle around in world politics like this, when the results as we've seen are totally bad for our country.

      In Iraq right now, hundreds of thousands of weapons are unaccounted for, plus masses of plastic explosives that were, in the early stages of the invasion, looted from what had previously been a UN-secured storage facility. Just ask yourself what these newly experienced terrorists are going to go on & use all that material for? They've learned how to make IEDs & other bombs, how to become snipers, how to slice throats & torture, just guess where they're going to use those skills?

      "The US used to be very isolationist. Then WWI and WWII happened."
      - Oh jesus, give me a break. We were in no position to stop any of that. WW1 came out of 19th century European problems which needn't be gone into here, but WW2 & subsequent conflicts will be seen as the start of resource wars - wars for territory & resources, probably presaging how we're gonna go on in this century. I fail to see how America trying to act like some kind of superannuated World Cop would have prevented the rise of Nazism - particularly when so many of the corporate magnates were supportive of Hitler, like Henry Ford & Prescott Bush. In any case, it was WW2 which *made* the USA a superpower. Before then the British Empire was in ascendancy. If anyone could have prevented WW2 it would have been the British, but all you're talking about is replacing one set of circumstances with another set of unpredictable ones.

      "Saddam was secularist; he slaughtered Shiites by the thousands (not to mention he gassed Kurds too). He cut off the tongues of those who didn't do their job. I think, given the way things are now, we could improve on that."
      - We haven't. We've actually made it worse. Hundreds of people are being slaughtered every week, 23 policemen were just shot over the last day or so. The best that our forces can apparently do is maintain the security of the Green Zone. The US military is not designed to fight a civil insurgency. Because it is not its job. If the UN had been allowed to control the situation with Saddam from the get-go, maybe, *just* maybe, things might have gone a little smoother. At this point it's hard to imagine them being any worse.

      The Bush Administration & the PNAC group's philosophy of pre-emptive strikes on potential enemies of the US followed by protracted occupation of territory has _abjectly failed_. Face it. It is now time for realists & true conservatives to clean house & throw out these fools, before they make our future immeasurably worse. Jesus christ, I thought we'd have jet cars & domed cities on the moon, by this point, not re-playing Imperialist war fantasies from the ***** 19th century.

      The Democrats, apparently, don't have much of a better plan for Iraq, but by christ at least they can form a war cabinet, learn from history & actually *listen* to their generals, unlike this lot. The Democrats, historically, have a better war record than the Republicans. I say go with people who have some experience, not these fat-cat deferment boys.
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2warty, I'm glad you're at least expounding on your arguments. this is only a partial response to that long post.

      What are the successes of the UN? How could they have done better in Iraq?

      I stand behind my WWI, WWII comment. Prior to WWII, Hitler carried out his policy of Lebensraum, the goal of getting more land and resources for the German race. Hitler annexed part of Czechoslovakia. Instead of telling him no, Chamberlain & co. went after a policy of appeasement under the banner of "Peace in our time." Surely giving Hitler a little bit of land (which has been contested for 100's of years) would satisfy him and prevent any war right? We ought to learn from Britain's mistake. Perhaps we avoided something more serious than what we have now, regardless of the possession of wmd's when we invaded. Of course people have died in Iraq from what we've done, but their deaths were not in vain. They were not being massacred, they died while fighting. They made a difference.

      It isn't as though terrorists didn't have enough weapons. They weren't really lacking in that department, even assuming that all the missing weapons are in terrorist hands. I have a friend who lives in Azerbaijan, and used to live in Turkmenistan. He has gone into Afghanistan, and there he has said that on nearly every roadside shack, you can buy at least a pistol. An AK might be a little more hidden, but they're there. If the terrorists didn't get any American weapons, then they got them from the Soviets.

      I'm sorry the world isn't a big commune happy commune or whatever by now, but if you take a peek back in history, you'll see that the nineteenth century wasn't much different from the rest of history, and neither is today. Humanity isn't on some grandiose, great rise up from primitiveness, to perfection. We have to deal with what is.

      "I don't care. It's not my business. If they want to kill each other, let them go at it."
      I'm going to keep this quote in mind for a long time...

      Would you say the same thing regarding Sudan, Darfour. What if Churchill had taken this policy about 68 years ago? Why would things be different now? I know you seem convinced that we are in Iraq for oil and power, but do you understand that Hussein didn't have the best of intentions?

      Reagan did not make a good decision in choosing the lesser of the two evils; Iran and Iraq. It seems he was following the "It's not my business. If they want to kill each other, let them go at it" type of policy there.
  • jonjon602, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10liberals tend to be more intellectual and therefore we get our news from digg and the daily show.

    Conservatives tend to be stupid so they watch fox news.

    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5when you say intellectual do you mean you've had one too many tokes on the peace pipe? because i saw on cnn that if you smoke the pipe long enough, everything will be okay. and the naughty naughty republicans will disappear.

    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5oops...... i forgot to mention how much integrity jon stewart and digg have.......what would we do without them. (btw, i am being sarcastic for those lefties who are so high they can't think straight)
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7desiaa, though funny, your statements don't really fit the idea of "intelligent debate."
    • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Yes, jonjon, all geniuses get their news from Comedy Central and socialist infested website. I'm sure if TDS was around when Einstein was alive, he'd get all his news from it as well. Good call, genius.
    • desiaa, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3spartan77, i'm afraid i'll contract some socialist disease if I engage them in conversation on this site, it just isn't safe here......
    • javip, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5lol, a conservative using the word integrity? joke of the day for sure!

    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"spartan77, i'm afraid i'll contract some socialist disease if I engage them in conversation on this site, it just isn't safe here......"

      Well, you're clearly the poster child for rational & sane debate, aren't you?
  • kamau84, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It looks like Anderson Cooper is saying "sniping at my patriotism," not Wolf Blitzer.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1digg down
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4C'mon guys, we all have to live on this tiny blue marble together. A little less hatin' and a little more love is what we all need.
  • sheldonl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ok. I'm a Canadian so I don't really care, but why is it that we only see the anti-bush side of the story get posted on digg? Why isn't the US administration's side of the story published here? (Like coverage of the comment Lynne Cheney made?) Could it be that digg has a liberal bias?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The sad truth is the media doesn't give one wit about any of this. All they care about is ratings. They prod just enough to get some sensationalism going and then sit back smugly. I do think that the major networks and CNN lean liberal but not terribly so. And I think Fox and the successful Radio talk shows lean conservative but again, not terribly so. Watch/listen to the good ones in both camps and form your own opinion. You'll generally get the whole story if you listen to both. I think Wolf is pretty weak actually and I have to laugh that nothing happened when this guy went mentally awol...

    "BLITZER: "You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals, as Jack Cafferty just pointed out, so tragically, so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold."

    Sure there was a little stir about it but, other people have gotten fired over stuff like this....go figure.

    Don't freak but, there is one constant Rush Limbaugh characterization I LOVE: "The Drive By Media". Its perfectly true. For the most part the media (any of it) doesn't present balanced facts. They lean one way or the other and go for the sensationalism. Have you ever noticed that the "Weather Team" alwasy has more people in it then the investigative reporting staff? Cracks me up.
  • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ah yes! Wolf Blitzer. Another gay republican. (...not that there's anything wrong with it...the gay part at least).
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1On second thought, that would make this interview a gay republican cat fight. Lynne Cheney is a lesbian.. just read her novels.
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wolf is just bitchy because someone pwn3d him on his own show.

    Furthering terrorist propaganda and gladly distributing their fear mongering films to the American public isn't very patriotic as far as I'm concerned. Showing their films only encourages them to make more.

    I guess fear mongering is only bad when disliked politicians do it. This was only murder of a peace keeper, after all.

    Turn in the criminals who made this film and we'll talk.
  • chachie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry but I watched the full 7 minute interview on Youtube, not just the part where she responds.

    She was prepared to talk about a children's book, wound up talking about CNN snuff films instead, I guess it's OK unless you are Clinton.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Shock of all shocks....another ThinkPropaganda news post cherry picking its intelligence to support its liberal bias.

    Liberals & Democrats: You have become what you most detest!
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not to mention the blatant suppression of dissent, suppression of facts that contradict their narrow agenda and the neanderthal-like name calling toward anyone who doesn't share their views.

      The saturation of digg with these crappy, half assed, cubicle monkey mind candy pieces has lowered its intellectual integrity by leaps and bounds.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They would be so lucky to work in a cube. They're stuck in their mother's basements, wondering why Daddy left them and when is he coming back?
  • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@rabiddogma

    "Yes our unsocialized health care system is soooo much better because we spend way more on it per person with far worse results THAN ANY OTHER MODERN SOCIETY ON EARTH."

    You don't get out much do you.

    "BTW What the ***** are you going on about the Democrats in this regard because I haven't heard one single Democrat talk about socialized medicine in years. I guess it's kinda like the "Democrats are too liberal for America" myth. All talk and no facts back it up. Typical CONservative job."

    You don't read Democrat talking points much either, apparently. You also don't read most of the posts here on Digg. Typical neo-hippie liberal butt-talking.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.