What is Digg?153 Comments
- 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 . . . - 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.
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+47Be a lemming, or be unpatriotic.
- 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. - 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.
- doffill, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Don't these Repug talking heads have any self-awareness of how ludicrous their statements are?
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25"It is well known" ie: I can't find any sources that support this
- 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.
- 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. ;)
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Are you calling lynne Cheney a liberal?
- 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 - 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... - 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. - 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..."
- 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.
.
- 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. - 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). - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13stylerm, I completely agree with you, but I haven't had the nerve to say it publicly. +digg
- 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 - 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.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12..how did you come to that conclusion?
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12do you guys work for Fox News?
- 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.
- DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -3/+10I would also like to know...
- 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. - 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. - 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. - inactive, 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. - inactive, 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. - inactive, 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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6OH NOES! Those naaasty little libs have taken over.
Jackass. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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. - inactive, 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? - 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. - 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. - jonjon602, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7amen to that
- inactive, 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. - 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. - 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?
- 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... =) - 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. - 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.
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Linky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FYX_fH5Hs - 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, -2/+5I don't know about all that, but his name IS "Wolf Blitzer" . . . that is a ***** awesome name.
- pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5so why am i confused about Falwell?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is