What is Digg?180 Comments
- Lukester38, on 05/05/2008, -8/+80Stop her now Indiana!
- wonderlandpr, on 05/05/2008, -12/+46Hillary Clinton is dangerously close to GW Bush and John McCain on pre-emptive saber shaking. SHE WANTS TO "OBLITERATE IRAN!". She said that on three different occasions. IF YOU WANT MORE WAR, MORE TRILLIONS GOING TO A FOREIN COUNTRY NOT OUR OWN, then take Hillary's lies and make a president out of her phony policies and politics. THIS NATION CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER COWBOY DIPLOMAT. She is a misguided leader who lies on gas prices and on bringing troops home. Dang it was her vote that SENT 4,000 TO DIE IN IRAQ AND NOW SHE BOASTS OF GOING INTO IRAN. Get ready for....THE DRAFT!
- suezach08, on 05/05/2008, -10/+38She is so unbelievable
- angie828, on 05/05/2008, -10/+32OMG! Not again, first Iran and now this! In her desire to show how tough she is, she sounds like she is willing to go to war with the world!
- playuhh, on 05/05/2008, -8/+26Obama needs to call her out on this. Like... NOW.
- damnyooneek, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14She says anything for a vote.
- Pulch, on 05/05/2008, -2/+13Good call man. And what's with all these people picking Bush apart. He started the war over 6 years ago! It was a long time ago, you can't hold that against him.
- youareretarded, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9You don't? But you care about what someone who is not Obama said? (speaking of the wright "controversy")
- Ryanr14, on 05/05/2008, -2/+11I'm stopping her Lukester
- elhaf, on 05/05/2008, -4/+12Finally this obvious truth comes into the mainstream. She is, was, and ever shall be pro-war. She's owned by the lobbyists and defense contractors. Duh.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter. Hillary has bee caught in one gaffe after another, yet was still able to win Pennsylvania handily. The bottom line is that far too many people vote for superficial, ***** reasons. I've heard too many women say they're voting for Clinton because "I just want to see a woman in the white house before I die." When one attempts to use logic and you're confronted with that as an answer, there's really nothing that can be done.
- SSCrow, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9Where are these psychopaths who are supporting her?
I hear nothing positive about her in the media or from people I know. How has she not dropped out yet? - Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7If you get to bring up stuff tha people from Obama's past that he barely knew said, so why can't we bring up what Hillary herself actually said?
- xtrachrisbee, on 05/05/2008, -6/+11unbelievable!
- Kautylia, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Oh my god. Did any of you people even read the article and not just the deceptively misquoted title of this post?
"As both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have noted, the situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated since 2005 and now we are in the midst of sectarian violence. While she has always supported a limited number of residual forces to protect our embassy and go after terrorists, unlike Senator McCain, Senator Clinton will start bringing our troops home when she is President and end the war."
That is her position now. The situation has changed. In 2005, it looked like one thing. It looks like something else now. That's all there is too it.
He told the Chicago Tribune in July of 2004, that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
That was from Obama. And he supports withdrawl now. So both candidates have changed their positions. - Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7Go back to Russia
- patpl22391, on 05/05/2008, -11/+16Obama and Hillary have agreed on I think it was 85 out of 86 votes in the Senate. You are deluding yourself if you think there is any real difference between them.
- Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5In soviet Russia, Hillary throw away vote on you!
- gthrank, on 05/05/2008, -4/+8She will stop at nothing to try to ***** Obama over.
- MisterFreeze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4That's funny because I don't give a ***** about anything you've ever said you repetitive *****.
- MisterFreeze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Unless being for the Iraq war will get her elected, then she's for it again.
- akula89, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6you'll agree too when the country is bankrupt, for nothing
- LeeSoong, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4100 more Years of Mission Accomplished !
- Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4And Iraq wasn't one of them, BURIED
- kenedamick, on 05/05/2008, -6/+10Well she did vote for the war. She's a lieber-woman - neo con in dem's clothing.
- Halbermunken, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Do not be surprised. The plan has all along been for a more permament presence in the middle-east. This agenda, by "think thank" PNAC was formed before 9/11. It is available for all to read, called "Rebuilding Americans defences". And it is really not as much about defence as it is imperialism.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6I disagree. He realized it was a mistake to go into war in the first place at a time when few had the balls to go against the majority. Once in office (and us already at war), he voted for funding. As he himself said, "Once you've insisted in driving the car in the ditch, we've gotta get it out now." You can't put our troops in Iraq and, for example, vote against funding them. Then they're just ducks in a barrel, waiting to get picked off.
I'll vote for the guy with the sound judgment and balls to recognize that we were going in the wrong direction at a time when most were backing dubya. - CommonSense121, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT!!
(IT'S ON PAGE 2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_22005.pdf - johnfn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3>> Do really think you be diplomatic with someone who wants saw your head off?
Yes. Yes I do. Because it's much better than us sawing their heads off first. War is a last solution, not an option that should be utilized wherever possible. - mlirblur, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Cmon people, how long will it take you to realize that moderate democrats and republicans like Hill and McCain and sometimes even Obama are EXACTLY THE SAME?!??!?! Vote third party and represent what you truly believe, not what you're told to believe!
- flintmecha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Yeah, you're right! Why are we picking apart something she, a person running for presidential nomination, said three years ago, when we could be picking apart something Reverand Wright, somebody not even involved in the political process, said six or seven years ago?
- phybere, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3No, the "cool thing to do" seems to be to spam pro-clinton propaganda under several different usernames.
- TrojanGuy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Why wouldn't you care about what a presidential candidate said 3 years ago? I mean, no matter WHO the candidate is, I'd think it'd be relevant if they said it 3 years ago. Now, if you want to drag up something they said when they were 25 years old then you could make the argument convincingly that it was irrelevant. But 3 years? Come on.
- StealthMonkey, on 05/05/2008, -5/+8I hate to break it to you. The next president of the US will not withdraw from Iraq. Hear me out before you digg me down.
Not John McCain. Not Hillary Clinton. Not even Barack Obama. Here is what is going to happen if Hillary or Barack end up in the oval office: After a few weeks or a few months, whenever the cries for withdrawal get loud enough, he/she will come out and say, "I originally intended to withdraw the troops from Iraq. However, now that I have been fully brought up to date on all information regarding Iraq, I believe it is in the best interest of the country that we stay in Iraq. The Bush administration withheld vital information regarding the war in Iraq. In lieu of this new information, we will maintain our present troop level for the time being."
Neither of them intend to end the war, just as the democrat congress that took power over a year ago doesn't intend to end the war. Here's why: Regardless of what you believe regarding the war, withdrawal will be seen, in general, as defeat. The democrats were more than willing to hang defeat over Bush's head, that is why you heard so much about ending the war from democrats in congress before they won. However, now that they are in control.... nothing. They don't want defeat hung over their head. With a democrat in the White House, that is even more the case. The war in Iraq isn't going to end, no matter who is elected. - harmil, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5I can't agree with that. I honestly think that Obama has his head around the fact that this is not a war, and that when you approach a nation that needs to be rebuilt, there is only so much that you can do for them as a distant power, especially when the rest of the region literally thinks you're there to put an end to their way of life.
Instead, I think he got it exactly right when he said that we need to engage the powers in the region including those that don't like us. We need to create an atmosphere where diplomacy can win out against armed insurgency. It will take years to resolve, but it does not require massive military force. That's why we're failing. We're trying to figure out how to solve a diplomatic problem with force, and that just can't be done (without literally becoming an empire). - fromonesource, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4We'll assume you meant this submission and not this candidate.
- theaceoffire, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Someone better plan on getting us out, because we can not (Financially) stay in without destroying what little is left of our economy.
What would be worse? Admitting defeat and blaming Bush, or pretend we are winning until someone else has to make a very similar choice? - WehrisMike, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Will try our best. Lots of Hillary signs around town here in Lafayette.
- inactive, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2This feminazi wants the country to bend over for her so she can put her strap-on up the Ass of all Americans... Don't let it happen America.
- Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3You're right, instead they should set up call centers and circulate emails that spread lies about Hillary's positions. Thats far more in tandem with democracy
- silverharbinger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't think that a new president withdrawing our forces from Iraq would be looked at as a defeat by most rational Americans. What it would be seen as is an admission that the previous administration made a serious mistake and it needs to be corrected instead of stubbornly clung to. It would be a major sign to the rest of the nations of the world that we are no longer going to be the kind of nation that will attack and occupy them if they have resources we need. It would show some level of fiscal prudence, not throwing away billions (possibly trillions) of dollars fighting a war with little in the way of allies or assistance, when our country is already deeply in debt and in need of infrastructural improvements. Most importantly of all, it would show that we value the lives of our armed service people more than we value having them die fighting over drummed-up reasons that most of the rest of the world (wisely) did not accept.
By having our forces stay in the Iraq it may be delaying a civil war in the region that could end up involving more than just that country, but this same situation could have happened if Saddam Hussein had died or was assassinated. On the other hand, the tensions in the region may be able to be resolved by strong international diplomacy. If worst comes to worst and our forces do have to go back for a third time, let's at least do it for the right reasons! - greenm1981, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Neocons: An ideological faction based on a fundamental belief in the infallibility of free markets, unrestricted trade, the absence of regulation, and state's only role is to enforce contracts and provide defense. All public goods should be privatized, including primary and secondary education. The use of force is applied when necessary if the public rejects the application of its ideologies.
Democrats: A US political party which traditionally advocates a larger role for the state. Areas of primary concern are regulation of industry, human rights advocacy, equitable wealth distribution, access to public goods, social safety nets, and free education.
Socialism: The state owns mode of production and the economy is centrally planned. Susceptible to fraud and corruption. - Danktolker, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2sorry, I thought it was obvious. ^/s are you happy?
- h1forlife, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Does she even want to win the nomination anymore?
It seems that every day something like this shows up on digg. - zepher5150, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Are you saying Obama didn't make a stand when a majority of the Democrats like Hillary rolled over...well he did. Maybe he was not a senator yet, but he stood up for what he believed in and in hindsight he was 100% right.
That is exactly why he is the best candidate left to help turn this mess that the Bush adminstration created.
There is no bigger issue then the cause and effects of the Iraq War on America...The dollar...the cost of oil..the housing crisis.
Like it really matters how Obama got elected senator....Look it Hilllary...claiming she is the better candidate with vast amounts of experience...yet in 2002, when she was a senator he backed Bush and October 2002 Iraq War Resolution...not to mention she also backed Bush's Patriot Act.
There is reason enough for you to realize Obama is the right person to be America's next president. - darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Name ONE thing Obama has attacked ANYONE about... He's 100% positive and that's what the MSM and the pundits hate.
His nose is clean and it's killing them to have nothing to warchant about.
It's about time we had someone like him run for office. After the past 8 disastrous years, we certainly need it. - Sage920, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2please god no
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It is technically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win the nomination because there are not enough remaining delegates. It's like playing Chess or Connect-Four and knowing that you've lost. You still play so your opponent can have his victory.
Getting up from a Chessboard before your opponent has won fairly is more along the lines of how Republicans play games. If they lose, they change the rules (look at the Florida election in 2000). Catherine Harris was George W. Bush/McCain's campaign adviser, and she happened to "decide" that the vote count be stopped in 2000.
That, or they just get up from the table and deny their opponent their due propers, which is just plain rude. It results in more insecure Republicans and more Republican lying, cheating, and stealing. Either way, it's very unhealthy for her to act like a Republican crybaby. -
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is