digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Democratic candidate questions Bush's mental health

rawstory.com — "I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich told The Inquirer's editorial board. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."Kucinich was referring to President Bush's warning of dire consequences if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Jimmyb207, on 11/01/2007, -18/+79Bush is on the dark side of the moon without a flashlight. They should of hauled his ass away years ago. Him and Cheney .
    • InetRoadkill, on 11/01/2007, -8/+41I would have thought that his mental health was questionable the day he announced he heard voices from God and then decided to act on them. That's usually a pretty good sign of mental illness.
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4I think thats just pandering to the religious right whackjobs.
        • niczar, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5That would be if he had otherwise displayed any evidence of being smart enough to pander. Nah, all signs point to both his functional neurons actually believing the voices.
      • BenRS, on 10/31/2007, -5/+7Ha ha you have me in stiches; this must be the wittiest and most original comment I have ever seen. Kudos to you, you now have my unshakable admiration.
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5Not here in the US, no sire!

        People here were just convinced he was a man of god and that he was singled out by the old man. They took it seriously, several I told the same to, looked at me as if I came from a different galaxy. I was almost expecting to see crosses and garlic beads waved in front of my face judging by their looks.
        • bugsy187, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5It's really just Calvinism or Divine Right in a modern form. You know, how kings used to rationalize their power and privilege. Of course god must love them, because he gave them an army and gold. It sounds ridiculous from a modern perspective.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/31/2007, -4/+5I think the Cheney incident when he host his lawyers face was to intimidate the nation, and that my friend is a sure sign that something was wrong, and to believe that the lawyer had to apologize is a complete tragedy! how many stories do you read where the victim has to apologize to the aggressor? How many?
    • known, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Bush is suffering from too much of "naive" optimism.
    • sjl127, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Kucinich believed he saw a UFO - the aliens are coming. Idiot. Yack!
  • noshootfoot, on 10/31/2007, -8/+9lvle is LOL. I bet he has a real crazy laugh!
    • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2+6 for little more than a thoroughly adolescent mumble? The Digg kids are out tonight!
  • TwinTurboMike, on 10/31/2007, -10/+37Kucinich may be on to something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo
    • art42, on 10/31/2007, -4/+10OMG! Is that the same puppet?

      "Slowly developing cognitive deficits as demonstrated so clearly by the President can represent only one diagnosis, and that is presenile dementia." - Dr. Joseph M. Price, The Atlantic, October 2004."
      From the video, original article here: http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/09180 ...

      Thanks for the video link.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -3/+14I've noticed that for some time. I wonder if it meant he's suffering from the effects of substance abuse earlier in his life, or if he's back on something (perhaps an old favorite, like alcohol, perhaps something new).

      It also makes me think about when Colin Powell said that "everyone" at the White House used Ambien...
    • postingbh, on 11/01/2007, -3/+8Wow. I've never heard Bush sound so sharp.
      • probrian, on 10/31/2007, -3/+11he got a slower teleprompter.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5"Dangit, Cheney, this here 'lag' thingie is worse'n when I play mah Paladin in World o' Warcraft!"
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -11/+5"Kucinich may be on to something"
      Anti-psychotic drugs?
      • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7If so, think of what they'd do for Dubya.
        • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Make HIM think he has a chance in Hell of being elected President?
  • WhiteRaven, on 11/01/2007, -41/+16Yes, Bush's words have real impact... HE'S TRYING TO AVERT DISASTER! When there's a fire, you shout fire. When militant religious fanatics control nations and vast wealth and speak of their belief that the world must and will be ruled by Islamic law, you start warning people that world war three is in the making... because it IS.

    Just because you disagree does not make the observation crazy. Nor is it inappropriate to say these things. Hiding from the truth won't make it go away. Convincing people that the threat is real is the only way to stop it.
    • nexah3, on 10/31/2007, -8/+17I can change one word... and guess who it sounds like?

      When militant religious fanatics control nations and vast wealth and speak of their belief that the world must and will be ruled by Christian law, you start warning people that world war three is in the making... because it IS.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/31/2007, -12/+14It would be just as bad if Christians were trying to make the ten commandments law through violence and intimidation. For example, militant Christians have been involved in a little violence and a few murders directed against abortion. Those events have been quickly and easily handled by law enforcement and the courts. Were the KKK to abruptly begin a spree of violence across the country, something more significant would have to be done. In fact, that was something Grant had to contend with and it lead him to suspend habeas corpus. If some kind of deranged saint want-to-be overthrew the government of Mexico and press-ganged hundreds of thousands into a holy army, that would be a problem.

        Christianity is every bit as capable of coming unhinged and provoking world war... but right now in this century, the fact of the matter is, it *isn't*. There are no armies of devout Christians willing to die for their god. On the other hand, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution DOES exist. The difference is elementary. Islamic militantism kills thousands on a regular basis, Christianity is not doing so in this particular century.

        Leftists are currently trying to conjure up some controversy over the term "Islamofascist". They claim that it is inaccurate and misleading. They are wrong. Islam is a religion. Fascism is a type of government and society that imposes onerous authoritarianism on the populace through both propaganda and force. In Iran today, "moral security police" patrol the streets. THAT is Islamofascism and it is the goal of militant Muslims to impose it on the world. Many see it as their ethical duty to force all people to follow the laws of Islam. Denying such facts and making lame comparisons to fiery preachers on a Christian pulpit is exactly the kind of short-sighted and ignorant behavior that leads to violent conflicts that kill tens of millions... to whit, a world war.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -3/+7So you think Bush stating that God told him to invade the Middle East is hunky-dorey?
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/31/2007, -5/+5It is irrelevant. The invasion is a wise thing to do. Whatever other motivations Bush may have are irrelevant. THE THREAT MUST BE FACED. Churchill was widely reviled as a warmonger as well. Hell, perhaps both Bush and Churchill ARE classic examples of warmongers. But every tool has it's purpose. When there is a legitimate threat that needs to be combated, having a warmonger in the hot seat is the best way to get things done.

            I notice that you completely failed to address anything I actually said. Do you deny the danger Islamic militantism poses to the world or are you ready to accept the evidence? My post was substantive and pointed to specific pieces of evidence within Iran that demonstrate how dangerous this Islamic movement is. You responded by dredging up a three or four year old claim that Bush made a passing remark concerning his faith. Really? You truly have nothing more relevant to contribute?

            The Middle-east must be stabilized. And no, the middle east prior to 9/11 or the invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq was not stable. It was at a rolling boil. That's why 9/11 happened. Stabilization requires sane leadership and a free populace. We invaded Iraq because it was the best place to start. Afghanistan lacked any hint of stability and offered us nothing to build on. Iraq on the other hand had a more educated and more sophisticated and more secular culture. The only serious point against Iraq as a country was its vain, power- hungry dictator. Fortunately, that dictator was both politically and militarily vulnerable to being deposed. So, we did so. The fact that this has resulted in chaos and violence in the short term is the price that has to be paid. Hell, the entire thing may simply not work. Perhaps Iraq will never stabilize. But the risk of failure is not a reason not to try. The stakes are too high to simply delude ourselves into believing that things will work out okay if we just sit on our hands and hope for the best.
          • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3And Bush said God told him to invade the Middle East where?
            Please cite source... and don't make me laugh at your source
          • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Sure thing, manchu2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto ...

            As for laughing, I guess that depends on what you find funny.
          • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Considering he was talking to God fearing people and not gutless liberals - his comments make sense.
          • Terr01, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3@WhiteRaven: Actually, I think you've got it mixed up. Bush has more in common with Chamberlain.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
          • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Bobski, relying on a voice in your head and just naming it "god" instead of actually thinking is hardly the act of a brave person. Bush, a man who cries and claims to have seen ghosts in the White House, is probably a taco short of a combo plate.

            Not to mention that he and those he surrounds himself with have been pretty much completely wrong on every prediction regarding Iraq and what's happening there, and utterly inept at executing anything resembling a plan thus far. They've spent more time making Iraq a terrorism factory than we spent fighting WWII, and by all accounts we'll end up with a religious despot running the place, which will most likely still be unstable. What on Earth makes you think a "supreme being" had any hand at all in the ***** that BushCo has created?
          • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2He was talking to people who firmly believe in hearing voices in their heads and claiming it is God. Are you such a moron you cannot see the leverage claiming the same happens to you?

            You stand in the middle of a bunch of Neanderthals with pointy sticks and you're *not* going to pull out your lighter and try to impress them with your "magic?"

            If no, you deserve the pot you'll certainly boil in.
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4@Terr01

            Well, that articles pretty pointless. Of course there is differences between Bush and Churchill. Of course, some of the differences the article cites are a bit... well... misleading. I'll rattle off a few of it's flaws for you.

            Bush did not *choose* to go ahead without building a broad(er) alliance, he was refused at every turn. To build an alliance, those you wish to ally with must be willing to act. Instead, France and Germany and Russia chose to oppose any attempt to bring order to the middle east. You can't make an alliance with people that want to see you beaten.

            In no way, shape or form has Bush ever exceeded his authority as President. Nor has he *expanded* that authority. He is exercising exactly the same powers all presidents before him possessed and frequently used.

            But all of this is immaterial. You are merely avoiding the point of the comparison. It is a matter of recognizing threats and meeting them with force or threat of force. It is your denial that the threat exists and your belief that appearing strong somehow will exacerbate what little threat you are willing to recognize that places you squarely in Chamberlain's company.

            Of course Bush is not the reincarnation of Churchill. Don't turn an analogy into a strawman by presuming to stretch it too far. The central point remains unassailable... Churchill's warnings of danger and recognition that force would inevitably be the only effective response corresponds very much to the position Bush is in today. And like Churchill, Bush is reviled for his views.
        • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Actually you have to be completely insane... you blame everyone in the Arab world for all of the worlds problems... You seem to ignore the fact that the US has INCREASED radicalism support by an unprovoked attack and invasion in of Iraq.. You know, the country Cheney visited and shook the hand of Saddam when the US was supporting him and his regime and inhibiting the investigation of his atrocities during the Reagan and early Bush Sr. days. Or when the US gave money to and supported the Taliban during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Or when the US abandoned Afghanistan moderates and anti-Talibans after the Soviets left... You clearly have NO IDEA of the deep involvement of the US in creating and propagating the mess of the Middle East through badly flawed foreign policy decisions.
          • WhiteRaven, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Well, since you can't tell the difference between Cheney and Rumsfeld, you post kind of lacks credibility.

            Beyond that, your one-sided evaluation of US foreign policy is just foolish. You list the actions America has taken but you completely ignore the *reasons* for the actions. When all you focus on is the cost without any reference to the benefit, of course you can make everything look bad.

            The war in Afghanistan seriously drained the USSR. This is good. And isn't what you call "abandonment" of the moderates following Russia's pull-out something you would normally praise as *not* interfering in a country's internal problems?

            *I* understand America's involvement in the middle east. The fact that you fail to account for the *why* of that involvement indicates that you in fact do NOT.

            Yes, radicalism is on the increase. This is not an after-school special. This is reality. Standing up to bullies does not make them back down, it makes them mad and more violent.

            That doesn't mean you let them get away with murder.

            The goal of our involvement is *long term stability*. It is a given that violence will increase in the short term. This is a process that will bear fruit in twenty years, not five. And that's fine since the fate we are trying to avert is global warfare costing tens of millions of lives.
        • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Yakski, you are the insane one. History didn't start the day you developed a brain cell. Read, read, read, read, read and when you're done read some more - and I don't mean Digg or Wikicrapia. I mean read some real history - more so - read The Bible, read The Quran. I can guarantee you will never look at the world the same again.

          You are the liberal equivalent of the dumbass redneck skinhead who calls himself Christian and knows Jesus because his buddies told him so. That jackass hasn't a clue until he reads The Bible for himself.

          Any ass who thinks Islam is a peaceful religion is equally a dumbass until he also reads the Quran.
          • Terr01, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Bobski, you've ignored his points regarding historical foreign policy lessons in order to make ad-hominem attacks. When you actually use real empirical data, it's clear that terrorism is up since the Iraq Invasion.

            There's something like 3 Muslims for ever 4 Christians in this world. The proportion of either group engaged in non-state-sanctioned violence is vanishingly small in the big picture, and violence that IS state-sanctioned should be blamed on politics.
          • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3I made no ad-hominem attacks other than to reference an equivalence. But all that could be argued forever. I also did *not * ignore his so-called historical points. What I suggested is that you cannot pull a segment of history out of a continuous timeline and expect to make any real sense of any of it. Even the attempt to try is utter foolishness.

            Terror is "UP" only in localized time. We only now have a heightened awareness because the terror was brought to our shores. It has always been there. Take a wider- longer view of history and you will find that the entire history of Islam is drenched in terror. Even within my own life time I can remember countless reports of Islamic terror coming from the Middle East. Now Suddenly it is escalated because instead of being "over there" it is now "over here?"

            The proportion of Christians involved in any level of any kind of terrorism, or is even contemplating such is nil compared to the unconscionably huge majority of Muslims who are either directly, indirectly or passively supporting terrorism.

            True Christianity is borne of peace. Islam it not. A true and honest reading of history and the documents that drive it will bear this out.
          • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Terror is up world wide you moron... if you call the earth local I guess then you are right but for the rest of the sane population terrorism is way up since the Iraq invasion... And your time argument is useless... mankind is just a tiny blip on the billions of years of planet earth but that hardly is relevant to the conversation.
            You ignore the Christian terrorists in Africa that right now are killing tens of thousands ... and you ignore the long bloody history of Christianity ..
            Worse you completely ignore the historical framing for the conflict in the middle east and the US mucking up that has gone on there... (Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, not Cheney by the way, as I wrote earlier... sorry my bad... I mixed up the two nuts by accident). Every historical point I made was true and framed properly... The very sad truth of the matter is that coming out of WW I, the US was very close to the Arab world... bumbling missteps since WWII having caused the US to be viewed extremely poorly by the Arab world of today.
        • yakski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You clearly are in denial of ANY US created messes... apparently to you the US by definition is perfect. You clearly do not understand that YOU murder people when you support the death of innocent civilians to the tune of hundreds of thousands in Iraq ... YOU clearly have no historical context for the framing of the wars and history of the far east and middle east. YOU clearly lack the intelligence to realize that lying to start wars.. Bush... starting a war (like Hitler) .. and continuing to kill innocent civilians as part of a "stability" agenda is incredibly IMMORAL!!!!!.. There is no long term stability created through the injustice of dead innocents.

          You did not even get the fact that the US pulled ALL of the money out of Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet invasion thus leaving the country open to radical Islamists... that's right the US supported ALL the groups opposing the Soviets with cash and weapons while the war was on but then promptly abandoned the country and the moderates after the Soviets left... YOU CLEARLY DO NOT KNOW HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          I pointed out MY error which YOU did not find you moron about Cheney and Rumsfeld .. YOU clearly did not even know this history which together with all of your other historical blunders indicates you have no real intelligence about this issue... go play some WOW you child.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -5/+8Can you please point out anywhere in the world where a Christian terrorist group is trying to enforce Papal Law on a population?
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -4/+5Why do you assume that Christan "law" would be Catholic? The wackier fundies that want a theocracy are generally Protestant from the Baptist, Pentecostal and 7th Day Adventest wings.
          • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5Actually, I didn't assume it.... but you can't really dance around multiple denominations and make your point now, can you?
            Anyway, please point out the Protestant terrorists, be they Baptists, Pentecostals, or 7th Day Adventists that want to enforce their denominational law on a population
            (That all better now?)
          • Terr01, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Well, first off, terrorism is primarily a tactic only used by minorities---majorities typically use legal (if not necessarily moral) means.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_F ...
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Good point manchu. Muslim and Christian are both made up of many denominations, subgroups, splinters, etc. "Factions," if you will.

            Sunni, Shia, Wahabbi, Sikh, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Whatever. They all believe they are the "one true religion" and they all worship the same exact god of Abraham.
        • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Um, gee, manchu, are you simply ignoring anti-abortion terrorists who shoot abortion doctors or blow up abortion clinics?

          I'm a catholic, and I know and am intellectually honest enough to admit that fundamentalist christians truly believe that America is "a christian nation" and will resort to violence to change a political system to fit with their narrow religious views.

          Wake up, dude. Extremists always resort to violence. Moderate yourself, before you obliterate yourself.
          • brokencrystal, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4This has nothing to do with the denomination. These denominations are not teaching this stuff. Not where I live anyway... The cults with twisted views are the ones doing this stuff. They may put a BMW sticker on their Honda and call it a BMW... Either way, it's still a Honda. Most Christians teach love... as for the ones who don't, they need to evaluate their Christianity.
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I would definitely question whether any religiously based movement is truly and honestly in any way religious. But whether they are muslim fundamentalists, or christian fundamentalists, that is what they call themselves.

            Both religions are really religions of peace. They also can be very easily perverted into "religions" of war. Childish minds always seem to go more for the violence than for the peace, though. Peace is just way more complicated to get your mind around. "KILL THEM ALL" is so much easier for simple minds to grasp.
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1brokencrystal, you are so right. I'm not sure if your metaphor about putting BMW stickers on Hondas makes a lot of sense or will make sense to most people, though.

            It is more like these guys are wolves in sheep's clothing. They purport themselves to be "saving" us, but they really don't care about "us" or where this country ends up, they just want their agenda at the forefront and they just want to further their ideological values.

            They want an empire. They could care less about democracy.

        • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -2/+4Phil, why don't you wake up? Yes there is a potential for what you say and occasionally there are people who pretend to be Christians who commit unspeakable acts. But those are very far and few. Please don't insult your own intelligence in front of the world by believing those few aberrations even resemble the level of violence instigated in the name of Islam.
        • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Oh ***** Bobski, are trying to tell me that "only a few christians" are violent, but most of the muslims are violent???

          Come one, that is only a weak apologetic stance, simply because you can sort of agree with your own kind.

          Unspeakable acts will always be wrong. When it is committed by people with a skin color different than yours, you can attribute it to the skin color. When they are actually "one of your own" you have to find a rationalization to make them seem aberrant and unique.

          Think it througt, be intellectually honest, and find the answer.
    • shabumike, on 10/31/2007, -7/+17You believe that guys ***** rhetoric after all the the lies leading to the quagmire in Iraq ! Maybe you need to read a book and stop watching Fox.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -8/+7Quagmire? LOL....you "Chicken Littles" have been screaming "quagmire" since week one... in Afghanistan!
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6So everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and Afghanistan, then? You know,the democracy, being greeted as liberators, and Iraqi oil paying for the whole thing? The WMDs were found as promised, Osama is dead, no new terrorists are being created, the Taliban isn't regrouping, and Americans are beloved around the world?

          Where's my "#1" foam hand? I need to wave it since we're doing so well.
        • shabumike, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5Sorry I forgot our fearless leader already declared victory. Please read a book.
        • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -4/+5So tell me, Oh knowledgeable one - just what books have you read? Oh - that's right - the book of Digg comments you agree with.
        • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3it is amazing that people who knowingly question a faction's agenda are "chicken littles" while somehow the fearmongering profit-seekers' preset agenda can always be viewed as the right course.

          PNAC laid this all out, in order to secure permanent bases in the middle east, knowing that Saudi Arabia had already said "get the fnck out, we cannot sustain your presence in light of anti-american sentiment".

          It isn't a quagmire. It's just a bad idea. We learned this from Vietnam. We learned this from Somalia. We learned this from doing it right in Panama, Haiti, and Bosnia. Knock them out, then get the fnck out.
        • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Actually nobody mentioned Afghanistan as a quagmire... just redherring you.
      • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -7/+6Here's a book you should read: the Quran.

        "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

        "I have been made victorious through terror" -- Muhammed

        Tell me what part of those quotes are NOT relevant to what is happening today. You really need to pick your enemies with far more discretion.
        • shabumike, on 11/07/2007, -3/+6It's fiction, just like the bible. Maybe you better calm down a little and read some relaxing fairy tales.
        • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -5/+5Calm down? Who thinks I'm tense? Oh, yeah - you. But what you believe about me is a fiction, so you don't exist.
        • shabumike, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4The capitals imply increased tone of voice . Have a nice day!
        • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -5/+5Oh, I'm sorry. I used caps on one word and I seem to have offended you. Here, let me correct that:
          "Tell me what part of those quotes are *not* relevant to what is happening today. You really need to pick your enemies with far more discretion."
          There is more to your liking?
          No?
          As I figured, another witless leftist wonder.
          • nihilite, on 11/07/2007, -4/+3Ah yes, your beautiful bible. Couldnt be anything violent in there? Let's take some ***** out of context here.

            From the book of Numbers:
            31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
            31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
            31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

            from the book of exodus
            35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

            Leviticus
            24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

            Acts
            3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

            I can go all day. The bible is violent, sexist, and just absurd. Before you criticize someone else's magic book, you better read your own.
          • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -3/+5I'm sorry? You claim it is my beautiful bible? You lose.
            I guess that's what you get for making an ass of yourself.
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Bobski, He didn't make an ass of himself, and I don't know that you or he won or lost. He may have misjudged you about believing, literaly, in the bible, but that certainly doesn't make an ass out of him.

            Correct him if he's wrong about what he misconstrued from your statement. Let him know you don't believe in the bible as literal fact (or are smart enough to see it as parables and literary allusions to tell a story, if that's the case). Calling him the loser doesn't do anything to further your side of the discussion. Let's have our opinions and be honest and allow for a real discussion.



        • Narcowski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Yes, the Quran says just about whatever you want it to when you look hard enough... so does the Bible.
        • yakski, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Obviously you have never read the bible where genetic guilt is assumed and genetic superiority is flaunted... where murder of children and women is condoned and promoted etc....on and on and on... obviously this is the old testament but anyone truly reading the bible would know about the horrible things promoted there as well as the good things... pulling one line from ANY document tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the true meaning of the document.
        • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -3/+5Obviously I've read The Bible thrice and the Quran twice. Throughly - cover-to-cover. I know for a fact that you cannot claim the same because your lame attempts a rebuttal are so riddled with holes.

          Here is what I know:
          The Bible is full of discrepancies and is a cause for ongoing discussion.

          Anyone who wishes to enter into debate about the horrors referenced in The Bible instantly loses when confronting a Christian.

          Christians are only bound by the New Covenant - The New Testament. The Old Testament is there for reference only.
          Yes, you can run intellectually void games around the weak - so what have you proved?

          Now here is the one thing you smart asses throughly and completely hang yourselves by the necks and it will be to your death.

          Muslims are completely and throughly convinced that their Quran is the perfect Word of God. They pride themselves on the fact they can trace a perfect lineage to the beginning of their text. They Live and Die by the fact that the Quran is absolutely and utterly devoid of discrepancy of any kind. It is Perfection Beyond Perfection.

          YOU CANNOT QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE THE CONTEXT IS PERFECT.

          Google is your friend. Go chew on that for a while you liberal meat puppets.
        • nihilite, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3you are a fool. If all muslims believed that they needed to cut off the heads of non-believers, why are muslims living peacefully alongside other religions in almost every country in the world, including the USA? Explain that one, Einstein.

          I too have read the bible. I have not read the quran. you only have to meet muslims to understand that they are no different from christians or hindus or shintoists. There are crazy people everywhere (for example, the christian nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics). Religion does not make one a fanatic. this period in time is marked by actions of a tiny majority who claim to represent an entire faith.... they want a war between religions. are you so gullible that you play into their hands?

          chew on that you rabid neocon assclown.
        • yakski, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3Wow what a nutcase you are... Christians ignore the old testament!!! I guess that means the 10 commandments are no longer valid. I guess that means all Jews are doomed also since they have no new testament... Oh, yeah and so are the mormons and the 7th day adventists and the all the fundamental chrisitans since they all use the old testament (or in the mormons case the book of mormon). Just ignore all the things done in the name of the Christian god of the old testament from killing to invasion ... or is this a different god.. 2 gods??? wow you gotta be a nutcase...
    • maanwi, on 10/31/2007, -4/+8Bush doesn't seem that interested in disaster aversion, to me. He seems to be playing at brinkmanship.
      • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Here's brinkmanship- I personally and very seriously challenge you to a duel to the death. Pistols at close range. You think I'm joking? look me up.

        THAT is brinkmanship. And I am dead serious.

        The ball is in your court.

        Put up or shut up. You have no idea what brinkmanship is until you take me up on my offer.
        • nihilite, on 11/03/2007, -1/+3challenging people to duels? you need a hug, dude.

          I personally and very seriously challenge you to take your fat aggression elsewhere.
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1I am pretty sure that what you wrote, Bobski, actually constitutes a crime. At least in Rhode Island, where you will get 1-7 years in jail for even challenging for a duel.

          I'm sure there are similar laws in most states, as assault appears to be merely the threat of violence against another.

          Your IP has been registered, and your local law enforcement officials have been notified.

          Don't drop the soap.
    • Klak, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5you don't shout fire when someone may or may not be able to obtain a lighter in a few years
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Wow, WhiteRaven. Can we talk you off of the ledge? Is that possible??

      You are paranoid, and you have been watching way too much Fox News.

      The world is not about to end. Crazy half-educated muslims are not about to kill you and your children.

      RELAX!

      You are basically running around with your panties in a wad, afraid of a group of pissed off people. Meanwhile, America is a very strong and resilient nation that can withstand some amazing threats.

      Don't be afraid. If there is ever a true and dire threat, we'll all be together on that one. Even though you've been led to believe "liberals" are out to destroy america, it isn't true. They'll be fighting right alongside you.
      • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Why is it that you stoned out of your gourd liberals think that anyone who even resembles someone who actually uses their brain is somehow tense and need to relax?

        It seems to me that all your "relaxing" is what is about to come crashing down on your heads and it is you who need to tense up a bit.

        Chilling out sure didn't help those kids in North Carolina much, did it?
        • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Brainless is the definition of you apparently... you cannot even discuss without threatening violence... you act just like the terrorists you revile so much... so intellectually empty headed but full of hate .. just like them.
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3I'm not a stoned out of my gourd liberal. I am a true and intellectually honest conservative.

          Just because I cannot stand by and see the neocon crazies take over and destroy the republican party does not make me a liberal. Granted, I'm certainly to the left of these fundamentalist crazies, but I'm still far right from the center, which makes me very much a true republican.

          I haven't smoked pot since college, and that was almost 20 years ago.

          Stop believing in the divisive stereotypes they feed you on Fox News. They are radicalizing you and you don't even realize it.
  • jthomp3120, on 10/31/2007, -11/+12kuchinich rEVOLution!
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -7/+7yaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
      • john2kx, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4YYEEAAAARRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
      • thebellmaster1x, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3My love for you is like a truck, BERSERRRRRKER!!!!!!!!
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -5/+1Don't steal Ron Paul's campaign motto. The "Revolution" with LOVE spelled backwards is Ron Paul's.

      Kucinich is just this diminutive dude with a hot Wife. Ron Paul is an old guy with a bone to pick with the way our system has completely diverged from American values.
  • HereticHulk, on 11/01/2007, -19/+7Ron Paul/ Kucinich 08'!?

    Bu$h is bat sh*t crazy, we all know that. Its the puppet mast Darth Cheney we need to worry about.
    • arunforce, on 10/31/2007, -4/+3I believe it's Dick Vader.
    • fantasticFlan, on 11/01/2007, -3/+5Paul and Kucinich are direct opposites on all but a few issues, one's a D, the other's an R, they won't be running together.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Don't be confused by the "R"... Ron Paul is not a Republican
        • fantasticFlan, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3A member of the Republican party running for the Republican nomination but not a Republican, that is confusing.
        • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Close, but try this formation instead: a member of the Republican Party who shares nothing in common with Republicans and who detests all that is Republican running for the Republican nomination. Finally....a Republican that the media can get behind!
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2You are confusing an extreme right-wing faction (the neocons) with the entire republican party.
    • Mothrog, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Don't vote. You obviously have no ***** idea what these candidates stand for.
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Who's this "we", Kimosabe?
  • withears, on 11/07/2007, -13/+34Wow, big news. Kucinich said what 80% of rational Americans have been thinking (and saying) for the last year and a half.
    • Bobski, on 11/07/2007, -5/+3As the stoned liberal children digg up this comment in hopeless wishing it was actually the truth.
      • yakski, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3You clearly fall into the irrational portion of Americans..
    • manchu2, on 11/07/2007, -4/+2I love the self-serving definitional defenses you throw up: 80% of "rational" Americans .... with anyone not agreeing with you automatically falling out of the definition of "rational"
      How sad........
  • designer, on 10/31/2007, -24/+10Kucinich is questioning Bush's mental health. This is the same gut that said he saw a UFO?
    • arunforce, on 10/31/2007, -4/+9I'd believe Kucinich over Bush if Kucinich said the sky was falling.
      • Bobski, on 11/02/2007, -3/+3I believe you'd cross a busy highway if I told you there was bong on the other side with your name on it.
        • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I believe you can barely read or write and must be in the 5th grade.
    • leo78, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5and.......so did Jimmy Carter.
    • john2kx, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8Would he be any more credible if he said he believed in God?
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Absolutely... because that's a belief. Kucinich just flat out said he saw UFOs...slight difference
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4UFO = Unidentified Flying Object

          I've seen many, but I don't think any of those are space ship from other planets. Huge difference.
          • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2So has every single person living in this day and age seen "strange things"

            Beyond that I can guarantee you I've see far more bizarre things than you will never see in the night sky. But then, I lived near a Military/NASA complex. Things out of the ordinary were common place.

            The thing is - unlike Kucinich - no one would ever give a thought about mentioning it - it was just too run-of-the-mill.

            Why is it such a big deal to him? Why does he keep mentioning it?
          • manchu2, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1And Kucinich didn't mean some light he couldn't identify...he meant a space ship from another planet...just ask him!
        • nihilite, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2"Absolutely... because that's a belief."

          what? so the bible says that a ghost/baby/man god created the world, then flooded it and killed almost everything on the planet, then impregnated a virgin to be born in order to kill himself to save us from himself. so now believers line up to drink his blood and eat his flesh.

          That's just ***** crazy. I can't prove it didn't happen, but that isn't really enough to make me believe in a magic book.
          • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1I'm totally at a loss to understand how you ever came to choose "nihilite" as a screen name.....
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3manchu, you need to go back to elementary school. Really, please, go back to elementary school.

          be·lief –noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

          There is NO slight difference between believing in God and believing in UFOs. Granted, if you don't believe in God, and there turns out to be a God, you may go to hell. However, believing in UFOs is no more sane or insane. You just won't go to hell if you don't believe in UFOs and there turns out to be UFOs.

          Seriously, I think you need to become a tad more sophisticated in your thinking. But this probably went right over your head. Keep reading that dictionary definition above, maybe you'll figure it out.
          • Bobski, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2Don't you mean "come back to elementary school"?

            I'd suggest you leave elementary school first and experience a bit of the real world before you start offering advice.
          • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Phil....poor, poor Phil....
            If I say I believe in God because I've been raised in a Christian family and I feel in my heart that I've been touched by the Holy Spirit....that's a Belief. In general, it's a very positive thing, especially in faiths that feature such Golden Oldies as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called 'Sons of God'", and "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
            ,,,on the other hand....
            If I say I've seen a UFO...and no, Kucinich didn't mean he's seen a light in the night sky that he couldn't identify, he meant a spacecraft.....then I"m not describing a belief....I'm describing a fact. Only the truly naive...and yes, Phil, that means you....would believe that he's describing a "belief" in the possible existence of alien spacecraft or the possible existence of something he couldn't identify. He's flat out saying it.

            Believing in UFOs in not inherently insane. However, it does run afoul of Occam's Razor. Claiming...repeatedly... to have seen a UFO while running for the highest seat in the land isn't crazy...it just displays judgment so suspect as to pretty much automatically disqualify Kucinich from serious consideration for that office... as if his other qualities didn't already realistically disqualify him from it.
            You may want to view this in a little more sophisticated / less "knee-jerk" anti-religious manner, Phil.
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2manchu2, you are placing a value judgement on someone else's beliefs, claiming that there are bible verses to support one, and therefore believing that you couldn't identify an object you saw in the sky is just plain crazy.

            First of all, you are grapsing at some amazing conclusions to say that you know what kuci meant by saying "yes, I saw a ufo," to claim that you know that he was saying "yeah, I saw alien spacecraft". He was asked if he saw a UFO. He said "yes, I saw a UFO", during a "lightening round" of final questions. He failed only by not expanding on that answer to qualify his answer to, "I saw something I could not identify, it seemed strange." (and that was stupid of him. And Carter made the same statement at one time, but has since clarified it to say "I don't know what I saw, it was something I could not attribute to man made aircraft, but I cannot believe that meant it was aliens from another planet.)

            Let's not forget, the entire purpose of the media focusing on that statement was to divert attention from Hillary's stumbling and fumbling numerous times during the debate. She screwed up a few times, but they need to keep her as the "forerunner" so they have to direct the circus at something ridiculous, so we can all have a few laughs and forget about everything else.
        • yakski, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2To claim to have felt the holy spirit in your blood circulating muscle is absolutely MORE crazy than seeing an Unidentifed Flying Object with one's own eyes!!!
  • tsotha, on 11/01/2007, -26/+10Bahahahahahahaha. Kookcinich strikes again. This guys is an unending source of mirth for people on the right.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4Holy cow, you changed part of his name to a synonym for crazy! You are the pinnacle of wit.
  • postaldave, on 10/31/2007, -22/+8"does not seem to understand his words have real impact"
    that is rich coming from a party that has the same talking points as the islamic terrorists that are trying to kill us. that is also rich coming from a party that declares we lost the war in iraq while we have soldiers on the ground.

    did me down all you want, the truth is the truth.
    • parax, on 10/31/2007, -6/+4Truth is malleable. Truth is a belief not a state of existence. Religions deal with truth, politics should deal with facts.
      • manchu2, on 11/07/2007, -5/+3Wow...how relativistic of you.
        Actually, the truth is the truth.... you can ignore the facts that comprise the truth...you can ignore the conclusions that derive from the truth....but that doesn't make the truth anything other than what it is.
        • nihilite, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3so... a semantic argument. how amazingly useful. seriously.
          • Bobski, on 11/03/2007, -3/+3Yes. Seriously. A semantic argument seems far more civilized that the usual ad hominem spate presented by the left.
          • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2semantics: "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence"
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics
            Yes, discussing the meaning of 'truth' is a semantic argument. How very clever of you to point that out, nihlite. Go to the head of the class.
  • AwakeningAZ, on 10/31/2007, -5/+8Instead of "Democratic Candidate", you could have used Kucinich in the title. Would have been less sensational that way.
    • JebBlack, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Which democrat said it? Was it Hillary? Likely not, she and Bush are pals.I like surprises!
  • AshamedAmerican, on 10/31/2007, -6/+10They should have a cell ready for him at Arkham.

    MAXIMUM SECURITY WING - Crane, J. Isely, P. Identity Unkown Nygma, E. Bush, G.
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2"Ashamed American"? LOL...what a putz
  • layron, on 10/31/2007, -16/+6Oh I guess Iran having nukes to use as they want would not result in consequences?
    • nihilite, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4but you are comfortable with Egypt, Pakistan, and Israel having nukes? Israel makes me more nervous than Iran... they are the ones using war planes to bomb their neighboring countries.
      • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1What is really ironic is that once an "axis of evil" nation detonates a nuke, we start dealing with them as equals, or at least we deal with them diplomatically. Or we start infusing them with F16s and other military aid, as in the case of Pakistan.

        Turns out, we aren't afraid of nations getting nukes because they might give them to terrorists, it appears that we just don't want to deal with them in any other way then as subjugated nations who must submit to our resource extracting corporations. We like the status quou of taking their resources and only paying a corrupt official off. We don't appreciate having to deal with any nation as an equal.
  • Apokalyps2547, on 11/01/2007, -8/+32Bush and the terrorists have this in common: they win when you live in TERROR.
    Beat Bush the same way we can beat terror: by not being afraid.

    Who the hell is afraid of Iran?! They have the GDP of Connecticut and the military budget of Sweden (that pillar of militarism)! They're far from obtaining a nuclear weapon and Ahmedinejad NEVER said he'd "wipe Isreal off the map".
    Iran is a threat to NOBODY!
    • shabumike, on 10/31/2007, -5/+8Stop preaching reality and listen to the rich white guy in the rich white house.
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Isn't it funny that when a moderate was in "power" in Iran, they said that he was a figurehead, and the real power was held by the ayotollah.

      As soon as a crazy nutcase hardliner is in power, they latch onto that and say he is the one with the finger on "the button" that doesn't yet exist???

      Stick with the plan, we attack based on an agenda created by the same people who were called "the crazies" when they talked about attacking Russian back in the 70's.

      The same people who dreamed up all kinds of scary scenarios during the cold war.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Oddly enough, Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran, was not a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps...or its extra-territorial component, the Qods Force, that supports international terrorism. You may want to actually look at the guys in question before floating the notion that in Iran a president, is a president, is a president. None of them operate independantly. They all are subordinate to the Supreme Ruler. So, what does it say to you when one subordinate, known as a moderate and reformer, is traded out for another subordinate who is part of the "trusted circle" of the IRGC-QF?
        I'm sure your knowledge of the Cold War is just as extensive as your understanding of Iranian politics.
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1manchu, stop your fearmongering. If you work for General Dynamics down in Tampa, at MacDill AFB, I can understand, you have to write that *****, but if you are a citizen of America, wake up and stop defending the neocon agenda. They are not Americans, they are globalist profit seekers.

          Really. If you aren't a civilian employee on MacDill AFB, then you are a misinformed sucker who watches way too much Fox News.
    • manchu2, on 11/03/2007, -6/+4"Who the hell is afraid of Iran?! They have the GDP of Connecticut and the military budget of Sweden (that pillar of militarism)! They're far from obtaining a nuclear weapon and Ahmedinejad NEVER said he'd "wipe Isreal off the map"."
      LOL....where the Hell did you get your facts?
      Iran's GDP: $599.2 billion (2006 estimate) and its military expenditures amount to 2.5% of GDP... that's about $14.98 billion https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
      Connecticut's GDP: $204.1 billion (2005 estimate) http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=202163&DID=23 ...
      Sweden's GDP is $290.1 billion (2005 estimate) and it's military expenditures amount to 1.5% of GDP... that's about $4.35 billion. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
      So much for your "facts". Let's look at your analogy.
      Sweden, that mighty pillar of militarism you mention, is not threatening to wipe Belgium off the map... is not sitting astride the Oresund Strait threatening to cut off the world's supply of Baltic fish...doesn't maintain just an enormous army but also a PARALLEL military with a wing that supports terrorism worldwide and represses its own citizens at home...
      So, what have we learned here? 1) You do no research and just parrot some propaganda you've heard elsewhere; 2) you have no idea how to make a relevant analogy
      Oh yeah...last thing..."NEVER said 'wipe Israel off the map'"?
      "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map." http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archi ...
      "Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported on Wednesday." http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/mideas ...
      "Iran's new hard-line president called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ...
      LOL...so much for that. Now tell me that he didn't say "wiped of the map" but "vanished from the page of time": what's the difference? Now tell me he was just quoting the Ayatollah Khomenei...what's the difference?
      • floatingpoints, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1tl;dr
      • Apokalyps2547, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3Iran's GDP, according to the very source you cited, is $193.5 Billion.
        Your numbers are according to Purchasing Power Parity theory. It can vary wildly based on quality and availability of goods, international competition, and numerous other factors. Mine are by the current actual exchange rates, the numbers governments actually USE. Go back to Econ 101.
  • NukularPower, on 11/02/2007, -21/+1BUSH IS THE ULTIMATE EVIL!! EVIL I SAY!!! EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR HIM IS GOING TO HELL! SEND MONEY TO AL GORE RIGHT NOW TO SAVE YOURSELVES BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!

    (just kidding :P)
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/02/2007, -3/+4screw you.

      I voted for bush in 2000. But after September 11th and after being enlightened to the entire farce of the two-party system, I began to work towards enlightening people to the scam of the "two-party" system.

      If you refuse to recognize that our republic is now an empire, and refuse to see how that will, eventually, lead to a collapse and subsequent "neo dark ages", then YOU, nukularpower, will be the first to go to hell. Sorry.
  • p0s3r, on 11/02/2007, -25/+7Rawstory. Buried as *****.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6...What? I heard him say it. Why the hell would you bury an account of an actual, real event just because it's from Rawstory? That makes it no less true. Idiot.
      • FatherVic, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3He didn't say inaccurate, he said *****.
        • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Don't consider any idea you were not fed by Fox News. It all must be ***** unless the former Access Hollywood reporter tells you to endorse it.

          GET OVER YOURSELVES and GET OVER THE PARTISAN RETARDATION.

          THINK FOR YOURSELVES!!!! The Germans went along with it for several years. It ended up not turning out so well for them.

          Just think for yourself, don't absorb and consume ideologically based information.

          BE INTELLECTUALY HONEST WITH YOURSELF.
  • SOS84, on 10/31/2007, -7/+30In my heart of hearts, I do not think I could take anyone who does not question the President's mental health seriously.
    • tsotha, on 11/03/2007, -8/+3That's okay. We don't take you seriously either.
  • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -10/+2Say it isn't so, Dennis!
  • NukularPower, on 11/06/2007, -25/+9Seriously, you people who jump at any chance to say "Wow, Bush IS THE DEVIL" really need to check your sources. Google Kucinich alien encounter to find out why.

    Pretty funny that he would throw around comments about mental health.
    • john2kx, on 10/31/2007, -3/+11Would you take him any more seriously if he said he believed in God?
      • JPOOPOO, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8I find it disturbing that most people believe in something that is unprovable, such as God.
        I find it disturbing that some people seem to think that we are the only intelligent life forms in this universe.
        I find you disturbing, NukularPower.
        • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6I find it far more disturbing that people refuse to believe in what is provable fact.
        • issachar, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3I find it disturbing that so many people reply to the wrong person.

          Seriously Digg, woud it be so hard to put the "Reply" link RIGHT NEXT TO THE NAME OF THE PERSON?
      • thebellmaster1x, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Personally, I find NukularPower's lack of faith disturbing.
    • martinjd, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3Step 1 in 'How to Write Left Wing Comments for Dummies": Never ever ever consider the source.
  • bishop, on 10/31/2007, -19/+10

    Isn't Kucinich the guy who claimed to have seen a UFO?
    • Litespeed, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4That doesn't make him mentally ill.
    • bishop, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Bangor,

      Thanks for pointing this out...
  • john2kx, on 10/31/2007, -5/+19wasn't Kucinich one of the few who voted against the bizarre/scary National Security Presidential Directive 51 bill that passed recently? I think I like him.
    • natedouglas, on 11/03/2007, -2/+7And co-sponsored the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act with Ron Paul.
  • Zandarrr, on 10/31/2007, -6/+11Kucinich '08!
  • minorthreat, on 10/31/2007, -7/+18kucinich doesn't get the popularity he deserves
  • 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/01/2007, -14/+8Personally, I think Kucinich is also of dubious mental health... but potential hypocrisy aside, he raises a good point.

    Bush really does seem to be operating at least somewhat removed from the real world. Like the obese bulimic, swearing with every bite that he's 120 lbs of muscle, Bush continue to operate in a way that suggests he's completely ignorant of many key aspects of the real world.
  • Litespeed, on 10/31/2007, -8/+16Wouldn't surprise me. Reagan turned out to not be firing on all cylinders.
    • martinjd, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Wow... apparently no one is exempt. Another Reagan is exactly what we need right now you jerk off.
      • yakski, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3Although an Alzheimer's patient is far preferrable to GW the moron... I hardly think we need another Alzheimer's person running the country.
  • issachar, on 10/31/2007, -11/+3This is getting stupid. And insulting to people who actually suffer from mental health problems. Mental health problems are NOT the same thing as being a moron, being uneducated, being bad at your job or doing it differently from how Kucinich would. (Take your pick of what you think of Bush).

    We in the rest of the world get it. Democrats think Bush is a very bad President and want to do things differently. Can you people just move on with your election and not clutter up the front page of Digg with every piece of crap "article" that finds a different way of saying the same thing?
    • Consh, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3I can't agree with this more. Good diggs are getting diluted with "I hate Fox News/Bush/Republican 2008 Presidential Candidate/Conservative media personality/what have you" articles from fringe websites on the front page every single day.
      • issachar, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Ironically I'm likely being dug down by the anti-Bush crowd. Talk about missing the point. It's not that I want everyone them to post nice things about Bush, it's that I JUST DON'T CARE about US politics anymore. Every once in a while I come back to digg hoping it will get better... Like I did with Slashdot and Kuro5hin. But they never got themselves out of this spiral, and I don't think Digg will either.
        • Bobski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2There is a really easy way to do it. Become fully "Democratic" and eliminate the Digg down buttons. You can vote for what you want, but you cannot vote for what you don't want.
        • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1@bobski
          That is just moronic... create a totally meaningless morass of media of no value is all that would accomplish.
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1issachar, if you don't like seeing a discussion about American politics on an American community bookmarking site, don't use it. Create one for your own country. Don't rely on American businesses, rely on businesses in your own country, or start one yourself.

      I hardly ever go to a German-based discussion site and blast the people there for talking about German specific interests. Hardly ever.
  • syroncoda, on 10/31/2007, -6/+7a HAH! kucinich 1 - bush -9/11
  • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -18/+7Kucinich waved bye bye to his mental capacity a long time ago.
    • natedouglas, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5*looks at you, a Digg troll*
      *looks at Kucinich*
      *looks back at you*
  • fixedcoma, on 10/31/2007, -6/+9There is a difference between acquiring nuclear weapons and acquiring nuclear power! Just like there is a difference between weapons of mass destruction and jack *****! What happened to Osama Bin Laden? Oh, right, he isn't in a country with vast amounts of oil and innocent Iraqi's! I guess that is why we flew 22 of Osama Bin Ladens family out of the country a day or two after 9-11, How strange! How strange!
    • tsotha, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Bin Laden has most likely been dead for three years. But thanks for asking.
      • elipabst, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4So that was zombie bin laden who released that tape discussing recent events a few months ago?
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/31/2007, -15/+7OK, I have to roll my eyes at this for several reasons:
    1) The title of the story might as well have just said "Democratic candidate panders for votes by telling people on Digg what they want to hear".
    2) Since when does anybody other than Clinton or Obama count as a serious Democratic candidate?
    • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -1/+30, you are seriously in need of reality check, dude.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Truth hurt that much, HSR?
        • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Good luck with your two choices I guess. *shrugs*
  • marsbar, on 10/31/2007, -3/+12Why exactly do some of you think Kucinich is crazy? Is it because he'd rather spend tax money on helping Americans get health care rather than spending billions on the Military Industrial complex or providing tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% of Americans?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5Because he wouldn't waste money trying to fight an abstract concept like terror, duh.
      • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2I know I wouldn't. It's rediculous!
    • FatherVic, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2The wealthiest 10% pay most of the taxes so any tax cut would directly benefit them. For 2005, the top 10% ($103,912 AGI and above) paid 70.3% of the income in taxes. It is impossible to use that "tax cuts for top wage earners" seeing as the top pay most of the taxes and it is near impossible to have a tax cut that does not affect this bracket.

      source: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
      • FatherVic, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3...and even if it didn't affect them at all, is this the message that we want to send Americans? Success is to be met with severe penalties. Believe it or not, even socialist countries are moving toward free markets and capitalism these days. Telling successful people that they are wrong, bad or need to have their money taken away seriously hampers the progress of the monetary market system as a whole.
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2It is always fun to ***** on the rich. For a politician of any stripe, when in doubt, go the populist route and call the rich names and promise to help the common man.

          But you are right, up to a point. A flat tax would be better, all pay the same percentage. However, when you get up to the top 1% (like Warren Buffett) they don't really end up paying much at all in taxes. I mean, percentage-wise, it seems equitable. However, if take in a billion this year, and pay 300 million in taxes, it does not hurt nearly as much as if you make $50,000 this year, and pay out 15k to 20k in taxes. The less you have, the bigger the chink in your armor.

      • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Billionaire Warren Buffet COMPLETELY DISAGREES with you!!!! The middle class is shrinking as more people are migrating down while the richest 10% are increasing their wealth ...
        • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Are you saying that "billionaire Warren Buffet" disagrees that the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes? Please...show me
          • yakski, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2"Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934. Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."
            Warren Buffett's annual letter to shareholders of his... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.ht ...
          • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Even stipulating that he indeed said that, at what point did he say that the 10% of income earners didn't pay 70% of the taxes? All you've discussed was the percentage of federal tax receipts from corporate income taxes. You clearly missed the part of debate class where you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Further, while Warren Buffet, 2nd richest man in the world, can hope to pay more and more income taxes, that doesn't address the fact that it is the top 10% of income earners that pays most of the income tax....and is instrumental in most of the capital formation. Mom and Pop Smith may put a lot of income into the economy, but when businesses are looking for investment capital, they don't go to Mom and Pop Smith...they go to the 10% of income earners. Only one of them is richer or as rich as Warrent Buffet.
          • yakski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1All that you are pointing out is that the top 10% of the US population make AN OBSCENE AMOUNT OF MONEY... Warren pays federal tax of 17% by his own admission WITHOUT even trying to take advantage of the tax loopholes built in for the rich by the rich in the tax code. These 10% pay less of their income as a percentage than the average family earning $60000 a year... OBVIOUSLY MORONS LIKE YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR... Everyone else realizes this is grossly and morally wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Yakski, you are fatally missing an important point.

            If you make $60,000 a year, and pay even the same tax-rate as Warren Buffet, you still lose. He isn't hurt by 10%, 20%, or 30% taxes. Granted, I'm all for everyone keeping everything they earn, but just think about it.

            If I make a billion dollars this year, I might pay $170 million or $300 million in taxes. Sure, that is a lot of money, I am making a contribution to America, I suppose. However, my food and my housing (relatively) and my other every day expenses are not much more than your's, other than my 200 foot yacht and my private 747, but obviously we deserve our toys.

            If you make $60,000 this year, and pay out $18,000 in taxes, you are only left with $42,000 to live on.

            Sure, that is the same percentage. BUT, just be honest and think about how much of a bigger burden that really, truly is. Someone has 700 million dollars after taxes. You only have 42,000. You have to meet your needs with that. The other guy's needs are met and will never suffer when the economy goes a little south, or he loses his job, or inflation causes his money to lose 2 or 3 percent each year. You will feel it, you will budget, you will cut out certain expenses, turn down your thermostat, or take your kids out of private school and put them in private school so their futures are doomed to public service or manual labor jobs.

            wow, the wealthy hate to give any amount of money away to the government. So do we. They do it on principle or greed. We do it on need.
        • FatherVic, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2...so penalize the successful...?
          • PhilLesh69, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1If you are cynical and negative in nature, sure, I guess that's what you would call it.

            But then why, by your measure, do we continue to penalize the less fortunate?
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1fathervic,

          it is not about penalizing the successful.

          How much do you earn? How much do you pay in taxes?

          Just think about this:

          I am worth 6.5 million. I take in about $300,000 a year in taxable income. I pay about $90,000 in taxes each year. I still get to spend $210,000 a year, to meet my basic needs.

          You probably make anywhere between 45 and 80k a year. You pay between 13.5k and 24k in taxes.

          Just think about the how much spending money you are left with after giving away 30% of your income!

          It's not so bad when you make so much money that your basic needs are met, your wildest dreams are funded and you still have money left over. When your basic needs are barely achievable, when taxes can actually put you below the poverty line, it really does break your back.

          Imagine you make $35k (that is $16.83 an hour). You'll pay $10.5k in taxes. That leaves you $24,500 to live off of. Imagine if you have kids???
    • martinjd, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Stupid question.... You know it's the UFO thing. And you're right, we can't afford this war in Iraq, or another one in Iran for that matter - but at the same time I can't afford to be paying for SCHIP help to people who already make more than myself. Medicaid = help for the poor (kudos). SCHIP = help for the middle class.... dumb idea.
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Vetoing sCHIP was a smart thing. It was basically a precrusor to a federally run health system. If that thing had passed, it would be less than 30 years before voters would demand state provided medical care. Grow the kids up on the idea of the state handling yet another aspect of their lives, and they'll just become accustomed to it, and expect it.

      Always be wary of the law of unintended consequences. It sounds mean to "deny" kids something, sure. But you have to look at issues a little more than just on the surface. Try to think a few more levels down and decide based on a knowledge of the full implication, not just the popular soundbite.

  • yelow, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3yes, let's label him medically incompetent for any kind of repercussion for his deeds.

    GOOD IDEA.
  • SeethisPass, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10Bush's brain has left the building.

    • Narcowski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Error spotted: You used the word "brain" in a sentence with "Bush" in such a way as to infer he had one at some point.
    • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Yeah, it was back in 1974.
    • martinjd, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2How does this get dugg? It's elementary level humor. Digg digresses by the second...
  • cmpshotty, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3Well, he's either an idiot or the greatest master-mind ever to pull off some of the biggest conspiracies in world history and just wants you to think he's an idiot.
  • bfcnet, on 10/31/2007, -7/+2Not news. I wonder when rawstory.com will just use a generic "Area Man" like The Onion for their obvious filler "stories". "Area Man call Bush Insane!" "Area Man calls Cheney a War Crimminal!" This ***** writes itself.
  • Coolgamer, on 10/31/2007, -7/+5Ron Paul's got nothing on Kucinich. There, I said it.
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2And Mickey Mouse has nothing on Bugs Bunny (which is probably a more important comparison)
  • digbird, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7People on Digg often complain that the US is becoming a dictatorship. For the most part, I think they are all wet. But people who argue that people who hold opposing political viewpoints to them are "mentally ill" scare me. Why is that? Because that is exactly what the Soviet Union used to do with dissidents, diagnose them as "mentally ill" and use that as an excuse to pump them up with thorazine or some other anti-psychotic drug (or put them in a bed with wet sheets tucked tightly over them ...so when they contract, it causes a lot of pain).

    If Kucinich wants to say Bush has lousy judgment, is stubborn as a mule, isn't that bright...fine. But let's leave the "political psychology" where it belongs...in the dust heap of history.
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2You seem to have alot of knowledge about the Soviet Union. Be that by experience or research, let's keep it honest...

      If you can compare attitudes between here and there, and you see similarities, shouldn't that be alarming, in and of itself??

      Aren't we so polarized as a nation, isn't the "right" so radicalized or filled with fear that we face the risk of falling into the same traps that all other nations have faced?

      We have an evil external threat, and now we are beginning to face an evil internal threat.

      Our only problem might be that we can't keep the trains running on time.

      At least the chinese shoot their convicts in the back of the head when they aren't expecting it, and we use lethal injections not legal to euthanize our pets.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2"isn't the "right" so radicalized"
        LOL...you've got to be kidding, right? Hell, there isn't even a center of the Democrat Party anymore...the far Left has become its mainstream
        You have more confidence in the Chinese justice system than ours? LOL...g'luck with that. When you move to China, let me know if the reality matches your rhetoric, ok?
        • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I had hoped you weren't so radicalized that you would think someone could view the chinese style of execution as being anywhere near American principles.

          Anyone who truly believes in American principles should be appalled at "single bullet to the back of the head" executions. Unless you've been fed so much "crime" and "terror" propoganda that you actually believe there are "lesser human" or "non-human" people who might deserve that. Nobody deserves that, state violence is no better than civilian violence.
    • bowens44, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3His political viewpoint has nothing to do with his mental illness. The man believes that god talks to him.
      • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3If you're going to start defining mental illness as someone having a personal relationship with God, you're going to have to define 90% of Americans as mentally ill
  • nobogeys217, on 10/31/2007, -3/+7Why dont we question Congress' mental health. Congress has a 12% approval rating. If you think about it, that means more people hate3 congress than the president. Thats just sad. But, the media does not tell you that.
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3You are playing fast and loose with statistics. Bush has a 28% rating. In some polls it might be as low as 26%, which is still statistically within margins. Your 12% rating has absolutely no basis in intelligent discussion, it is a fantasy.

    • bowens44, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3It's not bushes low rating that makes him a mental case, it's his actions and his words. The man is a sociopath who believes that god talks to him and tells him what to do . The man is out of his mind.
  • HighSeaRocks, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4If I had to pick a Dem it would be Kucinich. The remaining CFR members are scary as hell! ***** RG and Blackwater.
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/31/2007, -4/+1Just look at Ron Paul. If you have to vote for someone else in the end, just at least be intellectually honest and understand what Ron Paul is saying.
      • HighSeaRocks, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1If I had to pick a DEM...
        RP without a doubt is my choice although I'm not eligible to vote in the USA.
  • bowens44, on 10/31/2007, -9/+7Anyone who believes that a god or gods talk to him is insane.
  • scottknick, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3Diggernauts who distrust Kucinich's take on the President's mental health may wish to consult a psychoanalyst:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch
    • manchu2, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2and the author of "Bush on the Couch" wouldn't have any agenda that might color his judgment, would he?
  • misfit410, on 10/31/2007, -5/+2Has anyone ever actually listened to Kucinich before? that retarded hobbit needs to spend a bit of time on the couch himself.
    Bush is perfectly sane, the worst of him shows because he still thinks he can be a "Uniter", It's his liberal policies like going to war to free other countries that make the man suck.
  • floatingpoints, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Why bother typing out "Democratic candidate"... why not just type who it is?

    Kucinich questions Bush's mental health.

    More descriptive. Doesn't require me to click thorough just to see who the hell it was.
  • martinjd, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4This from the same guy who 'saw a UFO'.
    It's David *Kucinich*.... not *Duchovny*
    • nick911, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2And he had the brass to stand up in front of America and tell them what he saw, so I guess he is lying? Look at the mathematical probability that we are not alone and you should feel pretty silly to believe that you know everything there is to know about this universe and who has visited it. I give him props for telling the truth, even if he knew simple, close minded people couldn't comprehend the possibilities.
      • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1If you want to bring math into that, then consider the distance to the next-nearest star. It is thousands of light years away. LIGHT YEARS. You know, the time it takes LIGHT to travel? The speed of light is the constant, remember? Nothing exceeds the speed of light.

        UFOs, if they exist, are just expiremental aircraft being tested by one government or another. Not visitors from outer space.

        Granted, life probably exists out there in the universe. It just appears mathematically impossible any two will ever meet.
        • nick911, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Guess you can't bend space/time because we don't know how to do it right? Hey the Earth used to be flat....did you know that?
      • martinjd, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Ha.... the math involved in the probability of intelligent life on earth, or life at all for that matter, is so absurdly small to begin with. If we're just playing the odds, a trillion to 1 has it that we're alone.
        • nick911, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1It only takes one intelligent life form in the Universe for the possibility to exist, so by your own admission, it's possible. So again you say you know everything there is to know because you have not personally seen it your self, and if you did I'm sure you would be a coward and never tell anyone about your experience because it would prove yourself to be wrong. My gosh, the human race think they are so great but we have to be the stupidest animal on the face of the planet, blinded by our own pride.
          • martinjd, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1I never said it was a statistical impossibility. Like I said... a trillion to one. And that's assuming you believe this all happened by chance. Personally, I don't - I'm just simply making a concession to the darwinians for the sake of discussion...
  • thesoze, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2but did you check out his wife???? holy SH*T!
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2In DC, it isn't your looks, and it isn't even always your money. Power trumps all here. Women dig power in DC.

      I've met some pretty trampy women who will only date senate or congressional aides or lobbyists or politicians. They don't care about anything but power.

      You have to come out into the burbs to meet even moderately normal women.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5Ah, the BDS is strong in this one.
  • nick911, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Regan, the "greatest Republican to ever grace the face of the Earth" spoke of UFOs and aliens. Anyone remember this speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA
    • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Regan was a Chief of Staff, wasn't he? I think you mean REAGAN. Ronald Reagan, right?
      • nick911, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Yeah, my bad. Think he is crazy or did he know something that the general public didn't know, or did he want them to believe that he knew something?
  • JebBlack, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Maybe the headline should've read "Long shot candidate that doesn't sell this country out to foriegn interests questions bush's mental health for some reason" we all know bush is retarded and we know the media has a plan for who will be the next president, totally ignoring the american voter and shoving a new fraud down our apathetic throats, force feeding us propaganda about what a threat is to america when we should know the threat is the top tier candidates, the front runners, our media, our hijacked govt.
    • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1You forgot to mention the black helicopters. Go ahead.... I know you want to .....
      • PhilLesh69, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2His opinion is different than your's. But I don't believe anything he wrote can indicate that he should be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, ufo believer or whatever defense mechanism you use to keep from having to accept an uncomfortable opinion.

        That is a cop out, to assume anyone who doesn't agree with you wears a tin foil hat, for christ's sake.
  • michael43, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2The mental health of everybody that voted for Bush should be questioned. Did they think being president was going to raise his IQ? He's no stupider now than he ever was.
    • manchu2, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1And it just chaps your ass that he won...TWICE!
      • michael43, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1No, it chaps my ass that idiots like you are allowed to vote. TWICE!
  • numberneal, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3Democratic candidate questions Bush's mental health

    who doesn't?
  •  

    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.