What is Digg?49 Comments
- Barbrady, on 11/29/2007, -3/+352 more plants found:
The guy who asked the question about corn subsidies, Ted Faturos, is a former intern for Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/u ...
David McMillan, an aspiring TV writer in California, AND, a Bush and Rove hatin', John Edwards fan, who asked why the Republican party doesn't attract more African-Americans to it's side.
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/y ... - BradGroux, on 11/29/2007, -1/+33Journalistic due diligence and CNN obviously don't belong in the same sentence together. Seriously, is it too much to ask for them to even enter the questioner's name into Google before airing their questions? I'm not saying CNN tried to sabotage the debate but they certainly didn't put their best foot forward in trying to give potential Republican voters a fair and well-balanced debate. As a conservative, having obvious liberals asking my potential candidates questions during a GOP debate is like an atheist trying to convince my Pastor that God doesn't exist... their concerns are so off my radar I could care less when I'm deciding on which candidate best represents MY party.
- Grandforks85, on 11/29/2007, -2/+26Why isn't this front-page? How could someone in CNN not of known? It takes 10 minutes(if that) worth of investigating to figure this stuff out. These people should be banned from future debates, and CNN should be banned from holding any further debates. At least some of the candidates answered surprisingly well to some of the questions.
- bgovern, on 11/29/2007, -2/+24It seems like there are a lot of people at work burying this story. Not surprising.
- Rehnborg, on 11/29/2007, -1/+22How many Gimmick accounts are people making to bury this?
- Barbrady, on 11/30/2007, -1/+21And yet another plant:
Surprise: Muslim YouTube questioner was former CAIR Intern
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/surprise-musl ... - Wosat, on 11/29/2007, -0/+20What would the reaction be from Democrats if this level of shenanigans were uncovered at a Fox News hosted DNC primary debate? I know for damned sure there'd be rawstory and thinkprogress links infesting the front page for weeks on digg. It would be the top story at all the news networks. The dems would probably vow to boycott Fox News forever. Of course, that's all hypothetical since they're too scared to be on Fox News in the first place! Oh no, a media outlet not run by Democrats... run! Hypocritical cowards!
- xGORDOx, on 11/29/2007, -0/+18If it had been FOX and a Democrat debate, FOX would have burned to the ground this morning.
The double standard is disturbing. - epicbard, on 11/29/2007, -0/+17Stories like this never make it to front page, it just does not jive with the 12 year olds on here. Just look at all the Ron Paul supporters and daily Bush and Fox news smears...
- inactive, on 11/29/2007, -3/+18This is the party of mike the blimp moore, slick ankle-pants, teddy the Hutt, botox boy and george sorass. Really . . . is there any need to say more?
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+15(Warning: what is below is terribly obnoxious, even by my standards.)
I wish there was a way, as a political scientist, to objectively say "I hate debates." But if I try to make a more scholarly sort of argument dismissing these debates as a whole, I reveal a bias that sets up my profession against the bulk of Americans, and that's not right - one has to be a scholar and a citizen.
So I'll just make this argument as a partisan: these debates are crap in the first place, and I would be scared that my children lose brain cells watching them. Let's use this scandal to ban all debates from being shown on television. If our candidates want to say things, let them do it in print, and without ghostwriters - I want to see how many of them can read and write first. - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -2/+17Lots of burying action going on here. No surprise.
- swankboy, on 11/29/2007, -2/+17It's not on the front page because it's not about Ron Paul, nor desperately sad attempts to impeach Bush.
- inactive, on 11/29/2007, -0/+14How far back do you want to go on WW2? Perhaps the European tensions which gave rise to the cascading chain reaction of mutual alliance treaties which were invoked by the the assissination of Archduke Ferdinand? The Napoleonic period when France and Prussia were deadly enemies? The Hundred Years War? The Treaty of Versailles was a disaster but it didn't happen in a vacuum. By the same token, however, if the Western democracies had taken a stand against the Nazis in the early 1930s before they had actually re-armed, Hitler would have remained an obscure historical figure. When he sent his forces into the Rhineland, the Germans had so few planes and tanks they had to send them into sight in a circular pattern to give the impression they actually _had_ air and armor forces. McCain is correct about isolationism and WW2, although it was not merely *American* isolationism, but that of the democratic West as a whole. And, not to put too fine a point on it, this is EXACTLY what is being repeated today, with all these nations - including the treasonous domestic lefties - running for home in the pathetic hope the evil of the jihadis will not attack them. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it . . . and this time the barbarians have access to, and a willingness to use, WMDs. But don't worry about that - you just keep sucking up that Kool-Aid the good Dr. Ron is dispensing.
- inactive, on 11/29/2007, -1/+14I would assume that many of you picked this story (and Malkin blog post) up from Drudge. I would encourage you all to get the Digg It Firefox extension. It makes Digging and submitting stories so much easier because it tells you how many Diggs every page you visit has. Hopefully it will also increase the number of Diggs the stories on Drudge get.
http://neothoughts.com/2007/04/27/firefox-extensio ... - inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+13Alternately, bring back the League of Women Voters productions (no offense, but I think you are too young to remember those?). They were relatively non-partisan and the campaigns could not control things the way they do now.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -1/+12Just to be a bit balanced - Malkin does link to Media Matters, and points out there probably were Republican gotcha questioners in the Democratic debates:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711270007?f=h_top - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10I saw an LGF story make the front page one time. I still don't know how that happened.
- k012957, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10The Faturos link should be http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/u ...
The McMillan link should be http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/y ... - inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10I'll google it, thanks!
- Tuxbunta, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10This is just sickening.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10Correction: Malkin does not say there were Republican plants, but instead says that Media Matters should have come up with conclusive proof there were plants in the Dem debates.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/29/cnn-producer ... - Wosat, on 11/30/2007, -0/+10I could not agree more. Anything I know about the candidates I've learned by reading. In the case of Fred Thompson, in particular, I've read quite a few articles he's written himself. In contrast, watching these "debates" we have these days makes me feel dumber for the experience.
In the name of "elevating the level of discourse", the media has increased their role in the process, placing themselves in a position almost superior to the candidates, while reducing the candidates' ability to drive the debate. The media controls how long each candidate will speak, what questions they'll answer, who will follow up, and who gets the last word. The candidates can't even ask questions of each other! And people wonder why interest in the debates has waned? I watch the Prime Minister's Questions for the questions. Replace the MPs' questions with those from a news anchor and I would never bother to tune in. - SiNN4R, on 11/29/2007, -1/+10What the hell happened to our country?
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+9Oh, no; American isolationism of the pre-War period certainly didn't induce the attack. Rather it was the fact we were an obstacle to their expansion and had taken some steps, such as cutting off shipments of scrap steel, which acted to restrict that effort. Basically they wanted to drive us from the Pacific, especially the Western portion, so they could pursue their imperial aims without interference from the gaijin.
- lgfaphile, on 12/01/2007, -0/+8You mean to say that the Clinton News Network is biased? Can it be?
- DanThePainter, on 11/29/2007, -1/+9Maybe it's on my end, but clicking on the links get me this:
Not Found
The requested URL /BlogArchives/2007/11/u was not found on this server. - inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+8Really? This comment is absurd. I've not seen any giving birth to babies, serving on a jury, at the voting booth, etc. Various legal entities exist which can enter into commercial arrangements as an individual may, but nothing else.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+8@ zimmermans & OldJesser . . . .
Folks, I've done a good deal of heavy duty reading and a bit of serious research on WW2 over the past 50 years and it was my understanding the "unequal treaties" as they affected Japan were abrogated before the First World War (operating by memory here). Everything I've ever read has pointed toward a cultural superiority credo, the imperialistic ambitions of the Japanese military and their need for natural resources to support that effort. Serious inquiry here - can you cite the name of the "unequal treaty(ies) to which you refer? - gmarie624, on 11/30/2007, -0/+7Is there no one with enough brains and money to start a network for the rest of us??
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6Now that statement is sure to lend credence to your commentary . . . on the daily kos.
- Raalnan5, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6I don't think it's so bad. The media ignored it, but the story still got out. 20 years ago, this would have been buried and not known by even the people commenting here. As it is now, Web2.0 does the job that CNN, MSN, and NBC won't. The real question is, will we all be diligent in mentioning it to everyone we come in contact with.
- inactive, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5Thanks for the compliment, but I only originated blimp and sorass. You are welcome for the guidance; I realize the sheep need all the help they can get.
- inactive, on 11/29/2007, -5/+9We allowed libtards to breed.
- AskAChola, on 11/30/2007, -1/+5This explains why my question wasn't chosen.... cause it was obviously the best question of ALL... LOL
- Waterrat, on 11/29/2007, -1/+4 Who knows...But it's not pretty.
- saltmiser, on 11/29/2007, -2/+2grandforks85; they respond well because they already know the questions they're going to be asked ;P
- banmaster, on 11/29/2007, -4/+2What happened? A long time ago, the new laws designed to create equality between black and white folks was subverted so that corporations were granted those same rights! That was the beginning of the end!
- Waterrat, on 11/29/2007, -5/+1 Yup...Corporations have the same rights as real people.
- bratpack8, on 11/29/2007, -12/+6CNN = Democrats
FOX = Republican (neocon version)
'nuff said - bratpack8, on 11/29/2007, -12/+5They absolutely knew what they were doing. Just like Fox does. They are all biased and all ignorant, especially on economics. These debates are so foolish, it's pathetic to hear the same asinine answers as well. Rudy trying to defend his history, Romney, or as I like to call him, Mr. Plastic. Hucka-wantabee preaching his faith in Jesus yet no problem killing others overseas. McCain believing WWII was caused by our isolationism? Holy crap, if that wasn't the most asinine thing I heard all night. Maybe Ron Paul needs to send him some 5th grade history book reminding him about our involvement in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles? It's really pathetic, especially with the planted fan base of each candidate just waiting to roar when their candidate spews forth this crap.
- OldJesser, on 11/30/2007, -8/+0I was referring to the Japanese request at the treaty of Versaille to establish equality for all people being rejected by the US. That was one step toward their abandoning the League of Nations that could have easily been prevented. The "unequal treaties" (a result of American imperialism) simply allowed for a strong nationalism which festered. They were angry that Americans and other western powers, such as the British empire, were allowed to continue their imperialism in Asia. They used their wish to colonize Asia (to be a competing power) to form this Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere; it was a guise for their imperialism, which was indeed a response to Western imperialism. Do you really think American isolationism caused Japan to attack us?
- OldJesser, on 11/29/2007, -8/+0Don't know why you are being dug down, zimmermans, you're spot on when it comes to the Pacific conflicts in world war II. To think it may have been avoidable if we had just agreed to put in an equality clause after WWI.
- OldJesser, on 11/29/2007, -11/+2Thank you for showing how wrong those people are because you can give them such colorful nicknames. Boy, I'm sure glad I won't listen to any fat slick, botox, soreass Hutts. Just how bad would the world be if we couldn't count on you to point the way out for us?
- zimmermans, on 11/29/2007, -10/+0In terms of the Pacific arena, it was in fact American imperialism that caused WWII through the US unequal treaties imposed on Japan by Matthew Perry, which was the catalyst for that nation's pursuit of militarization, industrialization and revenge (Pearl Harbor). So in that case, isolationism would've prevented something. Of course, there's always a counter argument to anything...
- Waterrat, on 11/29/2007, -13/+1We allowed conserativetards to breed.
- Waterrat, on 11/29/2007, -14/+1 So true...The only real liberal voices you hear are on PBS and NPR...The rest is conservative pretending not to be,
- davidany, on 11/29/2007, -15/+2media outlets run by democrats? your talking about about a very small percentage of mainstream media, the "liberal bias" you hear about in the media is more of neocon ploy that allows their supporters to keep on blindly supporting them no matter what.
- BabyWookie, on 11/29/2007, -19/+1Buried for the vile neocon hate site source.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is