What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
228 Comments
- kent1146, on 04/11/2008, -6/+33I'm digging this down, for two reasons:
1) Unreliable source. The article author is using hypothetical reasoning to form a guess. I suspect that his motive is to create a sensationalist headline, and draw readers to his piddly newspaper with tiny circulation.
2) Irrelevancy to results. This democratic primary has clearly shown pre-election leads don't really mean squat. I'll wait until the ACTUAL results are out. - WasabiBomb, on 04/11/2008, -2/+28You're really reaching. McCain is Bush 2.0.
- TheWorm, on 04/11/2008, -11/+35Enough with these stories! We know Obama will win. Just let time do its thing.
- Takfam, on 04/11/2008, -1/+22I'm not a registered democrat and I voted for Obama. Open primary for the win.
- DiggLive, on 04/11/2008, -16/+36"Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes"
"anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters"
Lmao, the headline is different than the text. This is way inaccurate also, because adding up some of the totals, and you'd get over the amount of registered Democrats in that state. Oops, they forgot about that. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -3/+21Your wish has been granted. Hillary Clinton has lost.
- fani, on 04/11/2008, -0/+151-2 million votes ? Um... I love Obama, but c'mon...
is it 1 million or 2 million ? One # is 100% more than the other. We don't need sensationalist reporting, just basic facts. - Jwoey, on 04/11/2008, -1/+14Evidence would support the opposite is true of Obama. The more awareness people have of Obama, the more they like him. Take a look at polling in every state (even the one's he ultimately loses) 1 month prior to their primaries, and compare it to the actual results. Once he starts campaigning, people start coming over to his side.
- phanophish, on 04/11/2008, -8/+21From a comment on the article....
"This is WILDLY inaccurate information. Please stop misleading people.
In Kansas, for example, by your estimate 732,680 votes were cast. That would be all fine and dandy, except for the fact that there are only 432,209 registered Democrats. Oops.
And Kansas is a closed primary, which means that independents wouldn't have been able to vote."
Obama supports don;t need to resort to the lies and misinformation that the Clinton campaign has in order to be successfull. - JaronDiggGuy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+11I bet you're 16, at the oldest.
- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -0/+10"Given your past history of using cocaine, which is extremely addictive, would you be willing to regularly take drug tests during the campaign and when you're in the White House to insure Americans that you're not still using? "
Because they don't need to be disputed. These are awful questions to begin with, then simmered for eight hours over hate on medium heat. - serif69, on 04/11/2008, -6/+15I like how the headline is "Don't Be Fooled" and the article is from the source of the most pro-bama articles on Digg. Don't worry, Huffington Post, I won't be fooled.
- fantasticFlan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9Much as I agree with you, this isn't the election yet. The Democratic party is choosing thier candidate and they get to decide how that works.
- h4mx0r, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Time will not do it's "thing". We gotta ensure that everyone pushes forward. We let our guard down and it can turn for the worse.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10When I heard Nader was entering the race, it sure made it tempting to vote for him. My vote for Obama is a vote against McCain.
- jeremyduffy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10Oh, you're such a martyr. Don't kid yourself. You're getting digged down because you stupidly make statements that Obama has somehow influenced digg users, not because there's some digg conspiracy.
- kiddcode, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9You could just read his book "The Audacity of Hope", and find answers to many of your questions in his own words, probably not the ones specific to Jeremiah Wright though since that's too current. I'm surprised that people claim he hasn't stated positions on many issues, when it put them in a best selling book years ago.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10neocons will say anything. I've never seen anymore vicious hate than what spews from a neocon's mouth.
- djcgmcse, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8Fool me once, shame on.. shame on.. If you get fooled, you can't get fooled again!
- theaceoffire, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9^_^ I think someone missed their nappy-poo.
- capainter, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9My Profile > Settings > Customize Topics > Unselect Political News, Political Opinion, & US Elections 2008.
Enough is enough for me. - sw33tsarin, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Shut the ***** up. You post the same ***** in every political thread and its getting ridiculous.
- Reylas, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7I am assuming this is serious, so here goes. In the fall election, you can vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican etc. But in the primaries, you can only vote for the party you are registered for. Consider this the pre-season. The real campaign starts in the fall.
- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9These would be way better if they weren't so slanted. Some bring up good points, but they're way too Republican-biased to be taken seriously.
- vade79, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7Those millions, obviously not enough...the money on the war? another story.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9Town Hall is as Fair and as Balanced as Fox News. No slants there...noooooo, none at all
- JaronDiggGuy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7You should never vote for who you think the winner or loser is going to be, it should always be based solely on your opinions and ideas, and what you believe in. That's why people wanted to vote for Ron Paul even though he never had a chance to begin with: it was to show the higher-ups in Congress that they believed in that kind of change. Vote for who you feel closest to on issues, and keep democracy going.
- UpBeetRob, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9You'd vote for Bush again if you could wouldn't you?
- davidrools, on 04/11/2008, -1/+8I think it's awesome how Obama is so cool and collected about this whole thing. He knows he's got the nomination. While everyone runs around making news about how close the race is, he just carries on his campaign as smoothly as he did from the start. Barack is a stone cold badass.
- ileftfark, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6"Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20."
...don't mind the smell; the numbers came from my ass. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7OMG teh ALIENZ riiginng our helicopters with uraniumz!!!!!!!!!!!!! we need megahurtz@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
. - forgiste, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7and what's even worse is he provides no evidence for his claim, just baseless finger pointing. And I think he means A.K.A., not ala...
- CobaltBlue, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7Do you have any proof that he said this? It appears to have originated from a satirical writeup at azconservative.org.
- EricAnderton, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6The problem in that way of thinking lies in the following ethical quandry: what makes your kids any better than someone else's?
Ultimately, poverty costs the successful parts of society monitarily via the *current* channels of taxation, in order to fix/address problems that stem from poverty and bad health: namely crime and disease. If you raise the bar for a minimum standard on education to everyone, then the measure of "success" (however you define it) just won't be determined by what neighborhood you live in, or how well off your parents are; there will still be "haves" and "have nots". But if you raise the bar on the minimum standard on health, you have a stronger workforce that's more capable of raising the GDP and make a better life for themselves. That's not welfare - that's an investment in society as a whole. We'll all get something from our taxes within a generation, something other than more roads and new police cars.
To put it another way: would you want your children to get screwed over in life because you got cancer and became bankrupt? Suddenly cheap/free health care and education for all looks pretty good, doesn't it? - nekochan, on 04/11/2008, -7/+13no, ron paul failed because half of his stance was possibly the worst idea ever to be mentioned in politics.
also, you need to work on your 'typing ron paul in caps because they do it in 4chan' habit. - Hillsfar, on 04/11/2008, -5/+11I want to see Obama and his wife dancing at the Inaugural Ball in January 2009, dammit!
- StarlessKnight, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6[Insert common grammar-nazi correction]
- br0ck, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7* You've made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity's sake?
You don't have to completely compromise your belief in something to reach a bi-partisan compromise to get things done. One of many examples of him doing that is when he managed to convince an extremely reluctant police force and governer that it was actually in their best interest to tape all police interviews.
* Along the same lines, John McCain has been behind numerous pieces of prominent bi-partisan legislation. So, if voters are looking for a candidate who can unify the country, wouldn't he be a better choice than you?
McCain and Obama both believe in working with the other party, but McCain's legislation and votes are for war with Iran, war with Iraq and torture.
* If you didn't agree with Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American views, why did you take your own children to his church and expose them to what he had to say?
99.9% of Jeremiah Wright's words weren't what you saw on YouTube and even what was there was completely out of context. For example, the 'come home to roost' comment was quoting an American diplomat and was actually a very thought provoking and truthful sermon: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/218838
* If I may steal a question from Peter Weher, "With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist?"
Do you really find this threatening: "Liberation theology is the effort to think clearly about the meaning of religious faith in the context of oppression, war, poverty, inequality and environmental destruction, and the effort to live a compassionate, courageous and life-sustaining response to those conditions, a response that both addresses the needs of those who are injured and oppressed, and also works to change the structures and ongoing processes of injury and oppression. iberation theology varies greatly according to the culture in which it arises, but its underlying themes are immediately recognizable across the world: the transformation of everyday life through a new awakening of compassion, courage, truthfulness and justice. It is a work in progress, born out of enormous pain and extraordinary hope, which is sure to inspire many and offend many. We hope you will be inspired by what you find here, and also that you will explore this world of thought and feeling with empathy and patience for the concerns of those with whom you may disagree." http://www.liberationtheology.org/
* Could black voters trust a white candidate to fairly represent their interests even if he attended an anti-black church and was close friends with a prominent white minister who was famously hostile to black Americans?
No, but Obama's church wasn't anti-white.
* John Conyers has said that he intends to "move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations" if you become President. Would you support that legislation?
This is hilarious considering that one of Alan Keyes main campaign point in running against Obama was that Obama so vehemently opposed reparations. Maybe you could have tried Google on this one first.
* Given our budget deficit, how can you justify giving away 845 billion dollars of our tax money to other nations over the next 13 years via your Global Poverty Act?
That's 65 billion a year. Why do you multiply it over 13 years? Why not over 1000 years and call it 65 trillion? Anyway, help me out, I've read through the bill a few times and can't really figure out where that number is coming from. I can only find 25 billion split by 8 countries mentioned and can't find any other dollar values. Some conservative blogs put it at .7 percent of the GDP, but I can't figure out where they're seeing that. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... - qwerter, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5It's great that you work hard to support your kids and provide the best for them. But what about those who aren't ABLE to? I think that's the issue here. What if some tragedy happened to you, cancer for instance. What if you were hospitalized for so long that you couldn't work to provide for your kids? What if you were then stuck with such enormous hospital bills that you weren't able to send your kids to a better school? Would your kids still be better than anyone else's?
I'm not arguing for a welfare state. I'm want to give people the opportunity to SURVIVE. For many, health care is a life-or-death issue. Doesn't that matter? Or do we just allow people to die because "life isn't fair" even if we can do something about it? - qwerter, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but to me this is the difference between *civilization* and *jungle law*. In a civilization, it's best to help out those who really need it and raise the lowest common denominator. That way, everyone benefits. Better education and health care leads to less desperation and crime. Of course, every system has its faults, and its easy to sensationalize "welfare moms" and other people who game the system, but this tends to be the exception...though admittedly a very headline-grabbing one.
- GeneralFault, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5Your kids are better than others because of your success? Do you really believe that? When you kid does something stupid, don't forget to punish yourself then.
- mrsammercer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6*used to be a centrist. Is not now. Now he's just pandering to the far right as much as he possibly can to get their approval. It's pathetic, really. I liked McCain up until 2004 or so, but he's sold his soul.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6that's the sad thing, really. McCain will probably win because the powers that be will make sure he's in.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7That's my favorite thing to see in Digg. A Neocon will make his "1-2 one trick pony Punch" and then say "no digg me down." Wow, such a puss. Why don't you just stand by your argument instead of being a sissy and hiding behind "now digg me down."
- phanophish, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6No Republicans Can't vote for Democrats in the primary. They could register as Democrats the day of the election and participate in the Democratic primary, but the author of the article is using highly flawed logic to argue that Obama would have recieved 700k+ votes. It is simply not supported by the facts. By his logic nearly 50% of the entire population of Kansas voted in the Kansas Democratic primary and the state is mostly a Republican state (The Sec of States data indicates about 27% Dem and 45% Rep.) So out of 1.6 million Registered voters in Kansas, 740,000 are Republican. The authors numbers just do not add up.
Obama overwhelmingly won the Kansas Democratic Caucuses, there's not need to inflate the numbers. - coyote1284, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5The dirt is not clean!
- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5obama - "I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry."
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/01/obam ... - GeneralFault, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4It is politics for me. When Hillary voted for the war, then voted time and again to fund it, I saw a big difference between the two. When Hillary co-sponsored an anti flag burning bill, I knew that her vision of the roll of federal government and mine were not reconcilable. It's not that I would ever burn the flag, it's that government has no right to regulate non-violent protest and speech.
Not only do I support Obama, but I refuse to vote for Clinton were she to get the nomination. - bsmang, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5No, don't vote for Nader!! The last thing we need is for McCain to win.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 229 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is