What is Digg?85 Comments
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -13/+47I'm sick of these talking heads, especially the staunch pro-war Republican members of congress who come on the news shows and cheer about the surge like it was the beginning and the end of the Iraq war. They don't want to talk about how they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, or the utter lack of preparedness for the infantry to have prevented the insurgency from occuring in the first place, or anything that happened before the troop build-up; they just like to focus on this single microcosm of the bigger conflict and declare success over and over, and talk about "judgment" like its something they actually possess an ounce of.
The fact is that the people who pat themselves on the back for having the judgment to have supported the military surge are the same people that got 4,000 American men and women killed, millions of Iraqis displaced and racked up for our grandchildren an insane $9 trillion national deficit all for a sham to begin with. That includes John McCain. - AxmxZ, on 07/25/2008, -14/+43Hagel talks sense on the Iraq war.
- mattcarreiro, on 07/25/2008, -7/+33i propose a trade with the republicans - lieberman for hagel
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -9/+29If anyone had any reason to wonder if Digg's voting system is completely game-able, the constant flood of huffingtonpost.com articles should prove it.
At any given time, there are always 2 or 3 huffington articles on the front page, even with only a hundred or so diggs.
There are only two possibilities:
1) either the editors/admins working at Digg are intentionally letting huffington stuff flood the front page due to some sort of republican hatred/ obama worship
OR
2) for people that know how to do it, gaming digg is easy as pie and the admins can't figure out how to stop it.
I'm sick of the huffington articles and i'm a democrat! If I wanted to read huffington post all day long i would go to their ***** site. - dave122, on 07/25/2008, -8/+22huffingtonpost.digg.com
- peticsu, on 07/25/2008, -11/+25mad respect for Senator Hagel!
- miamidolfan13, on 07/25/2008, -4/+13Hagel will be in the Obama administration
http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/07/hagel-disses- ... - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/25/2008, -8/+17Clicking on HuffPoo articles spreads cooties.
- richbleak, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5You are dead on. Bragging about "being right" on the surge is a bit like a drunk driver hitting a family head on and then asserting himself as a hero because he was able to pull one person out of the wreckage; just ignore the fact that he just killed that person's entire family with negligence.
Only a ***** moron would credit republicans in any way for this surge; even if you take it as fact that the surge actually had the effect that they dubiously claim it has. - ASHole71, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5Then perhaps they should have used that link and not the Huff one
- dkapuchino, on 07/25/2008, -4/+8Soon to be digg.huffingtonpost.com
- smittie, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5So then, you also read everything that The Inquirer publishes?
- fleischner, on 07/25/2008, -5/+9Boy, I remember a time, not so long ago, when everything that came out of the mouth of Senator John McCain was solid gold to liberals and Democrats, because he was critical of his own party. Now that he's the GOP's candidate for '08, apparently he can't say anything intelligent and is an uber-Right-wing nutcase. Good thing the Left has Hagel stepping in to fill McCain's shoes.
- MacEnvy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4That's funny, I remember a time when McCain was occasionally on the correct side of an issue and had credibility as a statesman. How far he has fallen in 8 years.
- swrostmore, on 07/25/2008, -1/+4An incumbent who got over 80% of the vote in the last election wouldn't get re-elected? Ridiculous.
- mediaspree, on 07/25/2008, -5/+8Obama/Hagel '08
- Rotzooi, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3It's true. Having a conscience makes him unelectable, his voters won't have it.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2"successful and helped dramatically drop violence" - You are way off in some kind of a La La land Hawk fantasy. There is no way you will ever get most of us interested in this implied free USA policing of any third world countries, whatever. You like that? Do it at your own expense.
- macmaine, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4As ridiculously biased as the media is...liberal cable news, conservative talk radio, the fairness doctrine will ruin American media...if you don't like what's being said, turn it off, don't read it, or don't listen.
- aliengoods, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2You had me right up until you had to go negative on democrats. Not all Republicans are war-mongers, but you infer that all Democrats are spineless. Go ***** yourself you ***** hypocrite.
- xenuxenuts, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3Sure he would. He's pretty popular with quite a few people. Heck, I liked him better than Nelson.
- lateralus, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2With the first pick of the 2008 Draft, the Democrats trade disgraced senator Lieberman and future 3rd round pick for the rights to Chuck Hagel, Outside Linebacker, Nebraska.
Jets fans show their displeasure.
- skipdog172, on 07/25/2008, -8/+10I've always been proud to have Hagel as my Senator. It is too bad that he decided to call it quits...hopefully Obama will put him on his administration. He needs to be put to good use somewhere!
- ftx437, on 07/25/2008, -9/+11buried for huffingtons ramblings
- Cyrus042, on 07/25/2008, -6/+8"Obama Surrogate: Quit Talking About Obama's Mistake"
This is just partisan fluff. The fact of the matter is the surge (and the strategy along with the surge) was successful and helped dramatically drop violence especially in conjunction with other events (such as the Awakening movement). This is why both McCain and Obama are proposing a surge (with a revised strategy) in Afghanistan. And I find it interesting that many individuals can't stop talking about the long past (WMD, start of the war etc) but want to completely forget the last year. - floorman56, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2We must quit talking about the success of the surge because it remindes the voters how wrong we were about it. How we said it would never work. how it would make things worse
From july 20 2007
Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.
"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
He also said
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.
On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground
On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:
[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.
May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:
And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not.
On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:
My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.
On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:
Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. - allnone, on 07/25/2008, -2/+4This isn't a conspiracy. It's obvious, that Obama is the most popular and The Huffington Post is the most popular pro-Obama site, so that leads to a lot of pro-Obama Huffington Post articles on digg. I agree that I see way too many of them, because I'm sure that people know to just go to the site by now, if they want to.
- smacksaw, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Anyone see McCain's who "I told you so" about the surge, saying it wasn't good for his political career, but it was what was best for the US. Except now it is good for him?
What ***** logic. Just like Bush went against what everyone told him to do, exercised his own poor judgment and we're in a mess. So the end justifies the means, only when you do it and luck out there McCain? Ridiculous!
And Hagel for VP? I don't think so. The Democrats would never have that. Secretary of Defense, on the other hand... - ouzome, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2now it all makes sense, well except to diggers
- MrFurious2k, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3He wouldn't get reelected.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1In fact, I believe the writer Hemingway went off to fight in the Spanish Civil War. Too bad he ended up a suicide like 100,000 of our Vietnam vets. Still as an American you should be able to do a similar thing like in Iraq or Afghanistan, or others. Just do not be immoral and try to force others to support you.
- stillasleep00, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Mmm... no thanks.
-Non-Neocon (sane) Republican - antipoet, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I keep seeing this name being attached to Obama - messiah. How is it that people can turn anything, even a positive, pragmatic campaign into a negative thing to attack and ridicule?
- aliengoods, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1smittie, he said "ignoring everything is ignorant". That doesn't equate to "not reading everything is ignorant". Your logic kung-fu is weak.
- xenuxenuts, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Hagel is actually quite conservative. See http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm
While I don't agree with him on a lot of things, I have to respect him on the topic of war. He's been quite involved with veteran issues at least since the 80s. I doubt he'll be a vice president, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him in another high profile position. - SOS84, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Funny how the person who has not been to Iraq is questioning the person who has been to Iraq and has seen first hand how things went down. Stop listening to Faux News and talk radio. Until you go there yourself (you obviously have not been there because you are debating common knowledge and factual information) STFU and let the grown ups talk. I am a fifteen year veteran. Stop your anti-American nonsense. What have you ever done for this country.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Who is next on your list for such free services? Burma is pretty tempting, I bet?
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1As you seem passionate about this kind of charity I will not stand in your way of supporting it. But do not force the rest us to support it via the government? Fair enough? Reciprocity applied?
- okaroleo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1they have cartilage, it just hasn't calcified yet. :)
- DoctorDiamond, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1That's what happens when you sell out. Reputations take a long time to build but can be destroyed by one wrong move. And McCain just keeps making them.
- Lspook63, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I knew there was a reason I liked Hagel!
- MOJIRA, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Obama Hagel 08.
I bet you this will be fact soon. - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Pretty hilarious but you better keep the day job anyway. The Hawks may take you seriously and the joke would be on you.
- Cyrus042, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2My opinions are neither hawk, nor dove. I wouldn't propose the occupation of a country for the sake nation building, however, given the fact that we are where we are, I see a legitimate reason to pursue efforts in assisting the prosperity of Iraq / Afghanistan. I don't say this out of any sense of irrational idealism, but there has been very real progress that is impossible to deny.
The Dove perspective would state that we should end our occupation in Iraq yet pursue humanitarian aid in Burma and Tibet. However the reality is that if the United States had withdrawn too soon, you would undoubtedly see an enormous humanitarian crisis that would be far worse than what happened in Lebanon. So let's be real here about what's at stake. It's far more than reputation or egoism. If you are truly concerned about expenses over tens of thousands of lives, and the future of an entire nation which would inevitably bring a moderate influence to a very regressive region, well then I don't know what to say.
It's not neo-conservative, it's not idealism, it's realism. - Judasmac, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2Bingo, Cyrus.
- inactive, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Care to comment on the article?
- SOS84, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1You are an idiot. You are trying to talk around my point and you know because you cannot debate.
- projectmecca, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1This is hypocritical because Obama still talks about how he was right in not entering the war in the first place.
I think both candidates need to look at their future plans, but I support Obama's. - inactive, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Do you even read your own links?
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/23730164.h ...
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said. - kolinkoolface2, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1they don't.... an 8% approval rating by a democratically led congress is not what i would call, Good. And why am i hypocrite?... I am a libertarian... I am just stating what everyone on this site always accepts as truth.... republicans = warmongers
Dems = saviors. -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is