What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
236 Comments
- Conwaysb0718, on 10/11/2007, -22/+287I dont understand what is so hard for people to accept that we might have provoked an attack on U.S. soil because of our interventionalist foreign policy in the middle east. Lets say your in school, and some kid walks up to you and socks you in the face. The first thing you do, probably after the altercation, is ask "why did you do that?" and he says, "every saturday night for the past 6 months you and your friends toilet paper my house." Are you then supposed to believe the kid, when you have in fact been toilet papering his house for the past 6 months, or are you supposed to believe that he punched you in the head because your parents bought you a nice car for your birthday and let you stay out all night?... I know thats a pretty juvenile analogy, but seriously, when are people going to think about the things that have gone down and put some logic behind it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+88Hannity doesn't think Ron Paul has a chance. The "polls", as inaccurate as they are, show this to be true. I'm sure the digg poll doesn't say the same thing.
Look, if you want to get Ron Paul elected, you guys have to do things different from what you are constantly doing. The mainstream will get Ron Paul elected and sorry to say the mainstream is not on Digg. You have to constantly call up talk radio, it's the bread and butter for the centrists and right wingers. You can not go BAT ***** about Iraq. Make talking points related to Ron Paul's stance on limited government, taxes, etc. The more callers to Rush, Hannity, and Neal Boortz (nationwide libertarian talk show host - boortz.com) about Ron Paul, the better chance he has at getting the nomination. No matter what your stance is on Iraq, do not got BAT ***** about it on air, the mainstream, center to right voters, will dismiss you and Ron Paul. - noobeffect, on 10/11/2007, -3/+47The thing about Germany is...back during WWII, it was actually a threat. Can't say the same for Iraq.
Also, what do you mean by, "we cant ignore people who want to spread their ideology across the globe"? We're the ones spreading our democratic seed (or at least trying to) in Iraq. - BungaloBob26, on 10/11/2007, -6/+44Wow, the title exaggerates PHENOMENALLY.
- thekauf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40You have GOT to be kidding me. Giuliani made a HUGE JACKASS out of himself on national television. I have no idea how anyone could side with him on this argument.
- jamesallen74, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37Um, it wasn't as "in your fact" as I expected by the title of this digg. Hannity didn't seems UTTERLY shocked, more like a "oh....well". Good idea of the caller to do that, but not what I expected.
- aikimann, on 10/11/2007, -6/+37Dugg down for misleading description.
I was hoping to hear Sean Hannity get owned, but all a caller did was mention how much money Ron Paul received in donations from military personnel. I'd vote for Ron Paul, but this is just stupid. - K3ITHK, on 10/11/2007, -6/+33Direct link
http://www.youtube.com/v/yXbvEImWuZU - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27"i do fear that we cant live in an isolationist state ignoring the threats from around the world. we did with Germany and had to fight a long deadly war. we cant ignore people who want to spread their ideology across the globe."
Do you even realize the irony of your own statements? - kaelyiesta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27A nice analogy, but where it fails is that americans dont know(or believe) they have been TPing this kids house. I myself am pretty ignorant of the details, especially anything within the last 50 years or so. I imagine that many people don't care nearly as much about history and the US governments past actions and so I bet that most people know much less than I do on the subject, and thats saying a lot.
- physphd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Wow. What part of history are you referring to?
The part where imperialist powers designed Iraq's borders to force Kurds, Sunni and Shiite to live together despite not wanting to? US overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister (Operation Ajax) and installation of the Shah because the PM dared to nationalize the oil industry? Supporting the Shah's brutal tactics and human rights violations? Installing and supporting Saddam Hussein, providing him chemical weapons known to be used against opposition peoples and at least 100,000 Iranians? Financing his decade long war against Iran after the fall of the Shah which killed approximately 875,000 people? How about the US led UN embargo of Iraq which killed approximately 500,000 civilians? Or is it importing the Taliban from Pakistan, installing them in Afghanistan and giving them billions of dollars in aid, weapons, and training to fight the Soviets and then turning a blind eye to their human rights violations for more then a decade after the USSR fell and there was no active fighting?
You'll note that this doesn't even touch on unflinching support of Israel against Palestinians, forced from their homes and into camps, usually at the threat of US made military equipment given to the Israelis.
You can still hate them if you want, but can't deny entire generations of people in the Middle East have seen nothing but death, destruction and dishonesty from the West, particularly the US. To claim we love freedom but install and back these brutally repressive regimes is pure hypocrisy. Period. Not surprisingly, some extremist have had success wrangling the will of those feeling powerless and homeless. I can never agree with them, but I understand their motivation, and if you were to study the history then you would too. You cannot treat people like animals and expect them to respond civilly forever. - Simcom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Stop toilet-papering the kid's house.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20We could always try and be SMART about the way we deal with other countries and "foreign" cultures...but that may be asking a bit too much of the people who represent our country in the world.
- GorfTron, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21Republicans will kill every soldier and spend every dollar before before admit they were wrong about the war.
- donkpod, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Do you realize how stupid what you just posted is?
- Influsion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15No, actually anti-war candidates received more.
Separate the candidates into pro-Iraq war and anti-Iraq war categories.
Anti-war:
Ron Paul 26.23% (R)[near-Libertarian; Navy support]
Barack Obama 24.02% (D) [50% more from Army than Ron Paul]
Hillary Clinton 11.08% (D)
Bill Richardson 5.59% (D)
John Edwards 2.63% (D)
Joe Biden 0.84% (D)
Mike Gravel 0.16% (D)
Dennis Kucinich 0.05% (D)
Chris Dodd 0% (D)
Pro-war:
John McCain 18.31% (R)
Mitt Romney 4.05% (R)
Rudy Giuliani 2.44% (R)
Mike Huckabee 1.84% (R)
Tom Tancredo 1.63% (R)
Duncan Hunter 1.05% (R)
Sam Brownback 0.07% (R)
Tommy Thompson 0% (R)
Jim Gilmore 0% (R)
John Cox 0% (R)
Now add these up. What do you find?
70.6% of the money donated to Presidential campaigns by US troops went to candidates who oppose the war and favor bringing US troops home. Think about that.
In dick Cheney’s eyes, do they “hate the troops”? Or do they know something that we don’t know, that the mainstream media did not report for five years, and that even most Democratic politicians are afraid to state publicly?
Comment by "Why do our troops 'hate the troops'?" - hlcno, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18ron paul revolution baby
- orenthal, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23wow is that ever weak.
- thekauf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17who the hell dug this guy down? He is dead on.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The man isn't an isolationist. He's for not taking sides and getting involved in foreign conflicts and for protecting the sovereignty of the US. That has nothing to do with international trade and tourism and such. What good is it to Americans that their taxes are spent and troops are off fighting some other people's war? And what kind of democracy is it if you get your laws from international bodies that you did not elect?
- Rabbittt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15No one ever said the attacks were justifiable.. You're misrepresenting the premise, and that is intellectual dishonesty..
Understand the semantics here: 911 was INSTIGATED/PROVOKED by US foreign policy.. 911 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED by US foreign policy.. See the difference? - diffraction, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12So will the Democrats.
- PoeticExplosion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Both. On 9/11, Al Qaeda were evil, murdering, terroristic bastards.
In many situations in the middle east in the past, the US has been the evil, murdering, terroristic bastards.
Pointing out that the US is bad isn't the same as supporting Al Qaeda. There's nothing that says that either side has to be right. - donkpod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13No...it's nothing like that. At all. In the least bit.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13People like to think that they're better than others, this is especially true when you bring in religion or nationality. It's why people are so eager to believe things that in no way could ever be true.
- SupaFupa, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Which 3000 people do you refer to? The 3000 from September 11th, 2001, or the 3000 from March of 2003 until now. Because for some reason, we've been told to believe that we should value the first 3000 more than the second 3000. Furthermore, we've been tricked into believing that both the first and the second 3000 are more important than the 300,000 human beings who didn't appreciate their sovereign nation being invaded. Can you honestly tell me that you would react differently if America were invaded by another country's army?
So please, what is the formula for calculating the value of one country's citizen's lives, in terms of another country's citizen's lives?. You obviously have done the math. Enlighten us. - selectodude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13http://www.duggmirror.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbvEImWuZU - MattInChicago, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Dumb...started off good but when Hannity mentioned Rudy he should have said "that's funny because Rudy got the LEAST number of military contributions" . THAT would have been good.
- Rabbittt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9We must globally spread our ideology of not allowing the global spread of ideologies.. Mmk..
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10No *****. Sean Hannity didn't experience anything but his usual confusion, and the caller was hardly smart. I like RP, but there's absolutely no news here.
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It takes a lot to offend me, and I'm offended by your comment.
- Influsion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Ron Paul doesn't want an isolationist state, he wants to trade internationally and pursue terrorists but he doesn't want to nation-build. Is it so difficult to understand that non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, and isolationism are completely different things? By the way, the current administration IS isolationist - they won't talk to our "enemies" and they won' t trade with them.
Isn't it possible to understand that trading with our "enemies" is a better strategy than sanctions and preemptive attacks? - SupaFupa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@tehelsper: I now realize that neither I, nor anyone else here on digg will convince you of anything you haven't already been brainwashed to believe. Im not referring to just the 3000 iraqis, Im referring to the 300,000 iraqis that have died. You missed that one by a couple orders of magnitude. But you miss alot, don't you? I can tell from your statements that you did not come up with these ideas on your own, you have put no rational thought into them. Because they are identical with what Fox News and our administration says. You are simply echoing the logical fallacies you've been force fed for the last 6.5 years. Why are you so trusting of men who don't have your best interests at heart? Is it simply because they say that they do?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16INACCURATE. This is a total non-event. The host basically just goes, "Oh really?" to everything the caller says. Who gives a *****?
- sarge96, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Note: see top news story on digg regarding king Bush.
- SupaFupa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7But he is worth a damn. He is meeting all metrics that have been historically used to determine the legitimacy of a candidacy. The only problem is that his interests do not align with the four corporations that control every other facet of the media. They don't want to see him become president, so they will simply chose not to cover him. The internet is the one medium that still shuns complete control by the people firmly seated at the levers of power.
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Spin? RP 26.23% Obama second with 24.02% ~ given that he is constantly called a second tier candidate, that looks like a victory to me.
- LucidHawk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8what?
- dodus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Boo.
- alacrity2005, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Nicely done.... Digg this one up people. He just decimated the entire neo-con position in a few paragraphs. Of course, they were too busy listening to limbaugh and hannity to have heard or understood.
- fanclerks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think they'd institute the draft first. Meaning they'd have to kill all their constituents to do that.
- gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Yah, gotta admit, it's not what the title suggested. It kind of suggested he was owned, but that's not what I heard.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Fox News reports on military donations to Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nwZGRrqhfs - crxvfr, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12In this day and age, we simply can not live in an isolationist state. Dr. Paul will have no magic switch to flip if he wins. He will not be able to turn the government and status quo upside down over night. He will have to work with the government to try to steer things back towards the original intent of our Constitution.
- Shigatsu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7If you do some research on Prescott Bush and a well known new york bank you will find out AMIERICA supported NAZI Germany too. HOWS THAT FOR HISTORY. Adds a bit of insight to the Bush Family.
- lactatingbill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bliss.
- shortarabguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Exactly. It's more appropriate to say that you've been sleepwalking and smacking your neighbor around in the middle of the night. It's not that Americans have done anything wrong, really( except for being ignorant and obstinate about the facts), it's what goes on when the American people aren't watching, like the "secret" military operations and the less than covert training provided to people who eventually came back to bite us in the ass.
Or I guess "sock us in the face".
Us being Americans. One need not be blond-haired and blue eyed to support the whole "freedom" idea for which America stands. - resta6, on 01/12/2009, -3/+8he knows that, that is why people want him...he doesn't promise things like the rest of the garbage, in order to get elected. FREE HEALTHCARE!!!...oh I'm sorry, but after looking at the country's budget, we can't provide you with it. My bad
- shortarabguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5But that would require change, and change is bad. That's why we're staying the course, right?
- SupaFupa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If you don't know who he is, what makes you believe he should go away? You might want to brush up on your logic.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 236 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is