What is Digg?196 Comments
- HugoNaught, on 11/01/2007, -13/+113 "Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check. But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution. Such "straw donations" are strictly prohibited by federal law. "
Hmmm, Why does everything to do with Billary reek of sh*t? Anyone else would be ruined by this news, but I'm sure this too will be no impediment for her. - cattleprod, on 10/31/2007, -10/+69I guess the FEC will continue to ignore this *****.
- soulmantim, on 10/31/2007, -8/+43Ancient Chinese Secret Huh?
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -13/+44At what point does Hillary's fundraising tactics become criminal activity?
- nwoantibody, on 10/31/2007, -14/+40The Clintons have a history of backstabbing the American people for money from the Chinese, google: Chinagate.
It's no wonder that the same people who financed the husband are now financing the wife.
Meet new boss, same as old boss. - inactive, on 10/28/2007, -4/+28FYI, the truth isn't "smear".
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -23/+46Outrageous,simply outrageous. It seems like the more we know about the Clinton's the worse they become.
- kosmoX, on 10/22/2007, -5/+27Wrong. I am a right-winger that despises both Bush and Clinton.
- dailygringo, on 10/22/2007, -13/+32what's with the rush of Anti-Clinton stories? I prefer Obama personally, but the rate of stories hitting the front page of Digg seems a lot like the constant glowing reports of the Ron Paul campaign...
- DanThePainter, on 10/22/2007, -2/+20>... what the republicans scum bags did to Kerry...>>
Nice try. Kerry did it to himself. He just hoped that no one would speak out.
>... republicans can't compeat (sic) in the arena of ideas...>>
Sounds like someone listens to Rush Limbaugh and likes his phrasing. Trouble is you're not listening closely enough. It's the liberals who don't compete with logic. - BenitoMussolini, on 10/22/2007, -7/+24Murdoch has donated to her
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -23/+38The Clintons are probably the most corrupt politicians in the history of politics. This story would take down any R, but Hillary is getting a major pass from her cohorts in the MSM.
- falstaff, on 10/22/2007, -6/+21LOL. Another smoking gun Hillary Clinton (D) scandal turns into an anti-republican rant. Partisan much?
- Swift2, on 10/23/2007, -9/+22First of all, you should have put up the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/l ... (registration required) story on the controversy, because whatever "major corporation" Rupert Murdoch puts in the money-losing New York Post automatically is questionable. It seems like there are some straw donors in the Hillary campaign, just as, I'll bet, there are in many other campaigns. These are the reporters who tracked down Hsu, and their beat seems to be Hillary. I contacted a reporter on the Times to ask them why no other campaigns were being targeted the same way -- like, for instance, the national finance co-chairman for the Romney campaign who is under a 26-count indictment for fraud. Or the corruption within the Giuliani campaign, and the fact that Bernie Kerik, who he nominated to be Homeland Security director, is likely to be indicted in the coming weeks.
The Times reporter said, "Wait." So we'll see. Of course, there's a big noise machine to trumpet whatever happens to Hillary. Outrage about Romney? Giuliani? Tancredo's connections with neo-Nazis? Not so much. - TubaTechno, on 10/22/2007, -1/+13No one heard about this because the story being broke at the time was the Larry Craig scandal. No major news outlets were reporting that Barak, Hllary and other Democrat front runners had to return their contributions. And the thing is, the actual deed that Larry Craig performed took place MONTHS before the story was release, convenient?
- alvinrod, on 10/23/2007, -8/+20When the major corporations that own the majority of major outlets want her to win because she'll be a perfect lapdog for their interests does it really come as any surprise that they don't raise a big fuss about her? They all more than likely know about this, but won't say a word of it unless she gets out of line. She'll be just as much of a puppet as Bush ever was. Don't expect to be out of the Middle East anytime soon with Hillary in office.
- consoneo, on 10/22/2007, -3/+14It's only slander if it isn't true.
- riceboi2009, on 10/22/2007, -7/+18In my opinion, very poorly writen story. and extremely biased.
"We do not ethnically profile donors," growled Howard Wolfson. "Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American."
growl? - ghostfish, on 10/22/2007, -2/+13So you don't believe a story until it shows up in a liberal newspaper? No wonder people like you are so misinformed. Skepticism maybe, but just downright dismissal? Maybe you should take the wool off your eyes and look at multiple sources, not just liberal ones.
- Richjt92, on 10/22/2007, -6/+17This is a standard tactics by the Clinton Campaign...anyone remember Al Gore taking campaign contributions from Monks?
Every candidate gives some money back each campaign from less than scrupulous contributors...I would like to see a list of who has given back the most and why. - Pake, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13Who said anything about political sides? People are simply talking about corrupt politicians.
- kosmoX, on 10/22/2007, -2/+11Well, I know of at least one, but for the sake of not wanting to be called a spammer, I won't mention Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9You know, I was watching 60 Minutes tonight, and instead of investigating Hillary and all of her campaign finance shenanigans, they ran another piece on desk-jockey-turned-celebrity-spy Valerie Plame. Haven't we beat that non-story to death already?
I suspect that the MSM is fighting hard to resist doing a real investigation of Hillary. Maybe if the blogging community keeps the story at the forefront of everyone's attention, the MSM won't be able to ignore it any more. - inactive, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors1 ...
Here's some more from the LA Times. - thekeggerman, on 10/23/2007, -3/+12Don't take this as a personal attack, but could you explain to me what the appeal of Obama is? The guy seems nice enough but besides voting against the war originally what makes him stand out as a candidate I should vote for? He is getting so much publicity but seems like all the rest of the middle of the road candidates.
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -3/+12The LA TImes is all over this story as well. Here's one of their articles.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors1 ... - inactive, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10Don't hold your breath waiting for an objective story in _The NY Slimes_ - they gave up reporting for partisan leftist advocacy circa 1960.
But then, if you have been holding your breath that long, it's no wonder you embrace the leftist agenda - you are already brain dead. - pyrotix, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8Righties? This was based on a story in the New York Times, the Post only latched onto it later.
- jackkerouac, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9It's not a smear if it's true.
- NSResponder, on 10/22/2007, -2/+9Ron Paul's campaign funding comes entirely from individual contributors. No foreign money, no union money, no PAC money, no corporate money, and the thing that matters the most to me at least, is no TAX money. Of all the tax wasted by our federal government, the campaign funding is the thing I find most offensive.
-jcr - booyaman1, on 10/22/2007, -2/+9Actually, the way I see it, pretty much all the big medial companies share the same bias - they are Statists. Sure, each tv station and newspaper may have its particular political leanings and cater to either the more liberal or the more conservative crowd, and they keep the rhetoric of that duplicitous dynamic going to keep the general public thinking that there really is a difference between the two parties, both in rhetoric and in action. Of course to those of us actually paying attention to the action part, it's become blatantly obvious that both parties have been moving in the same direction for quite some time now, though their rhetoric and talking-points continue to remain divergent and hostile to the other side. The fact that Murdoch supports Billary's campaign while his news co's trash her at the same time is just another example of this - they have to bash her to please their conservative fan-base, but the fact of the matter is that Billary (or any of the other neo-imperial-fascists running on either side) would be great for Fox News and all the MSM because they will continue to use the "War on Terror" double-speak to hype fear and will also continue the Iraq war and probably start at least one more war (if Bush doesn't do it before he leaves). All of this means continued high-ratings and readership levels for the MSM companies. Whether you're liberal or conservative, It's easy to be pro-war when it doubles your business.....not so easy to give up all that business when it's time for the war to be over. That's why the MSM has a statist bias, because they don't want to go to back to scrapping and scrambling for viewers and readers like the pre-911 days, and maintaining the current status-quo means they won't have to.
- nuclearmeatloaf, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7It's funny how any time someone insults one of the candidates, a supporter of that candidate always points to Bush...
- oldhick, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6I remember Waco, the Montana Freeman, the Kobar Towers, the first World Trade Center attacks, Somalia, Bosnia, giving billions and billions to North Korea while they developed nuclear technology and turning a blind eye, the free flow of jobs over seas as the outsourcing boom began, Filegate, questionable pardons, white water, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on...
I guess for you, as long the economy was growing, you didn't look around and see the world going to ***** and the build up to what ***** Bush would finish. Once again, as J.R. Bob Dobbs would say "Pull the wool over your own eyes". - asdfuiop, on 10/22/2007, -2/+8I trust the New York Post, 'cause Page 6 just reported that Zach Efron is gay
- URnotheonly1, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Fools! Hillary was instrumental in the organizations creation, she has even admitted to it morons. YOU ARE SHEEP!
- clintons4sharia, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8Too late to "shoot the messenger" here. The truth is already out: Hillary is a treasonous crook.
- jackkerouac, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7You obviously don't know what 'Fascist' means. Go read a book.
- bamapachyderm, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Please quit spamming that in the comments all over digg. FFS, everyone has had plenty of opportunity to see it after seeing the spammed link 50,000 times.
- pyrotix, on 10/22/2007, -2/+7They used to physically intimidate people at voting booths. In fact, voting wasn't even by secret ballot for a very long time.
> In the United States, most states had moved to secret ballots soon after the presidential election of 1884.
They used to use the "oral ballot" - I am gonna say they were probably even more messed up in the 1870's. - DanThePainter, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6Huh? The Civil War was over in 1865.
- mattrmcg, on 10/22/2007, -5/+10I wonder if politics back in 1870s were this messed up....
- nblsavage, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8middle of the road seems to be a lot better than extremist to me.
- DanThePainter, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Parody? That was a straight news story.
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -3/+7I don't know if her arrogance and inability to speak any truth will "beat them," but that cackling hag is the lowest PoS this world has ever seen. Even ankle-pants is better than she.
- cheesehead, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5HIllary got the biggest donations from the war mongers or so called defense industry and Ron Paul got the biggest donations from US troops. What a ***** joke!
- 15thPD, on 10/22/2007, -8/+12Why can't the Chinese do their own laundry?
- fusama, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5fecking FEC
- clintons4sharia, on 10/23/2007, -4/+8So I guess any source right of dailykos is a "right wing propaganda machine" to you?
This is digg, though, so why am i surprised? I thought libs were open to non-conformist points of view by definition. Oh wait to be Left is to conform these days... - wil2200, on 10/22/2007, -9/+13she should not be elected at all
- SiNN4R, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Actually I think it was the LATimes I doubt the NYTimes would run a negative story on Hillary.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 183 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is