What is Digg?93 Comments
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -6/+27no very
- sustainablogger, on 08/12/2008, -2/+20McCain's been trying to burnish his own green credentials, so picking a decidedly non-green running mate could help with staunch conservatives... but also hurt with independents and moderates.
- Bukowsky, on 08/12/2008, -6/+23How "green" are republicans in general?
- FlaG8r, on 08/12/2008, -6/+23Perhaps the saddest thing you can say about the far right is that they would consider an environmentally conscious VP a negative.
- tbhurst, on 08/12/2008, -2/+17I would guess that the last thing conservatives want is another enviro on the ticket. McCain is having a hard enough time attracting the conservative wing of the party. But to be honest, I think the best choices he could make also happen to have the most green cred.
- executorzz, on 08/13/2008, -3/+15When the author mentioned Romney's 5 kids as environmentally bad I stopped reading.
- theyac3, on 08/12/2008, -6/+17Not so much green as they are black & smokey like
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/13/2008, -4/+14I'm stunned. A non-bashing McCain submission on Digg? The tides are turning baby!
- krnldmp, on 08/13/2008, -8/+18The minute I see Romney I think waste.
- zigardne, on 08/13/2008, -6/+16hahaha this cracks me up, you think they're sitting in the Republican War room quibbling over who has more 'green credentials'
Please, only about 5% of the population probably gives a damn about how green a candidate is (compared to other campaign issues like the economy, Iraq & foreign policy, monetary policy, education, immigration, etc.) and I bet that 5% has never voted Republican before, and certainly isn't considering it this election cycle.
McCain picking a VP based on his or her green credibility is like judging a steak house by its salad selection. - reaper527, on 08/13/2008, -0/+9yeah, i mean jindal is the whitest guy i've seen in a long time. seriously, what difference does it make? republicans have a better track record of putting qualified people of color in high places anyways. they view people by qualifications rather than by affirmative action.
- JoshuaLowe, on 08/13/2008, -3/+12What is their stance on Manbearpig?
- schapman43, on 08/13/2008, -0/+8What a dumb comment!
and how 'Black' are Obama's? From all accounts Barack just isn't 'Black' enough. Well until he gets into the White House that is. - schapman43, on 08/13/2008, -3/+11We may not be green but at least we don't smell like all you dirty hippies.
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -2/+10Yeah, I did not know that Gov. Pawlenty, for instance, had actually done some good things for the environment. He seems kind of like a boring running mate, but now I wouldn't be so disappointed by the choice (although when I say disappointment, I say that with the 10% of my brain that thinks McCain might win.)
- SouthernMeat, on 08/13/2008, -4/+11Wow, just cause he has 5 kids, you make assumptions about his views
- chispito, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5How fixated are you on skin color? Very.
- suckanucka, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Pickles are green too.
- xcspyder, on 08/13/2008, -3/+8"I have a hard time believing that anyone with five children in this day and age can honestly call themselves an environmentalist"
I am extremely offended by this statement. How could someone actually think this. How the hell does the number of children someone has matter at all in an issue such as this. How about you greenie socialist bastards tell us how many children we can have. I am really getting sick of this left ***** agenda that says "we are figting for the small guy" when it really means we want to control you. When is america going to wake up. - tbhurst, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7I know! It's a bit of a pickle, isn't it?
- gtluke, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5bush's ranch is still one of the greenest homes in the country, and it was finished before being green was even cool.
i think it uses something like 5% of the energy of algore's house - FlaG8r, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5Crist has actually scored an environmental coup in Florida with the purchase of thousands of acres near the Everglades from a sugar company. Sugar refining was doing horrible things to the ecosystem.
- imightbewrong, on 08/13/2008, -5/+9seriously though why would having 5 kids not be MORE green?
as far as raising children each additional child would produce less waste than the one before in terms of the family, like economies of scale lol. If you had a family with 5 kids or 5 families each with one kid those five families would produce way more waste than the one family and both combined would achieve the same thing, raising 5 kids. So yeah i guess 5 kids would waste more energy than 2 kids, but that's not a fair comparison. Is the author in favor of a two child policy or something in order to lower the US population? if not i don't see any reason why more children per family is less green - chispito, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Gaqua, I didn't say it was perfect, but if you're expecting wind, solar, or geothermal/tidal to be the white knight that saves us from burning fossil fuels, they just aren't practical enough yet.
- evildemonic, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Nuclear power plants consume more radioactive waste than they produce. The newer plants are very good at this. We already have and store literally tons of nuclear waste that could be going to fuel these plants. The plants convert the original material into waste that is less radioactive and has a shorter half-life. These plants are also the only technology we have that can meet the demand we have for power. They are green in the sense that they are the only CURRENT viable solution that we can adopt, so we can begin decommissioning the coal and natural gas plants that are really causing problems.
If we could stop using natural gas to power our homes, we could use it in cars and have it be economically viable. If our cars ran off NG, bye bye foreign oil dependence. - schapman43, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4I'd be much more interested in hearing their positions here also.
- gaqua, on 08/13/2008, -2/+6Nuclear Power isn't really "green" though. It produces radioactive waste that we can't really dispose of unless we dig holes in the ground and ignore the area for a few thousand years.
Solar and Wind and Geothermal are probably more "green".
personally I think the whole "green" thing is kind of retarded because if we're going to argue about who's more green than the next guy, the most "green" thing you could do would be to move to the woods and live naked and caveman-like, or to kill yourself. No more humans = no more pollution or harm for the environment, right?
Aside from natural disasters. - Rotzooi, on 08/12/2008, -5/+8Not very - after all, Jesus will come and get them at the Rapture. God will take care of the earth until then.
- radiofrequency, on 08/13/2008, -3/+6HuffPost = politics of desperation.
- TheUngod, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5...as in garbage? Or of skin?
- rda1441, on 08/13/2008, -5/+8Screw the environment. Make gas cheap gain, kill terrorist and terrorist supporters, and lower my taxes. Take the rest of the year off.
- TheMachine1, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4Some are a little green. Bush Sr did not veto the bill to phase out CFC's.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Bobby Jindal is a creationist ***** who claims to have performed exorcisms.
***** exorcisms. Jindal is ***** insane. I don't care what his race is; I don't want someone who claims to have performed exorcisms on the ticket. - ThePwnyExpress, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3ok, i dugg this when you replied to the second comment, but now you're over doing it... buried.
- schapman43, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5It's nice to see an intelligent post on Digg!
- radiofrequency, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Now that's racist!
- yngtimmy, on 08/13/2008, -2/+4uhmmmm, Romney turned around the freaking Olympics? Incredible business guy? Understands the free market? I don't see that as a waste.
- charliebucketts, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3Politicians aren't green, they're camouflage.
- vault, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Not that many voters really care about the environment that it would make or break a candidate...how 'green' McCain's VP is really won't have any effect at all on the election.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2snake skinned.
- reaper527, on 08/13/2008, -4/+6liberal blog, what did you expect? actual facts?
- shagmin, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Don't get used to it.
- ousthouse, on 08/13/2008, -3/+5According to this guy, Romney isn't an environmentalists because he has 5 kids. If that's true, the most environmental VP would be the one most likely to wage wars.
- hominidx, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry you're so deluded and unwilling to look up simple facts.
- Enzo33, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Green is so out!
- Cnat, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Mark Sanford? One of maybe two good governors in America.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -4/+5Who ***** cares? I am more curious if they are QUALIFIED TO LEAD!
- cobophers, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2The argument should be - How green is McCain's short list?....then how easily are they pushed over by neo-con interests? I don't care what politicians say, when they get to Washington the atmosphere makes people completely reverse the initial stance on issues. I could be biased since most of my political experience is watching Bush and Company.
- woodrow8292, on 08/13/2008, -7/+8No one cares how green the VP pick will be since most people don't give a rats ass. The whole global warming/green movement is a load of crap designed to make $$$$$ for all the "eco-activits" Get over it no one cares how green the VP pick is, and if they do then they have no idea about the real issues facing the country.
- akamurph, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1The 1/10th of your brain is correct :)
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
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