What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
99 Comments
- Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -21/+83It's about time Democrats are starting to grow some balls. Several years late... but better now than never. This coming election should be about the Democrats vs the Republicans, not the Republicans vs anyone running against them... as the 2004 presidential election was.
I absolutely loathe what the republican party has become, Facists. But at least they are proud of what they believe... Democrats are scared to death of being called liberals, even though being liberal is a GOOD thing. Stand up for what you believe in and you'll get elected, even if what you believe in may not be what is best for the country... Bush proves that. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -14/+59I'm not sure if it's a question of pride, or the fact that fascists like Cheney have no qualms about lying, cheating, smearing, or doing whatever it takes to win. When an opponent is a fascist, the liberal tendency to show respect for difference and different opinions is a liability. Democrats should start fighting back, reclaim the word "liberal", and call out Republican-fascists like Cheney for what they are. In any case, I agree that the solution is more Democrats with balls.
- Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -20/+59"This article pretty much shows that both sides are willing to take pot shots at one another"
Rather, it shows that when the Vice President calls American Citizens terrorists that a few democrats are willing to stand up and fight back instead of bending over like they have for the last two years.
"The Dems are split between the well-to-do, elite liberals and the blue collar democrats in Connecticut."
I'm confused, which are voting for who? You must mean the elite liberals are voting against Lieberman? If so I think you are sorely mistaken, as the elite liberals were the ones backing him and were shocked to see the "common" people rise up and beat him.
And personally I'd like to know what is wrong with being a liberal? Have you looked the word up? Here are the definitions from dictionary.com:
1)
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I am very proud to be a liberal. I understand conservatives who are not "free from bigotry" and who are not "broad-minded" or "tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others" hate us liberals... but I think it is close minded people who should be embarassed, not LIBERALS. Liberalism is a great thing and I am extremely tired of democrats being afraid of being labeled as such.
IT'S A GOOD THING TO BE LIBERAL, Digg me up if you agree, down if you disagree. - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -13/+36What bothered me was Bush's press conference yesterday. In it, he said many "good honest Americans" are supporting people who want to pull out of Iraq immediately. Bush doesn't think this is the right thing to do. So he says, "These people are just as American as me, but I don't think that's the right thing to do."
What bothers me so profoundly about that statement is the fact that the mere notion of not supporting the president's ideology to the fullest immediately frames you as being "unAmerican," which is so profoundly stupid. What does that even mean? It just infuriates me. that is all. - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+31Either you're a troll, in which case your post was pretty weak, or you're a perfect fit for the republican party these days.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22Goddamn, I truly feel for you americans. How did you get into this mess?
- geocar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Dear Mister President:
Please stop making Kennedy sound reasonable.
We liked him better drunk. - rhowell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Does anyone have a link to the actual article/press release/interview in which Cheney made this statement? I don't see one on the "Crooks and Liars" page. And lest we forget, unsubstantiated claims tend to get us in a lot of trouble.
- cdawzrd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"I Have here in my hand a list of 146,587 Comm..err..Terrorists in the State of Connecticut...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy - ElegantFiend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Does anyone know when Cheney said any of this? I'd be very interested to listen to the sound byte.
- pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6so what exactly did dick cheney say? you said you read his comments. it would be best if it was shared here. all i've read is stuff from here and other comments above.
- zip000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't think very many people think about electing officials in terms of what committees they'll be on. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, I just don't think that it occurs to most people.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12the problem is that the term "liberal" was puprosfully manauplated over the years from the early 1900's to lean toward "moral' issues instead of "state" issues. Early "liberals" were about seperation of Corporation and State much like seperation of Church and State. We all talk about how corps run the show, but in the early 1900's you could openly discuss socialism, communism, capatilism, unions, and other stuff in polite discussion. The liberals were also quick to enjoy the "questionable" things in life, a little of the weed, relaxed with the ladies.. The "moral"/"Business" side capitalized on the whole God rewards those who sacrafice and god must love rich people more... ideals. Once the country found "religion" and passed prohibition things went downhill fast.. combine with two Wars and we've become nearly as bad as Nazi Germany pre-38. Even what we diggers discuss as "radical" is fairly right-wing compared to political discussion prior to WW1. Once they made "liberal" about personal morals then it's easy to call poor people "lazy" blame anybody not "morally sufficent" for their lot in life rather than structuring society to give them options. It's easy to combine corperate wants and religous doctrine so voting against corperate sponsored bills is "immoral" neatly dodging the whole debate... it's Goodwin's law on a massive, structured scale!
- jcpudd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, I have to agree partially with this comment, except this is how I would have put it.
The PEOPLE in this thread are hilarious! Say anything negative about the DRUNK DRIVING AND VEHICULAR HOMICDING (yeah I know, it's not a word) Ted Kennedy and get modded down! Please try to be slightly unbiased.
See thats better then calling random people *****. - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5whether i agree or not, ted kennedy is a worthless drunk murderer. although cheney is a moron and someone needs to say it - i wish it was someone with more credibility.
- TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14"This coming election should be about the Democrats vs the Republicans, not the Republicans vs anyone running against them... as the 2004 presidential election was."
Honestly I want this upcoming election to be about the american people reclaiming it's country..remember the dems supported both the Iraq War and then the Patriot Act
let us not forget so soon.... - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4so where does it say that the voters who voted for lamont are terrorists? the only one who seems to bring up that malicious idea is ted kennedy and he said it explicitly, attributing the perceived attack on democrats to dick cheney.
why in the world would democrats associate themselves as the al-qaeda types who are bent on breaking the will of america and keep america from finishing the task? isn't it entirely possible that dick cheney was talking about the hizbolqaeda people who are actually gleeful that 9/11 happened?
all quotes that i have read so far from the links cited here that pertains to this issue says nothing about dick cheney calling the voters of connecticut "terrorists"; only that a win for ned lamont in the primaries will only serve to embolden the terrorists, since it has been ned lamont's platform so far in this race that he doesn't like war, which logically extends to the assumption that he doesn't like fighting terrorism abroad. this is clearly a jab at the lamont campaign, but i'm not so sure about calling the people of connecticut "terrorists".
what ted kennedy is doing is trying to manufacture outrage by mischaracterizing what was said. it was kennedy who associated "al-Qaeda types" with "Democrats". which doesn't really bode well when democrats like kennedy themselves cannot distinguish the terrorists' intent on breaking america from their, well, their own intentions.
straw man, meet the donkey.
either this was all a misunderstanding, or ted kennedy could no longer draw the line between what his own party believes and what the "al-Qaeda types" believe regarding america and their little mideast project going on over there.
and please, let's not kid ourselves. it's not that much of a stretch to say that Lieberman lost the primaries because of his views about the war on terror. Lamont won because he doesn't like war. Michael Moore highlighted that fact, the Huffington Post highlighted that fact, DailyKos highlighted that fact. Lamont won fair and square. i guess they'll just have to duke it out on November. - Bobski, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Wow - Talk about the leftist bent on digg!
Mention something like GWB's past DUI and you'd get modded right through the roof, but even hint at the fact that Kennedy's drunkenness was directly responsible for the death of a woman and you are modded to hell. - jcpudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Holy Crap! That was funny.
- farnsbarns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"I'd still rather go hunting with Cheney than driving with Kennedy. Survival odds are a bit higher."
Good one.
So, Kennedy woke up sober yesterday morning, much to his own amazement, and decided to take advantage of it and put out a statement.
"There are 146,587 terrorist supporters living in the state of Connecticut . . . "
And how many drunks are there in Massachusetts who crash cars off bridges, then run away and leave their passengers to die in the dark? Regrettably he neglects to tell us.
Kennedy, Cheney -- what's the difference? Worse than useless, the pair of them. - ASHole71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Driving across bridges at night on the Vineyard. Killing a girl while being a Senator. Running to mommy who hid him for over 24 hours.
Your right he sure beats them on that - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i see chuck roberts apologizing to ned lamont for "pos[ing] it badly, stupidly, ad-libbing about some saying the al Qaeda candidate."
and of course, "No one, in fact, used that construction."
"The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statement suggesting that terror groups, al Qaeda types, to use Cheney’s word, would be buoyed by [his] win."
so it was chuck roberts' guest (from a previous show) that brought up the veep and joe lieb's statement. and that they (VP and JL) are suggesting that *terror groups* will have a field day with ned lamont's win.
my perception of that third hand quote is that with ned lamont winning, having consistently showing himself to be soft on national security and panders to the daily kos crowd (anti-war), it would be a boost for terrorists if another elected official declares america as the root cause of all evil in this world, therefore justifying their annihilation of the U.S.
of course, i'm not a senator, so i could be very well talking out of my ass.
unless there is another issue other than the fact that it is about dick cheney being dick cheney and republicans being republicans that ted kennedy is talking about, this is nothing but pretty lame posturing. righteous indignation of something that he doesn't really cite and based on references and personal perceptions and hearsay takes away from the whole effect of righteousness. for all we know, this could be another "well, i'm offended because it sounds like it was offensive."
does anyone have an actual audio byte, or a transcript or an actual interview that DIRECTLY quotes dick cheney and joe lieberman or their campaigns stating as a matter of fact that lamont voters are terrorists? it would be really helpful to know these sorts of things. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/15/chuck-roberts-apologizes-for-calling-lamont-the-al-qaeda-candidate/
- rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Well, some part of it is a short sighted shambles known as public education. Reasons for that are multitude, but the end result is ignorant americans, which is a deathblow for democracy. Democracy only works with educated (able to think critically) citizenry.
- ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More over, it is better to go hunting with a Cheney than to go driving with a Kennedy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11As a Florida resident, allow me to be the first to tell you that Jeb wouldn't be a good choice for you suckers that want the neo-cons to continue to rule. The economy is in the crapper, insurance rates are out of control, education is horrible here, we're running out of drinking water, the population is growing too quickly, and Jeb has done little (if anything) to fix any of this. In fact it's gotten much worse since he took power. Part of it can be blamed on 9/11 (what isn't these days) because Florida is so dependent on tourism, but five years later, nothing has been done to move the state's economy away from tourism to something that would bring higher paying jobs (like research and technology companies).
I could keep going on about the out of control urban sprawl and poorly supported infrastructure, but by now, most people have stopped reading. - Spaz007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Political ***** on both sides need to STFU and find answers to problems instead of placing blame on everyone but themselves. They spend more time fighting for votes then making a difference.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Kennedy: A bridge too far... and short.
I'd still rather go hunting with Cheney than driving with Kennedy. Survival odds are a bit higher. - boonesfarm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@cdawzrd - Do yourself a favor and wiki Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and scroll down to the paragragh "Joe McCarthy close to Joe Kennedy". You made that too easy.
Democrats aren't "growing some balls" if they blindly flail at Cheney. That's been their calling card for 6 years now - how's that been treatin' ya? They should ***** the kneejerk reactions, try to work with their opposition once in a while, and formulate a goddamn gameplan of their own. Show some creativity. Have a platform ready for November other than "We hate them! :(" - franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everytime teddy opens his mouth... (or goes for a drive)
nvrmnd... it's just too easy - th4k1dd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I call Bull *****...unless someone can give me a link to a credible, somewhat non-bias news organization that put this on some page some where. Otherwise whoever posted this ***** is no better than the republicans they criticize. I'm sorry, I don't believe anything coming from the google hit list on this subject....lets see: liberalsonly.com, democraticunderground.com, to name a few.
Goddamn, don't act like the people who you want to get rid of...Otherwise I'm going to call everyone here pushing this ***** Rush Limbaugh because you appear no better. This should have not gotten more than 10 diggs if there isn't a credible source. I see Digg becoming as bad as Slashdot someday if not worse because of this *****.
I swear. Maybe some of you should start trying to throw out all of these bastards we call leaders instead of telling me Bush sucks and we have the answer. Haha, I saw Clinton. He may have only be marginally better because he didn't attack Iraq. They are all dumb asses. We haven't had a good president in ***** decades. And yet you all are gonna vote for the next Democrat just because Bush ***** up? When are people gonna wake up and realize this whole system is ***** up. Am I wrong? - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually I would say it is probably more like 50% of our country doesn't bother voting. I'm from Connecticut, and do you know how many people voted in this primary? 10% of people over the age of 18. Only 10%! When I heard that number I was shocked. Anyone could win an election when only 10% of people are voting.
- ASHole71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Are you insane?
- v13inc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15I like the fact that here in Canada liberal isn't a bad word.
- nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the politicians are a disgrace, and so are the politics. It's just name-calling.
No wonder the republicanofascists get in when all they have against them is the democrablancmange.
Unlike in 1953 or 1975, we don't have a leader who is prepared to take us OUT of a war (Ike, Ford), instead of INTO another one.
What that means is that more American boys will grow up in poverty believing their only hope is a career in the military, only to end up in a body bag.
That's why the politicians are a disgrace.
By the way, if Cheney has any evidence that these people are supporting terror, I assume they will all be arrested and shipped to """Gitmo"""? - habman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm laughing my a$$ off at the Republicrats. Neither party is twilling to stand up and tell the truth, so it's only going to get more bizarre
- milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5+digg for the McCarthyism reference.
- venir, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16It has to do with 50+% of our country being complete and total idiots.
- dzhuo04, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2thekidd, with numbers for vowels
watch ur self, liberals are nded cuz they make good doormats in congress and they make good windsurfers too! - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not clear what part of the story you're doubting, but you can read what Kennedy said first hand on Kennedy's website:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/content/1097/oped-cheney-paints-lamont-victory-as-helping-terrorists
And I agree the system is far from perfect, but some choices are still better than others. - dbalaski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-lieberman0822.artaug22,0,2083598.story
Link to the article... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey. His power and wealth let him get away with murder. What more proof do you need that he's "for the little people"? :-)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Nope. Just hate Cheney. Kennedy is no angel.
- ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Reported as freaking lame. Do the Repubs keep digging crap from their has-been politicians like that? No. So the dog gone Dems can do the same.
- BURRITOCREW, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15democrats have the same interests... power and money. they dont give any more of a ***** about you or me than the republicans do. ***** them both.
ps - ted kennedy is an ass. chappaquiddick. - Krugger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How many Kennedys are there left?
- blueblood2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The fact that Kennedy is still a leader in the Democrat party speaks volumes. Geeze, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
- airship, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat, and I can honestly say I've observed the following over and over again:
(a) A Democrat typically gets in trouble by screwing somebody he shouldn't be screwing (Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, et. al.)
(b) A Republican typically gets in trouble by screwing just about everybody (Bush, Cheney, etc.) - zip000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Um no - they are definitely not realists - they are pure fantasists (is that a word?!)...they believe all sorts of silly crap that is obviously not true.
And if you ask a lot of the rest of the world, I'd bet they would say that Bush and gang are terrorists - I'm not willing to go that far, but I do thing he and the lot are living with their heads in the sand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9I am no fan of kennedy but what doesn any of this have to do what he said?
DO you agree with Cheney statmet or think that is good politics?
Or are you just trying to attack the messanger?
Just because the man is scum, does that mean we can discount every word out of his mouth?
I find it unfortunate that it takes a contravercial figure like ted kennedy to stand up and say this crap, but i agre with him. -
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is