What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
76 Comments
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+66I'm glad I voted for him. Even though I've been labeled as a terrorist by no less than Tony Snow, Cheney and now Bush.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -15/+64I hope lamont wins, and its nice that he owes no favors since he didn;t accept money from corporations
- angrybulldog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48@ Mark Ciccionne .... don't forget, if you believe in expanding the efforts of stem cell research, you are also a proponent of murder, according to WH Press Sec Tony Snow ... so you got that going for you, too
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34"I'm glad I voted for him. Even though I've been labeled as a terrorist by no less than Tony Snow, Cheney and now Bush."
Thats part of the reason why I'd support him if I lived in Connecticut...if Lieberman is supported by Bush, Cheney, Snow, Hannity, O'Reiley, and all those types, then I don't want to be on his side. - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35"he owes no favors"
That is HUGE. - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32are you saying there isnt a civil war there now? and whos hands are the civilian deaths in now?
- tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32where in this article is there anything about terrorists being our friends?
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Just as bad as the naive neocons that think our leaders are our friends...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30More proof America is tired of old codgy criminals.
- finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Tyranny still exists.
Slavery still exists.
Oppression still exists.
Fascism still exists.
Communism still exists.
Nazism still exists. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Aha! You're one of those 'Al-Qaida types!'"
- jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28More proof the Neo-Cons think that the war in Iraq is a war with Terrorists.
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Wait...has Cheney ever been honest about anything? This is the same guy who said Iraq had nukes. The guy who said the insurgency was in it's last throes. The guy who said this coalition (150K troops) was as strong as the last Gulf War coalition (660K troops).
Debating Dick Cheney is like playing soccer with a kid who picks up the ball and throws it in your goal. - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24"More proof America is full of naive liberals who actually think that terrorists are our friends."
Planning a big workout, because that's one hell of a stretch... - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Actually, I would have been happy if they had kept troops in Afganistan, found Osama and his crew - you know, the people who continue to fund terrorist activities? Remember them?
Evidently, the president and his crew doesn't, because they took a road trip to Iraq and can't seem to figure out how to find their ass with both hands. So while people continue to die because these idiots go off on some damn fool crusade rather than doing their job right, I'll support the guys like Lamont who want to pull troops from Iraq, and get back to the job we should be doing:
Hunting down the people who actually attacked us (for the slow: that's "Osama bin Laden" and his crew in Afganistan/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia), instead of the peopel Bush and crew want us to *believe* attacked us (Iraq). - jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@geekee
So your saying that when were talking about the war on Terror, all the people in Iraq are terrorists, but when we talk about pulling out, its the blood of Iraqis. Which is it? Are we fighting terrorists or Iraqis? - axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20you know that if the administration calls you a terrorist they will decide they have a right to spy on everything you do without a warrant. as a matter of fact they say that the democrats are literally aiding the terrorists, so they have implied a legal right to wiretap every DNC office in America. think about that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23That's right, because hating Bush and his tyrannical ***** automatically = terrorist sympathizer. I feel sorry for you ***** ***** neocons who have bought into the Fox News propaganda so thoroughly that you're now completely ***** blind to the way things are.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Wow! This from the poster of such non-partisan articles as: "Gore not as green as he would like you to think"
I'd seriously back off of the kettle-bashing, pot. Your glass house can't take another pelting.
Anyone not disgusted by these pathetic, fear-mongering, political hacks doesn't deserve to live in a free society. - jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21And, more proof that Right-wing posters leave their two cents (however misguided) and never respond to their critics. Just get modded down, flamed by 8 people with much better points, and offer no rebuttals.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The problem is that we should NEVER have invaded in the first place--now that we're there, we're damned if we stay and damned if we leave. If we stay we lose by attrition (a few soldiers killed every day for the 10-15 years it would take to get that place stabilized adds up pretty fast), and if we leave, we leave behind a bigger mess than we came to fix.
So yeah, leaving is bad, and leaving will probably start a civil war--but perhaps our elected officials should have thought about that before they chose to run around the middle east invading any country that's leader was a not-nice person. Now we get to live with the consequences either way, and that blood is not on the hands of the people that decide to pull out or stay, but on the hands of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22What about the blood of the Iraqis in the current civil war, which was started by the US? How about the blood of all the civilians that have been killed and raped by US troops?
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20/sigh
More proof America is full of short-attention-span Republicans who forget that our "terrorists" today were our "freedom fighters" 20 years ago.
How quickly we forget. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Then shoots you in the face
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16You can also say war cause all these things...
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Then has a heart attack.
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.” JFK - 1963
Sounds like he wouldn't be much of a Republican either. - mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21I wish I lived in Conneticut, then I would be able to vote for Lamont...
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"On every issue he was a straight line Democrat?" BZZZT. Wrong. However, your concern for the issues important to Democratic voters is duly noted. It's touching, really.
Confirming pro-life votes to the court, supporting privitizing Social Security, interfering in the Schiavo case, pushing for school vouchers, supporting the war on Iraq to a delusional extent, slandering his fellow Democrats on Fox News every chance he got, appointing Michael Brown head of FEMA, putting Bush cronies in Homeland Security....
but hey...I trust your take on what's important to Democratic voters. Who better to advise Democrats than a GOP stooge?
And JFK would have been disgusted by what's occuring today. Unlike Bush, he asked for people to share the burdens of war and a better society.
JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you", Bush is asking you to "never mind what your country is doing". Wanna help your country? Go shopping, you mindless drone. - realyst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Correction. Most of those were solved by revolution. I'll give you Nazism.
As for Terrorism, it ain't a regime. It's a tactic.
Get a clue. - jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Actually, your right.
Because bombing the ***** out of them hasn't worked at all. Or do you disagree. You probably think that all the people we're bombing in Iraq are terrorists, and you probably think the 40,000+ Iraqis that have been killed are all terrorists.
Wow, we've destroyed a whole small city of terrorists. At least we didn't negotiate, that would have been MUCH worse. - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"Communism"
are you refering to the vietnam war? whoops. - zevgreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12JFK said:
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I wish I could invision total peace in the middle east too, but a land divided for thousands of years, then modernized against it's will is a battle we arent going to win.
Want to stop terrorism? Defend America. Get the borders closed, get the ports working. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"War on crime" is just rhetoric, like "war on drugs", it's not an actual war.
- drog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Tyranny, Slavery, Oppression, Fascism, Communism and Nazism are not tactics. How do you win a war on a tactic? Not that Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror before we came in, it would still be nice to know how you defeat a tactic. Let Rummy know when you find out.
Your bumper sticker is still retarded though. The war against communism was a cold war. We won it through containment, economics, and diplomacy more than anything else. Meanwhile, there is still plenty of tyranny and oppression in the world. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. defeated tyranny and oppression without any war. - finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ScottyMo
"So, by extension, would you say that because crime still exists, we should give up on our "war against crime" by removing all police from our streets?"
There is no war against crime. The police exist so people don't take the law into their own hands and decided to kill someone because they think that is the right punishment for taking something from somebody else. I'm a hippie, not an anarchist.
" Since poverty still exists, should we give up on our "war against poverty" by removing all social programs?"
The "war on poverty" you speak of is a social, not governmental one. This is done by people and organizations with altruistic goals (not always the best business plans). The "war on poverty" is people working together in a non-violent action for change and to help their fellow man, so yes, I think all the work there should still exist.
Sorry, I'm just not for war. I find it hard to fathom the wanton destruction of people and property.
I understand the feeling of revenge and anger, but not the group dynamic of it which has been going on since man decided to shack up together.
I'm all for defense because aggression is a reality that can't be denied but there has to be a better way the/an mass murder and destruction to make people feel better. - sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@realyst:
You do realize that revolutions, by and large, have always been about progressing away from fascist governments and towards governments that are more open to the people? Communism wasn't "solved by revolution", communism WAS a revolution, moving away from a prior tyrannical government. Obviously, communism didn't work out in Russia(nor was its version supported by a large sect of Marxists), but my point still stands: revolutions are caused by the more liberal in society who advocate a move away from the conservative government.
See:
American Revolution
French Revolution
Workers Revolution
Spanish Revolution
August Revolution
Of course, you will have the nationalists who want to revolt, as what happened in the first Iraqi Revolution and the German Revolution. These are the causes of fascism--usually just a reaction by conservatives to the evils of liberalism.
We are currently experiencing such a reaction in our government.
See? Liberals aren't so bad! ^_^ - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And nothing has ever been solved without war...
Opposition to any one war is not necessarily opposition to war in general. - zevgreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sorry to tell you, but the way this government and its constitution are set up on liberal ideals. Freedom, justice, representative democracy, and personal liberties are a liberal, not a conservative ideology. If you would only remove the lemming authoritarianism from your right-wing ideology, you might actually understand how and why the United States of America was founded. Stop saying that you stand for the flag and the constitution without understanding what the flag and the constitution stand for! Do some reading of history for crying out loud. Morons I tell you!
- JohnM5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9according to [the Lieberman] campaign spokesman Gerstein. "We will raise enough to win," Gerstein said.
Its sad that the ones with the most money win(Or have a much better chance) - jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Good for Lamont.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Revolutions happen once the people 'rise up' and change the regime they find themselves in. Since, usually, people will want to move to a regime with a more level playing field, then democracy, liberalism, and in it's extreme; communism, occurs.
Sometimes it isn't even a gov't change but a change in policy and equality within a nation(see Quiet Revolution).
Communism was caused by revolution(as was seen in Cuba and the former Soviet Union), but also was ousted from some countries equally through the people of that nation having enough of their regime. Even though something was brought about due to revolution, does not mean it itself can not be revolted against.
Besides, communism has more flaws regarding advancement in the long term than democracy(which is why a rapidly developing nation like China finds itself abandoning communist practices in favor for more capitalistic ones, it simply outgrew communism which relies on a steady bar). And pure communism just cannot work when all current political truths are analyzed.
The USA has the potential for it's own quiete revolution. As Quebec's was largely done by artists, musicians and poets; actors, musicians and especially comedians are trying their best now.
However, my point was just the comment on which I was replying was an ignorant rant about "War is good, you anti-war hippies".
Not that I disagree with your point in any way^~ - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I think he is complaining because instead of worrying about the issues at hand, you know, the whole blowing up airplanes thing, they chose to attack their opponents.
- celopes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But that is a mistake too...
Even those fear-mongering supporters should be welcome in a free society. It is free because it welcomes all sorts of ideas. Including ones that you and I may find abhorrent and offensive.
Being dumb or unwilling to open ones eyes should not preclude someone from living free. That is the beauty of it.
The sad part is that we have to put up with one another somehow... - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I voted for him in the primary and I will be voting for him again in the election. We need more politicians who aren't the property of major corporations.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7War on crime, war on drugs, war on terror. It's all the same crap.
- Personatech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5WTF??!! The man IS a corporation!!!
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yeah, geekee is a head f*ck. i don't even think he's real... just some jabberwocky... but then again... wouldn't a computer explode after so much hypocrisy?
- greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Everyone likes to blame the US for the state of the middle east. And while in more recent times such may be true to some extent, the mid east started it's downward spiral after the 1st world war, when most of the german supporting middle east was ceased and it's borders were redrawn by the French and English under provision of the League of Nations. And of course, they made a terrible mess of it, enclosing opposing muslim factions within the same borders (present day Iraq), and structuring other lines in a manner which they felt would be economically beneficial to European ideals.
US envolvment in the middle east basically kicked off during the cold war, and was largely responsible for the creation of the Talliban resistance, which it trained, funded, and armed to fight off Russian forces during their campaign in Afganistan during the late 70's and early 80's. The United States also aided Iraq under Saddam Hussien when they were at war with Iran, as Iran was largely supported and allied to Russia.
So while the United State's hands are certainly not clean in this matter, it is hardly the sole country to blame for the current situation in the mid east. Sure you can argue that the Talliban and Saddam were armed and suported by the US during the 80's, but the counter to that is a consideration of where the region would be today were it influenced by Russian ideals alone.
The moral of this story is, humans suck. -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is