What is Digg?92 Comments
- beyondu, on 08/08/2008, -5/+35If McCain has a tough time being honest about everything else, who would think a McCain blogger could be honest either. These are really stupid mistakes, because it doesn't take much to find the lie. To all the politicians out there...if your going to lie, make sure someone can't simply pick up a piece of paper and see your lie.
- jorichter, on 08/09/2008, -5/+31Seriously does anyone believe this ***** anymore? Please let Obama win.
- LKnight, on 08/08/2008, -4/+20Smear mongering used to work, mud slinging used to be very effective, but now we have Snopes, Google, and the entire web to help get past the spin. http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Is_McCain_too_ex ... The article asks what may be the central question in the upcoming election: Nevermind too old to serve, is McCain too experienced to win this time?
- Hellman109, on 08/09/2008, -7/+20Republicans lying
Grass Green
Sky Blue - jordanlgta, on 08/09/2008, -4/+16Seeing McCain's new ad mixed in with all of the wonderful positive Olympic ads during the opening ceremonies made me want to ***** puke.
- cherwilco, on 08/09/2008, -4/+15*gasps* A neocon mouthpiece spreading lies! It CANT be!
- AbelVoicu, on 08/09/2008, -1/+11Nuclear power is the best solution overall. Yes there is harmful waste but we'll find ways to deal with it. Don't give me this fearmongering crap about a plant failing, today's plants are safer than they have ever been before. Name one accident that happened in the US. Three Mile Island? Nobody died and nobody got injured. Since then, there haven't been any accidents. Chernobyl was a big *****-up but that's because those plants were nowhere near up to the standards of modern plants.
Solar and wind power are not cost effective ways of producing massive amounts of energy, nuclear power is where it's at. - rthakidn, on 08/09/2008, -1/+8The outrage is that McCain got more money from big oil?? The outrage SHOULD be that Obama got any!!! Any money at all calls into question his objectivity. Let me put it another way the campaign might understand: Republicans have for a long time received more money from big oil than Democrats, but Democrats have always received Something (sort of like oil hedging their bets). Is this the CHANGE we were promised? I have HOPE. I hope America wakes up! Obama is a fraud.
- cherwilco, on 08/09/2008, -1/+7so what your really saying is don't let McCain win right?
- gamekid, on 08/09/2008, -0/+6I saw a McCain ad (Celebrity) there too. With decent ads like Visa's "GO WORLD" and Bud's Rocky-horse-train-pulling-thing nearby, it was just so jarringly negative and out-of-place.
I would support drilling for oil in other places only if an independent group (or several) was allowed to freely survey and report on oil availability in places already owned by the big corps, and only if new drilling posed extremely low environmental harm. Otherwise, I'm still looking for a reason to like the new McCain; his ads won't be one of them. - jordanlgta, on 08/09/2008, -1/+7I imagine the McCain blogger being one of those guys that's supposedly a "Republican Strategist" like 23 that looks funny wearing a suit that Sean Hannity would interview. *****.
- cherwilco, on 08/09/2008, -1/+7unfortunately the types of people that are going to cast their blind vote to McCain's side probably have no clue that snopes.com or any other fact checking website even exists.
- yellowsnowcone, on 08/09/2008, -1/+6To be honest, both are getting peanuts from the oil industry. The amounts involved are tiny compared to the overall money raised by both candidates.
- norman619, on 08/09/2008, -1/+5sneaker:
How long have our nuclear reactors been running? How many disasters have we had? How many people die or are injured working at these plants? How many people are injured or die as a result of mining coal and drilling for gas and oil? Modern nuclear reactors are damn near meltdown proof. Why? Because the new designs tie the reaction process into the cooling process. No coolant and the reaction stops. Chernobyl was an unsafe and poorly designed reactor even by 1950's standards. Everyone knew it was a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear power actually is clean and safe. In case you didn't know, the waste generated by all the existing nuclear reactors in this country since their existence couldn't even fill a high school gymnasium. You may also want to look into the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal station. You really should educate yourself and look at sources other than wiki. I mean seriously.... - UKLooney, on 08/09/2008, -1/+5This is SOO crazy it's funny...
Are they actually arguing about who is in bed least with the Big Oil companies.
Can't they just agree that there is a ménage-a-trois going on...
WAKE UP AMERICANS - inactive, on 08/09/2008, -2/+5If we listed all the lies the Democrats have posted it would overload the servers…….
- magus_melchior, on 08/09/2008, -1/+4Adding to sneaker98's point...
What makes all the nuke advocates online think that under McCain, we'll somehow build the reactors and maintain them safely? What makes them think that we'll use the reactor technologies that produce the least radioactive waste? I happen to believe that we'll do as we've always done for critical infrastructure in the past 2 decades under Republican "leadership": buy from the lowest bidder. Ironic, that we don't trust the government to build anything, but we somehow trust them to build us safe nuclear power plants.
"Yes there is harmful waste but we'll find ways to deal with it."
Ah, so if we build and bring a plant online, we'll just ignore all the byproducts created from fission. That's a lovely solution.
"Don't give me this fearmongering crap about a plant failing..."
Don't give us hubris that nukes are infallible. You would still rely on a finite resource (unless you can come up with a way to manufacture uranium or thorium using solar/geothermal/tidal/wind/etc.), meaning that if you accelerate the use of fission, you'll run out of fuel faster. You would still have to expend energy and resources to dig fuel out of the ground and refine it, to say nothing of the environmental impact of doing this preparation in the cheapest way possible.
"Solar and wind power are not cost effective ways of producing massive amounts of energy, nuclear power is where it's at."
Instead of managing the demand for energy while deploying many renewable sources at the same time?
This is why nuclear advocates are so short-sighted: they assume that critics pushing for more sustainable energy sources want to use only two technologies.
We've only begun to scratch the surface of solar thermal power (which, unlike PV solar, doesn't need a battery to continue running without the sun), and we're seeing really exciting stuff from wind and tidal. What about the idea of using solar energy to heat a really big column of air to push turbines, for example? What about microbes using photosynthesis to make fuels otherwise derived from petroleum?
Dismissing the possibilities of renewables, as you have done, is intellectually dishonest. - absurdist, on 08/09/2008, -2/+5I dugg you up, because I'm a lefty who supports nuclear power. However, I suggest you Google the Fermi reactor (where Mc Cain made the campaign appearance) and the origin of the term China Syndrome.
- LordSturm, on 08/09/2008, -3/+6More important than who wins, is who doesn't...
PLEASE DON'T LET BUSH WIN! - laserdog, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2Obama received no money directly from any oil corporations or PACs, since he doesn't take money from special interest groups.
He received individual contributions from people who worked at oil companies.
The question here really is, should Obama refuse campaign donations from individuals based on where they're employed? - norman619, on 08/09/2008, -5/+7Hello... The total amount of waste produced by the existing plants since their existence wouldn't fill a high school gymnasium. Look into Yucca Mountain. You are obvious clueless on this subject. Oh, and Solar, geo-thermal, and wind have no chance of making any real dent in power we get from burning fossile fuels.
- Latentk, on 08/09/2008, -3/+5Wow, so now biased blogs concerning political OPINIONS are making the front page now? Why do I care what bloggers who debate each candidate honestly have to say? Are they somehow proportional to the campaign itself? Why is this article of any importance at all?
- Santiak, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2Channeling those donations through individuals rather than the corporations themselves is just an euphemism for the same old practices that have destroyed American democracy.
- xaoiv, on 08/09/2008, -4/+6The McCain campaign is full of Big Oil lobbyists.
Source: http://www.campaignmoney.org/files/Its_A_Gusher.pd ...
"Thirty-three McCain staffers and fundraisers have received $19.3 million in lobbying fees from at least 30 oil and gas industry corporations and associations."
"The four top oil lobbyists on the McCain campaign have been paid $11,475,000 to lobby on behalf of the oil and gas industries."
The McCain campaign also gets around donation limits through its “McCain Victory 08” fund:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/new-mccai ...
This leads to his Big Oil contributions being severely under reported:
"In Texas alone, June oil and gas-connected donations to McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund, his hybrid fundraising venture with the RNC and state committees, reached $1,214,100." - sneaker98, on 08/09/2008, -1/+3Funny, thought we were talking about a McCain blogger doing the lying. Care to stick to the topic, rather than spouting off a baseless diversion?
- friscos, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1I certainly believe that nuclear power will be *part* of the solution to our energy problems, but I have to say I am struck by your decidedly "Can't do" attitude about solar, wind or any other type of technology. Lame, actually.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1We won't know if solar and wind are capable of generating more energy -- which they should be, especially solar -- until we actually make the investments in the basic research. We can waste time trying to drill for oil everywhere (and waste money in the process), or we can start harnessing the power of the sun today. Right now, at Caltech, scientists are trying to develop solar grass. Did you factor such a thing into your calculations? The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor -- that incidentally, is a lot safer than a nuclear plant down the street-- we need to invest in harnessing THAT tremendous source of energy.
Also, Senator McCain also lies about Senator Obama being against nuclear power. Considering that Senator Clinton used Senator Obama's support for nuclear against him like a bludgeon during the primary, I find this repeated lie very interesting.
Senator Obama says nuclear should be a part of our package, but we need to make certain it is safe and we can safely store the waste. If you think we will be building any nuclear plants anywhere (even if the President wants them built) if people don't believe they are safe (which they do not right now), you are wrong. First, we need to convince people that such power is safe -- and to do that, we need to stop politicizing and polarizing this issue. - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Worship any man or woman is not a good idea, and though I fervently support Senator Obama for President, I certainly do not blaspheme and worship him. I believe you have been spun by the GOP spin machine, if you believe that.
Also, I hope you are similarly outraged about Senator McCain's statement that he can defeat evil. I suppose he will also re-order the world and kick Satan out of it, since he believes he can, once and for all, defeat original sin. Incidentally, it was Senator McCain, himself, who claimed he could defeat evil, not some Democratic talking head on television. - vexingmodstwo, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2Blogs are inherently prone to inaccuracies and even lies. Thinkprogress is a blog. HuffingtonPost is a blog. They are the poster children for inaccuracy and lying in the blogosphere yet you moonbats believe everything written on them.
Buried. - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Um, a company cannot give directly to any campaign. If Senator McCain is receiving money directly from the company coffers of any oil company, then Senator McCain -- and his Campaign-- are breaking the law.
- johndavidjack, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1This why I don't take most of this blog ***** seriously, from both sides. I'm more concerned about the issues, and my biggest issue, Supreme Court nominations.
Back in the day, or leaders owned slaves, ***** French prostitutes, etc.
I'm more concerned about how our leaders and future leaders will lead this country, and their policies, not what mostly un-factual and reference-less bloggers like to stir up.
This is the same as the Michelle Obama whitey rant tape...
Pot meet kettle... - tjmb9, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1go eat some boiled meats
- tjmb9, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2get many McCain action squad points for that?
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, and numerous fact checking sites on the internet have said that the claims about the 2005 are false.
The 2005 energy bill was a boon for the renewable energy industry.
Senator McCain also thinks levees are pork. If you agree with that assessment, by all means, vote for him. - ZenMojo, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, those ***** in the Obama ads who say that McCain is Bush...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k
I hate that guy. Such a bastard. :) - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Are you truly this ignorant? I know I am using the internet with training wheels, but you are here without any real idea what you are doing, or at least with no real notion of what Senator Obama's website is.
Note-- anyone can post a blog at Senator Obama's website, including people who don't support him at all. Indeed, Senator McCain gives G. Gordon Liddy-type Republicans "points" for coming to Senator Obama's website and causing trouble. There is no pre-moderation at Senator Obama's site, so that all of us can express our opinions, even the G. Gordon Liddy-types, who would really prefer some sort of fascist state. Those types of posts -- the G. Gordon Liddy kind-- are removed for their abusive, offensive nature.
I have never seen anything like Senator Obama's website. We, the American People, can fully and fairly speak our minds-- and obviously, some abuse that. Yet, instead of going to a system of pre-moderation (as most every other site has done) Senator Obama's site still allows us to speak our minds freely, while simply removing the abusive posts.
We can also organize to make our own communities better places in which to live, register voters and help Senator Obama's campaign. - Kesseire, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1I think you're confused. The particular racial slur McCain is known for uttering is not "*****" but "gook."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
http://www.asianweek.com/2000_02_24/feature_mccain ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-uptake/gook-john ... - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Again, what other Americans would you ban from the political process?
The Democrats have always gotten money from people employed in the oil industry. The oil industry employs quit a lot of people, and most of those people do not make $million dollar salaries. Those who do-- and work for big oil-- have (per usual) donated to Senator McCain, but only after he agreed to end our partial bans on offshore drilling.
Senator McCain is merely a series of Republican mantras. Those mantras don't do anything but divert us, confuse us and abuse us. I used to call myself a conservative, but that was before a conservative
began nation building,
doubled the size of our federal bureaucracy (more than any other time since LBJ),
doubled our national debt.
If you like these RADICAL things, by all means vote for Senator McCain. If being for fiscal discipline, rational common sense non-nation building foreign policy, our Constitution (including Article I), and small, efficient government are liberal to you-- so be it, I am a liberal. - Santiak, on 08/09/2008, -2/+3This is all wrong. Neither candidate should get money from big oil.
At least to some extent, both candidates have their hands dirty with the money of big oil in detriment of we, the people. - norman619, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Forgot to add. Bush can actually talk. Public speaking is not an indicator of intelligence. Speech alone is not an indicator of intelligence. Most professionals don't even agree on how to measure intelligence. I have known many very intelligent people both in college and in my professional life who were terrible public speakers. These people held masters degrees in areas like engineering and computer science. Nice try tho.
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2Is this like Obama bloggers that basically say that Mccain is Bush.
Mccain said "*****". Anything and everything under the sun that was a lie about Mccain.
That's ok right?
But ThinkProgress caught 1 Mccain blogger that makes an outrageous claim that even Mccain fans look at and know is wrong.
Mccain fans dont support liars, Obama fans cling to them - that's the difference. - inactive, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2I'm tellin' ya, Senator Obama is rope-a-doping M'Cane. McShame is his own worst enemy.
- Pillage, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1that means you didn't even look at the Obama blogs. You (just like most lefties on digg) put your fingers in your ears and ignore that you are big hypocrites.
- rthakidn, on 08/09/2008, -2/+3And Think Progress isn't? Rotzooi, come on!! Second only to HuffPo.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1So, what other Americans would you ban from giving donations?
We are speaking here about people who WORK, or are EMPLOYED by the oil industry-- That could be the guy who works at the Chevron station and cleans out the bathroom stall, for goodness sake! - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Oh goodness.... did you know I could probably start the same story about you if I was so inclined. There is no judge on the internet and anyone can publish any pack of lies -- as the story to which you responded demonstrates and the stories to which you refer prove.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Under our law, a candidate cannot take money directly from a corporation. If you have proof that Senator McCain is doing that -- and not simply taking money from a PAC-- please disclose it.
- ZenMojo, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1He needs the McCain points for half off at Dairy Queen!
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1FISA was a no-win vote for Senator Obama and at least he did not duck his responsibilities, as Senator McCain did.
The FISA Amendment is not the problem, anyway, if you ask me. The problem is that we have -- and have had for decades -- secret courts governed by the FISA law.
Senator Obama does not want to thought control anyone-- as you should know, if you are truly a former supporter. He wants us to THINK and DO. You cannot have ideas coming from the grassroots if you are attempting to control everyone. Control squelches ingenuity. Senator Obama is looking for our ingenuity, he is not trying to control us. Indeed, people sometimes complain about the disorganization which is caused directly by the lack of control exercised by the Campaign over the grassroots.
Right now, our Country has an Imperial President and I see no sign that Senator McCain will return the power our current President unconstitutionally amassed. Congress cannot do it without impeachment hearings. All that I ask of everyone is that they think. If you truly believe that voting for a third party candidate will help get our Country out of all of the messes we face (including the potential of continued Imperial Presidencies and the end of freedoms that entails), do so. If not, please do not cut off your nose to spite your face. If you do, and enough of us do the same, we will all get to drown in the same boat and finally realize that we are ONE PEOPLE, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, even if our liberty and our justice are lost in the wide sea of disaster. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 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