What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 50 Most Christmassy City Names view!
realtor.com - Put yourself in a holiday mood by reading about these cities and towns with festive names.
145 Comments
- ddast, on 10/12/2007, -27/+148Which numbers? These ones?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 - espo111, on 10/12/2007, -13/+91wmd found: 0
osama bin-ladens captured:0
Iraqi Dead Since March 2005: 28,976
way to go curious George... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+67As an American it's my duty to question the wisdom of Bush's actions and the end results of his mis-management of the war. Blind allegiance is a disservice to my country.
- Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41People bash Bush because they aren't happy with his performance. That's part of the whole deal in the US.
- Hillsfar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42And of course we all know his administration first lied and said that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was spontaneously put there by enthusiastic service members.
Turns out the administration was the one that purchased the banner and ordered the banner placed there and pretended it was put there by the troops.
At least using our troops as a stage prop doesn't put them in harm's way. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38I love how obvious it is that he copied and pasted those statistics from what is likely a FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: RE: THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! email. He even left the "when democrats attack you say this" part of the email on the top. lulz.
Just further demonstrating that he didn't think for himself.
Go back to church, they'll tell you what to do. - slipperyPete, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33hey donatj... nice talking points.
1) remember.... this wasn't a war. this was supposed to be a mission/battle within the War on Terror.
2) comparing this war to WW2 is about as ignorant as the 26% of people that still think bush is doing a good job. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31"Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all. See comments below from Sen John Glenn."
I suppose you stood firmly behind Clinton. You'de be a "good German".
Bush decided to only listen to his own side. He has never compromised or even tried to hear anything outside of his agenda. He is not for democracy...he is an djingoist.
You are following a traitor, traitor. - feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25DUmbass smitty - less than half the people in this country 'VOTED' for bush.
even though less than half the people wanted him in office he decided to take the whole country to war.
don't spout history as justification for wasting taxpayer money and ENORMOUS waste of life. There is no historical equivalent to us going to IRAQ and killing over half a million civilians. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21He never got a blow job. We feel sorry for him.
- staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23@donatj
The amount of medical advancements since world war II, or should I say because of world war II, are amazing. The numbers of deaths really do not apply because many of the resaons that soldiers died on the battle feild and while they were being taken care of has either been greatly reduced or done away with completely.
Second of all you are comparing the deaths between the war in iraq and a "WORLD" war...... any bells setting off in your head yet? Besides you have to have something wrong with you if a war needs a certain amount of deaths to be called a war. Next your gonna say that the history books should say the cold "dispute" era instead of cold war. - toonworld, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@smitty32
Oh... My.... God!
For the love of the human species, please remove yourself from the gene pool by immediately castrating yourself with a pair of rusted scissors!!
I think the only somewhat accurate quote would be "Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB". That's true, he IS doing a great job of manipulating the media and mis-informing the public!
How can you take those comparisons as logical proof that Bush is doing a good job? Comparing loss of lives in a war to loss of lives in a US city? The numbers are way off and even then, wtf??? This just proves that bush shouldn't have spend $400+ Billion on a war about a country, but rather spend it on his own country to boost education, better health care, fight poverty, fight crime, social programs.... there's so much more good that could have come out of that money than to buy weapons just to use them on civilians! I'm not saying that the all US troops do it on purpose, I'm saying that a lot of innocent get caught in the cross-fire!
Dude, seriously... check the facts! - alpinweiss88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all."
1. I never voted for him
2. I was behind him, when we invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden. That seems to be his only sound decision. He proved that to be a farce.
3. I have never been behind him since. He hasn't given me any reason to support him. He is a disgrace to not only America, but the human race.
3. He doesn't serve me, he has stated so himself. He is there to serve those who voted him into office. (his words, paraphrased)
4. Quite simply, he is wrong. He has been wrong for 4+ years, and doesn't have the balls to admit it.
5. Follow him blindly simply because he is President? Wake up. - feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Cue the conservatives who will say, "Libs/Dems why won't you stop hurting the war on terror"!
just like the 'war' on drugs or the 'war' on obesity... - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Nothing Accomplished"
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did."
Germany declared war on us in January 1942 so they could start sinking our ships headed for England.
The loyal Bushies can't even present two points in a row without making a dishonest argument. - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@FatherVic guess what? We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. We didn't go there because Saddam killed all those people. We went there because Iraq was supposedly harboring terrorists, and had WMD's. He was going to kill everyone in America, unless we acted quickly, OK. Unfortunately, that was all a lie. Now it turns out we just wanted to build a lot of military bases over there, use our P2OG plans to balkanize the region, and make it a lot easier to stage war and aggression to other parts of the region, in lets say IRAN.
It also turns out that guess who supplied Saddam with all the mustard gas he gassed all those people with, the USA.
Guess who kept on sending aid and support to Saddam AFTER he killed all those people? The USA.
Guess which country turned violently upon Saddam once he decided to make the oil fields an Iraqi enterprise and open the pumps to full capacity. The USA. Because we couldn't have all that oil pumped out, as it would drive prices down tremendously.
Was Saddam a bad man, sure. Did he deserve sanctions, and some kind of retribution, sure.
Were the American people lied to? YES and that is what should NOT be happening. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13What on earth is the matter with these people? how old are you? Do you even comprehend what you are saying?
A war that happened 60 years ago and involved more countries and people and was the catalyst of many medical advancements had more deaths........ geeze your smart... how can a be like you.
People died of Spanish flu 1918-1920: 40 million
People dead from AIDS 1981-2007: 25 million
People are stupid to be so afraid of aids... it took aids 26 years to get 25 million killed while the spanish flu only took 2 years to kill nearly twice as many people.
Apologists are the worst type of people. It shows how people are so gullible when multiple people try to use the same inane comparison to prove a point. - pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13>a. FDR led us into World War II.
+ Because war happens, whether we like it or not. Some wars are justified - did FDR go on the radio and lie utterly about why we should go to war? Short answer: no.
>b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
+ Germany and Japan had a war pact, an alliance. Japan attacking us was essentially the same as Germany attacking us.
> >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 112,500 per year.
+ That is because it was a World War for territory, not just ideology. This is not a war, as many would like you to believe so that they can use the military to fight rather than police and intelligence. In 1941 it was very simple: the Axis controlled almost the entirety of Europe (except the die-hard Brits, God bless them) and Japan was making strong headway in Asia. We were clearly next. The Islamists, as heinous as they are, do not want to invade Europe or America (not yet) they just want us out of their after 1,000+ years of crusades and 50+ years of colonialism. When they decide they want to try to invade us in 20-30 years then we'll be ready, but now ... they may not have to wait that long.
>c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea .
>North Korea never attacked us ..
> >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
>an average of 18,334 per year.
+ This is true, and now you are seeing where the beginnings of our slippery slide into our addiction to the military-industrial complex has led us.
>d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
>Vietnam never attacked us .
+ See the above comment.
>e. Johnson t urned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
>an average of 5,800 per year.
+ Ummm, yes see the two above comments. Also, despite the tone and talking points of your list - Iraq is not a democrat vs republican war - this concerns ALL Americans. And as someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican it drives me insane to think people like you are using the sacrifices of the bravest of Americans for your dirty political propaganda.
>f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
>Bosnia never attacked us .
>He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
>times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
>multiple occasions.
Bosnia was a war in Europe's backyard. Many large wars (WWI for example) were begun in and because of the Balkans. The European countries fighting then were and are now our NATO ALLIES. We could not turn our backs on them, and this was a multilateral war fought with our ALLIES.
As to Osama, just because a previous corrupt president dropped the ball does not make the current corrupt president any less to blame.
>g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
>has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
>al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea w
>ithout firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
>slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
First off - "liberated?" This is so childish and non-sequiter I won't respond. But as to the others: yes, Hussein was a horrible man and deserved what he got. But at what price? How many future Husseins are being created by this war? And the inspections would have happened regardless of who was president, they would have to since Iran is a dangerous nation ... made dangerous by our (both Dem and Rep backed) failed policies of propping up the evil dictatorship of the Shah.
>The Democrats are complaining
>about how long the war is taking.
I think your missing the point. Lots of people regardless of politics are complaining about the length of the war. And when they say that, what they're really complaining about isn't the length in time, it's the fact that we have been losing for a long time and squandered our only chance to win before the invasion even happened when Rumsfeld decided not to listen to his generals and invaded with an inadequately-sized force. Read the Art of War, moron, Rumsfeld must not have. Or he read the part on speed and then closed the book, thinking that was enough.
>But Wait
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
>to take the Branch Davidian compound.
>That was a 51-day operation..
Again, another failed administration's blunders do not make the current one's blunders any less damaging or heinous. Besides, despite what the Branch Davidian and Ruby Ridge debacles meant for limitations of our rights utterly pale in comparison to the trashings our rights have received under the Bush regime.
>We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
>in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
>the Rose Law Firm billing records.
That's because Hillary and Bill are crooks, just like the Bush regime, but if all Bush had his hands in was Enron and the like, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? Lets not forget Enron, Bush's Whitewater.
>It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
>Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
>than it! took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
>Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Umm, what does Kennedy's crime have to do with war? He got drunk and because of it a young girl died - that is sad and reprehensible in the highest degree. But Bush lied to a nation of 300 million and a world of 6 billion. And now thousands are dead. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.
>It took less time to take Iraq than it took
>to count the votes in Florida !!!!
If there hadn't been such dirty ballot tampering and fraud, if that entire farce of an election hadn't been rigged, this talking point would not exist. That's like me stealing your bike and setting fire to your house, then blaming you for not calling the fire department to save your family as the house burnt down because you were on the phone with the police about your bike.
>Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
>The Military morale is high!
Well, I happen to some people on active duty in America and around the world. Let's just say they nor their comrades they tell me about are not exactly Bush supporters. But to our (still, despite it all) great nation's credit they still stand up and do the right thing. Bush, Clinton and their ilk are a slap in the face of our soldier's bravery. And because of them I am still able to maintain my own morale and my own hope that someday our nation will be healed of the insidious evil that has gripped it for so long. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Silly modernist, all numbers are false perception is all that matters."
Yes, what is your falsely perceived bank account number? - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Bush fights for freedom and justice, liberal losers would rather surrender to islamofascists."
Ignorant comments like this are exactly what's wrong with neocons. First of all, the idea of Bush fighting for freedom and justice is laughable. Second, nobody in any point on the political spectrum has ever suggested surrendering to anybody. It sounds like you need to turn of Faux News once in awhile and actually learn something about what's going on in the world. But that would go against your neocon ideals I suppose. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Iraq attacked us? Must've missed that. They attacked oil interests in Kuwait. MUCH bigger sin.
- quisph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Try clicking the links in the chart.
- espo111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13""Why must everybody be a Bush basher. Grow up and stand behind your president, if your an American it's your duty, we voted him into office after all."
well actually we did not vote Bush into office, the supreme court did....
we the people voted Al Gore.
Gore: 51,003,926
Bush 50,460,110
and if we had a real democracy, we would not be in the state of decay we are presently in... - sgglynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@smitty32
You made a couple decent points there, but you cant just tell people "it's their duty to agree with the president" even as a republican that once approved of his job (Dont bury yet.... i said ONCE approved of his job) There is never a reason to blindly follow someone, especially a politician - JamesKeenan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12A common stereotype and criticism of democrats is their spinelessness. If you an example, look at the Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate. When asked who would back Kucinich's impeachment movement, no one raised their hand.
They, as Gravel said, do not want to rock the boat. They want the safest least turbulent political career that they can afford.
We the people need to be the catalysts for this regime change. It is no longer patriotism in any form that backs this president. His leadership is a sham, and his performance is exceedingly sub-par. - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"If you consider, 2000 deaths bad, you need to get your head straightened out."
So, according to your requirements, 911 must not have been bad either since only 3000 died. I bet you'd feel differently if one of those 2000 was a friend or family member. Maybe you should go fight in Iraq since you seem to think its no big deal, tough guy. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10SpaceMonkeyZero, it's an undisputed fact that more Americans voted for Gore than Bush.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Bush has said it many times. He is not bothered by the criticism.
Face it. As long as he and his cronies get their share of profits from the Iraq war, he just doesn't care. - RetiredExplorer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"we voted him into office after all."
we did?
also, if we are comparing iraq to WWII, which side are we playing this time?
(think about the actions taken to spread our political system across the world, the increasing restrictions on our nation's freedoms, the overwhelming emphasis on a national religion, etc.) - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ajkrik -
The point of this chart is to show the numbers. No talking points. No arguments. No blame. No politics. What do you see when you look at the numbers?
I see a lot of American lives sacrificed. I see a lot of Iraqi lives snuffed out in those daily attacks that went up 1000%. Now we have to ask where the numbers lead us. Cause and effect, so to speak. Where's the arrow pointing? - skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@drunkenirish
"So is bandwagon hate."
I sooo heartily agree. I personally think our president is an utter failure. I think he is quite literally the stupidest president we have ever had. I arrived at these opinions by watching the news and reading the papers. Not just the Colber Report or the Daily Show (both of which are hilarious). I am not just blindly restating things that I have heard other people say. However, I see way to many people who Bush bash. While I agree with what they are saying in many cases, I am sickened that the vast majority of these people have no idea what they are talking about. When I hear somebody say a direct quote from Digg, Wikipedia, or the Colber Report/Daily Show and present it as their own very serious idea, I cringe. I think Bush is terrible, but whatever you think of him, make sure that it's YOU who thinks it. And try and examine why it is that you think that. Look for facts that both agree with and disagree with your feelings (there is ALWAYS two sides to any argument and both ALWAYS have some degree of validity). - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9True. If you're a Republican, it's much more fun to kill Iraqis and reap oil profits in favor of politicians than it is to help Americans. You can't have everything.
- pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A dead horse? Tell that to the marine who got his face blown off but survived. Tell that to his wife. Tell that to his children. Can you do that, or are you a "pussy?"
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I wish Chaney would get the GOP nod in '08, that would pretty much lock the Democratic party into office for sure.
- spiderfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I have to be honest, I generally don't agree with most people on the right wing, but anyone who starts or ends their argument, entry, blog or comment with liberals this, or liberals that, or democrats blah blah or conservatives blah blah is just generalizing. Next up black people blah blah, Jews blah blah. We are a world made up of individuals with individuals views whether we describe ourselves in one category or another. Please stop generalizing, it breeds ignorance and prejudice. In being offensive you place other people on the defensive...Hey, just like Iraq!
Democrats are not all pussies and not all republicans are evil, not ALL of them. Everyone has an agenda and there is no more foolproof way of ensuring that your agenda falls on deaf ears than to polarize the debate into left and right.
P.S. If you are going to comment on Digg about liberals, democrats or the left wing in general be aware that you are heavily out-numbered and most of us think you are retarded it will likely start a digg-war. - mumblyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wondered about that too, but then I noticed that the title for each line item of the table is a link to a supporting document.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Just add the remainder of his time in office and we can expect more maimed and dead "by the numbers." So I'm sending my condolences to all the families of the soon to be dead US soldiers. I'm sending my hopes to all those new cripples. And my regrets to all the walking dead children in Iraq.
- Wonkanobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11And we're not impeaching him because...?
- anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll see your digg down and raise you a block.
- asauterChicago, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6421 Billion.... yet we can't fix Katrina, our crumbling public school systems, inner city poverty, public transportation, health care...
- Nateon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No Jaycliche, it's our duty as Americans to take down our president when he is not doing his job. It's what our country was founded on and it's the way it should always be.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Actually it was Eisenhower that first introduced troops into Vietnam (first bailing out the French in 1954 and then sending in "Advisers" later on). Kennedy did however introduce the first acknowledged combat troops which Johnson ramped up considerably later. - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're a complete moron if you think we were actually going to win Vietnam. As for the rest of your statements, nobody really expects you neocons to understand the way the world works. Religious fanaticism and blind loyalty to a "leader" who really couldn't care less about you are the cause of many of the threats we're fighting against, yet that's exactly what you want here at home. Brilliant.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5OK! When I'm wrong, at least I try to admit it.
http://www.presidentialportrait.com/images/3392.jpg - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Try the Frontline documentary - The Dark Side, it explains a bit about why support for the war in Iraq was high at first, its mostly due to falsified evidence or unsubstantiated claims by the administration to push us into war. To me it's not "shifting blame" to place blame on those most responsible for lying to the public and getting us stuck in this war.
- technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@All:
World War 2 was technically a war, what we're fighting in Iraq is called a war but it's not quite that. In order for there to be a technical 'war' the congress has to declare war, it's part of being in the UN. The congress authorized military action in Iraq, not war, that's why the congress has so much power over the president in this 'war' just as they did in vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States - spoonie11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Most of these problems can be attributed to spineless Europe and the pro-terrorist anti-Democracy media.
Wow. Who says the education system in our country isn't failing? Tell me, is there anyone who is actually PRO terrorist? I mean, other than the actual terrorists, is there anybody who is running around thinking "you know, terrorism is actually pretty cool". WTF dude? You might disagree with someone's politics, you might argue that they don't support the war against terrorism to the blind, ignorant, scyophantic degrees that you do, but please don't accuse anyone other than an actual terrorist of being PRO terrorist.
*****. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, if you had $421 billion dollars, you could fund Medicare for one year. Not Social Security. Just Medicare.
- miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5another clueless rush limbo fan posing on digg. blocked.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 