What is Digg?94 Comments
- Insightful, on 07/22/2008, -15/+59Conservatives and this administration calling others arrogant? That is like the black hole calling kettle black.
- dzw120, on 07/22/2008, -6/+39"You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write."
You don't tell a major national newspaper what to publish in an op-ed.
I would like to think that content is published based on merit, and not automatically printed because an "important person" wrote it. If you read the NYT explanation for their rejection of McCain's piece, they offered impartial suggestions (aka, "add stuff we haven't heard before" rather than "tone the attacks down") on how it could have been changed for them to publish it. Instead, the McCain camp found themselves too important, too presidential to be rejected by the NYT, and now they're crying about it after the newspaper stood their ground without blinking. - tomarocco, on 07/22/2008, -3/+32One thing's for certain: pretty soon they'll be calling the president black.
- hawkeye17, on 07/22/2008, -18/+38False claims are all the right wing has left anymore. They cannot win a debate on ANY important issue facing this country so lying is their last refuge.
- altgeeky1, on 07/22/2008, -4/+19Conservative's say "liberal bias" because they can't anymore say old-school right-wing like "The JEWS control our news".
Except... all these media outlets are owned by whom again? Oh yeah, Wall Street and the investor class. My father still complains about "Ted Turner's CNN".
Classic. - kingofinternet, on 07/22/2008, -6/+17“It ain't us, it's the media. The media has distorted our image to make us look bad.” Please, cut the *****, okay? When I go to the money machine at night, I ain't looking over my back for the media.
-Chris Rock - neonoodle, on 07/22/2008, -5/+16Liberal=Progress
- qdkk, on 07/22/2008, -21/+30It's typical of republicans to cry about this type of stuff.
- blogosphear, on 07/22/2008, -3/+12It's going to get messy these next few months....the popcorn is getting buttered up!
- Skywise, on 07/22/2008, -10/+18Because I'm certain that if they had rejected an Obama op-ed to a McCain piece that Thinkprogress and the HuffingtonPost would've sat back and said "That's ok"...
- altgeeky1, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11No, lying is just convenient. Martial Law... now THAT is their last refuge.
- Splicernyc, on 07/22/2008, -11/+18McCain and his right wing buddies have gone from acting like Masters of the Universe to whining dogs in about three seconds. The reality is that elitists like McCain (and his patron, George W. Bush) expect to have everyone hang on their every word and open every door for them. The idea that the NY Times would ask him to rewrite something because of factual errors is anathema to McCain and his supporters. Imagine the horror of someone like McCain if he was told when asking for a drink, "Go get it yourself".
- Verchiel77, on 07/23/2008, -2/+8Damn reality's liberal bias...
- cusoman, on 07/22/2008, -11/+17It's typical of politicians to cry about this type of stuff. *
*Corrected. - whatthefu, on 07/22/2008, -2/+8That's dumb. Conservatives and liberals alike on this site only complain when the spin isn't in their ideology's favor, and cheer when it is.
- Spoomeister, on 07/22/2008, -7/+13Not going to hold my breath for any revised opinions from all the right-wing Digg lurkers who pounced on yesterday's story...
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Ummm... Obama is winning in most polls, and Hillary obviously can't win, she lost against Obama. Also, to want a McCain / Clinton ticket shows that you have absolutely no clue what the two candidates stand for.
- EricSchC1, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7You mis-spelled "Republican strategy should be to lie outright about Obama being Muslim and use smear tactics, even though Obama, for the most part, hasn't stooped that low."
I'm not even an Obama supporter but you just suggested that a presidential candidate SHOULD lie to the American people, and that you'd be ok w/him doing so? Who's priorities are mis-guided again??? - xwfilm, on 07/22/2008, -2/+6I'M LOOKIN FOR *****!
- Apokalyps2547, on 07/22/2008, -6/+10Haven't they printed many many McCain op-eds in the last 10 years? Anyone have the actual number?
- nblsavage, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Well, I'd very much like to know what "victory" entails also.
- freshyill, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5BUT THE DIGG HEADLINE HAD ALL CAPS! THAT MEANS IT'S BIG NEWS!
- pgoetz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Um, yeah, since light can't escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, it would most definitely appear black, if there were one around to observe. The black hole calling the kettle black -- I'm going to have to borrow that expression!
- Munceenuts, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3No it was unpresidented.
- JoeVet, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Conservative=regressive
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -3/+6NYT biased?
you must be mistaken. - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4bad idea.
- charm803, on 07/23/2008, -3/+6Maybe if McCain wrote better and just edited his paper, he wouldn't have been rejected.
What do you expect from someone who graduated bottom of his class? Great writing skills??!?! - timewarp424, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Cough. Did you even read why McCain's post got rejected? The NYT didn't say that any factual errors existed in the writing. The NYT rejected it because McCain didn't define victory in Iraq.
- DiscussObamaCOM, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3As said - horrible idea.
"omgz hillary couldn't win teh primary but 4 sum reason she sure cahn win teh election!!1one" - DuffyDirect, on 07/22/2008, -11/+14if there's anything worse than political news its meta-news news... and now there is meta-meta-news articles coming from thinkprogress? *brain explodes*
- Diggnabbit, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7Umm... no.
Here's the quote from the "rejection" :
"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."
It doesn't ask for "timelines for withdrawal." He says it should have "timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." In other words, not a plan for pulling out, but some kind of plan with deadlines and measurable goals... like Obama's piece did. - al3efroman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3@minox. ummmm..... so without metrics for success how does one judge the outcome of their actions? Is it truly Mr. McCain's position that he opposes "timetables and measures compelling the Iraqis to cooperate". Notice, if you read the whole sentence, it doesn't contain any word even analogous to withdrawal. It's about Iraqi compliance.
Also, isn't that the same set of requirements that were used to precipitate this war? As I recall, there were a set of requirements that had to be met by a certain time with the threat of some shock and awe if they failed to comply. Get your talking points sorted out and take the time to understand what someone is saying to you before unleashing this complete and utter nonsense. - ancientshoes, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5if any of you seriously, seriously think that the NYT isn't biased, please cleanse yourself from the gene pool
also, buried for thinkprogress - weebit, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Don't over butter it, or else you will have a heart attack in the end.
- Diggnabbit, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4I find your post disturbingly prescient.
I'm sure he'll do all of the above. - mercenarybw, on 07/22/2008, -6/+8They rejected an article about his opinion in an opinion column; therefore they have a right to get a bit upset. If you're going to show one candidates opinion on a topic, why not show the others?
- bonemachine, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Lying is a good strategy, I guess. Seems that few pay any attention to retractions.
- minox, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Exactly, it is akin to asking Al Gore to write an op-ed about how he is going to reduce carbon emissions by using crude oil. You can't make someone argue using strategies you don't agree with.
- bieber, on 07/23/2008, -5/+7WTF just happened here. In yesterday's article on this issue, I saw a comment page full of Diggers talking about how the NYT needed to be fair and publish both sides. Now another article has got a page full of comments talking about how justified they were? How ***** gullible _are_ you people?
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Holy ***** you're thick. My point is (as you stated) we are not talking about policy. Its just dumb ass whining from people who are offended for no reason.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Argue the facts or stop your bitching. I would read a Fox news article if it had factual information.
- BevansDesign, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
---Jeannette Rankin - Blg7, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1lol @ 'mexicanpower'.
What do you base your opinion on? Personality and second hand gossip? Way to go. Not only do you not understand the platforms the candidates support - but you clearly don't understand the democratic process either. What kind of moron would suggest the convention "put hillary as president" as if the entire primary process was just a complete farce? What a joke.
Basically what I would expect from someone who calls themselves 'mexicanpower' (whatever that is...). I guess you are just happy to know that the dollar has hit a multi-year low against the peso because of Bush's irresponsible economic policies that McCain supports. Who knows, after another 8 years of this kind of economic policy mexico might actually look like less of a worthless crime ridden corrupt cesspool barely scraping by on money sent from America. - mearom, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1sure, what the NYT wasnt unprecedented, but buckchoris is still right. McCain it seems has been getting great press coverage in America despite the group think, and we dont need a third Bush term, even if Obama has been pretty easy of the 'pubs lately with the FISA thing, etc.
- tomarocco, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Just because.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3@ vexingihavethestupidestnameeverandmyunclemolestsme
I'm talking about arguing facts of the blogs you so seem to hate, instead of crying like a ***** prom-queen on her first period. I'm sick of articles being buried just because of the source, no argument about the content. Oh oh I don't like what they said I wanna cry now. *****? You're just getting mad b/c you hate your life, not my fault. - minox, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the candidates don't actually write the articles. They get something like five people together in a room who come up with the article and then have the candidate sign off on it. Second, if McCain took the "suggestions" to heart, he would have to alter his Iraq strategy, which does not include "timetables" which Shipley asked for in his email. Third, even though the candidates don't write their own articles, it should be noted that McCain did write his autobiography. It was only a bestseller and was made into a tv movie.
- wheresjim, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1That's funny, now the liberals (of which I am one) are starting to use the "bbbut Clinton..."
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is