What is Digg?192 Comments
- demonotaku, on 10/11/2007, -11/+47You know what. ***** you for including Ron Paul in the description. I did a quick search of the article and no where in it was he mentioned. I'm sick of all this ***** Ron Paul ***** on Digg. Can someone please submit a political article on here without brining him into it?
- ksosez, on 10/11/2007, -14/+47My god can we stop with the Ron Paul plugs. There were many many many democrats that opposed this war, including Pelosi, Feingold etc. Ron Paul wasnt the only one who saw this coming down the pike.
- danconia, on 10/11/2007, -10/+33One way or another the rest of the GOP candidates are going to have to jump on the bandwagon. There will be no progress by September (the date agreed upon as a benchmark) and boy I'm going to be sitting on my ass with my popcorn waiting for Rudy McRomneyson to try to justify their change of heart.
- Gadren, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23I hate to do this, but this Ron Paul editorializing is pointless here. You could have just as easily said that we should have listened to Obama (who also was opposed to the war, whereas Paul is opposed to just about EVERYTHING in Washington -- which makes Paul's anti-war stance less noticeable).
Buried. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14The only difference between this and the other article on the front page is the Ron Paul worship going on in the description of this one.
- chopenik, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22.......they're not going anywhere. Time and time again BS excuses will be thought of just to stall as long as possible. Nothing short of armed forces revolt will convince the globalist punks to bring the troops back.
- pygar, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18Time for the UK and the US to leave.
- heaintheavy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16I am pretty sure there were a few more people warning of the impending fiasco than Ron Paul.
- SenorCardgage74, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Is it safe to assume then that you are posting to this thread from your barracks deep within Iraq, soldier?
Balls indeed. - rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Good idea. Why don't you volunteer for the army, then?
- thebadfish, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Stop referring to him as Dr. Paul for *****'s sake.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -10/+20Digg is becoming more and more worthless as a news source for the desktop.
Allowing multiple submissions of the exact same article to hit the front page within a couple of hours of one another is ridiculous for any website on the intarwebs..
Digg needs to fix what is wrong instead of ***** up things that didn't need fixing in the first place. - whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Did I read that wrong or did you call the New York Times mainstream pundits? Do you even know what a pundit is?
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15"Does the US now have a responsibility to try and keep the peace in Iraq?"
-it isn't possible though. The U.S. doesn't have enough resources and we can't stay inevitably. Vietnam turned out fine after we left. Now they are our trading partners. - Battleloser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Bush fires every general that tells it like it is, and brings in a brown noser to be his canary.
- Fieri, on 10/11/2007, -13/+22I predict some very interesting rhetoric when pro-war becomes an untenable position. All of the Republicans will be scrambling to mince words about their past, and Ron Paul will be left standing as the rock in the middle of the mudslide.
- fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Actually, the only Congressman to vote against the War was Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). She was the sole dissenting vote against the *original* military force authorization bill, and is the only Congressperson to date to have voted against the war every time. (That's right, not even "Dr Paul" voted against that first bill, check the Congressional Archives.)
Ms. Lee received numerous death threats as a result of her vote against the war. For a 3 month period, she had more Secret Service bodyguards than anyone except the VP and Prez. (On that note, the SS provided security even though she asked them not to; their mandate overrides the wishes of the person they are charged with protecting.) - kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10He does have a point though. The other candidates have scoffed and laughed at RP because of his stance. He has been called a traitor, un-patriotic and worse. It will be interesting watching as these same people try to pretend they never wanted the war
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14Where the ***** was the New York Times 4 years ago when the ***** Bush administration was lying to us about WMDs?
Did the New York Times ever call Bush on his ***** when he tried to link Saddam to 9/11??? NO!!
***** YOU VERY MUCH NEW YORK TIMES
I can't believe I actually used to have that ass wipe rag delivered to my house!! - ThomasPaine23, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12I'm sure there were a few, but HOW MANY of them are running for President????
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Incidentally, this is a dupe, and both are on the front page.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Here is another way to look at it..
THIS RIGHT HERE is where mainstream america is. The majority of the people in this country want the troops back home. There has been a major shift in the political landscape in the last few years and it is NOT a 'leftist agenda' when the majority want it to happen. In this case, it's called 'middle of the road' and the reasonable and prudent thing to do. - rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Are you Vietnamese? 'Causes I don't think everything's roses over there.
- popawoody, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Are you freaking KIDDING me? "Vietnam turned out fine after we left" What a hoot. Our leaving caused, literally, MILLIONS of deaths, not only in Vietnam but Cambodia. Hey I was one of those marching to stop the Vietnam war, but the "inconvenient truth" of THAT decision was that the US pullout of Vietnam allowed the North to slaughter millions. Have you every BEEN to Vietnam or Cambodia? I have. I suggest you book yourself a tour of the killing fields sometime soon.
- fiver22, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14Just a question to open up some dialogue: having ***** up Iraq does the American Military complex now have a duty to protect those it has hurt?
Invasion was wrong -no one with half a brain can deny that: but you DID invade and now Iraq is either in a civil war -or at least, teetering on it.
Does the US now have a responsibility to try and keep the peace in Iraq?
You (the US Gov't) ***** up. -Just like dissenters (to the "war") said you would. - ogleby, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12RON PAUL CURED MY CANCER
- notque, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Everyone's brain is full. That being said, some of us have destructive memes in our head. Indoctrination has a lot to do with it. It doesn't make them "stupid", they are creative and interesting human beings with something I'd consider akin to a virus. If you think the Invasion, and occupation of Iraq was right, then you are ill. If you know how we can help you out, just let us know.
- tuzziel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Let's have Iraq referendum about that, just in case hell breaks loose after US pulls out. They themselves decided it.
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Tell the Shi'ites and the Sunni's they've lost. They might have a hard time hearing you through all the explosions and the gunfire.
The Iraq War sucks. The problem is, like a heroin addiction, it's going to be hard to break. We can't just go cold turkey, but we DEFINATELY can't keep there much longer. I think the best idea is to lock all troops down in one place...they finish their combat operations in the area they are in now, then when they are done they'll just leave Iraq. Right now what we're doing is travelling all around Iraq, in vain, trying to locate insurgents. THAT's the most dangerous part. Following the enemy into their own fortified residences, that they know like the back of their hands, and getting blown up with IED's along the way.
The most deaths happen when the troops are travelling, both soldier and civilian.
We need to make the only travelling our troops do from now on towards America. - YourDoom123, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8You realize that this isn't globalist in any sense of the world right? Globalism is about bringing the whole world together (usually used in an economic context, and this for the most part has already been accomplished.). What's going on now is a diluted form of imperialism, called the Bush Doctrine. I have no idea where this conception of globalism as an evil came from, but if thats so, then its time to give up any imported good you use. We want to save money, make everyone rich, and at the same time do everything ourselves? Sorry, but that doesn't work any more. Yes, outsourcing causes jobs to be lost, but so did the industrial revolution. Would any of you nationalists dream of suggesting that we shouldn't have industrialized? Should everything still be made by hand? People need training; just hoping to get by, doing things (which due to our relatively high minimum wage, which is due to our high standard of living) that can be done for much less in any developing country with a much lower standard of living just won't cut it any more. Instead, education is the key. Just as after the industrial revolution people had to start going through and finishing high school to gain the sort of jobs that paid properly, now people need to start going to college to gain degrees.
/rant - rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Or the thousands more over there that say it won't?
- utlemming, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11What annoys me is that the op-Ed piece doesn't even mention Ron Paul. But then again Digg is getting as bad as /. and people don't read the article before they put their own biased and wrong tags on the story.
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Isn't that what he should be called.
In the UK if you are a Sir or Lord you then use the first or last name. Sir Sean or Sir Connery. But a Doctor uses the last name Dr Paul, not Dr Ron. Is it different in the US. - luthercorrigan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Are you one of those generals? Or even one of the troops? Or are you just as blind as your idiotic comments would lead me to believe? Please, for the sake of the people dying over there, shut your mouth.
- colincornaby, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10I can't wait until Ron Paul loses the primary so then we won't have to deal with these stupid stories.
Actually, here's an idea. Let's create a Ron Paul category. So then I can block it. - kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4When will it be time. when 5000 Americans lay dead. When 10,000, 15,000, 25,000, 50,000. Things are not going to get better.
Also remember for every American killed many more have their lives destroyed. Losing an eye, a hand, a leg. Tens of thousands have had their lives destroyed already. On top of that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the people you claim to have gone to save)
So how much death will be enough - soomprimal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yes, we have a responsibility to help these people. But, I believe two conditions must be realized:
1. Iraq is now in a civil war between sectarian factions. The only thing that was stopping this from happening was Saddam Hussein's iron grip on security and stability. He had it pretty good because he was a Sunni minority in a largely Shiite country with the Kurds stuck in the middle, justing wanting to get the hell out of the way and do their own thing. Removing Saddam created a power void that Americans have no actual control over and that will eventually resolve itself.
2. Our _military_ presence there is extremely counter-effective at this point, and is merely drawing out or delaying the inevitable. Many people will die, yes, but our government cannot constitutionally put the needs of foreigners that we are occupying over the needs and desires of Americans, the majority of which are now opposed to our continued military presence. Much civilian and Native American blood was shed during the American Revolution and later Civil War as well, these are parts of forming national identity, which is not something America can just bestow upon the Iraqis- they have to define on their own, violently or not, what their country will become and they are now in the process of doing so. - loggia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Any group can call themselves Al Qaeda and that's exactly what this group in Iraq did. Al Qaeda Mesopotamia - the Al Qaeda in Iraq - didn't even exist before the war. They wouldn't have existed if we hadn't gone to war, don't report to Bin Laden and have almost nothing to do with the conflict in Iraq.
Regardless of whatever magical connection you want to make, Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't attack us. They couldn't have. They didn't exist.
Your circular thinking equates to anyone evil being Al Qaeda, which is precisely what the administration dreams that everyone would believe. They want to be able to take any unilateral action and say "these are the people who attacked us." - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6What!? Leave Iraq before the pipeline is finished? Never!
What a bunch of suckers Americans are. You can commit any crimes as the government of Americans. All you have to do to get away with it is is say that you did it for "freedom" and "democracy". They'll eat it up every time. Suckers. - archiesteel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"Better make that popcorn an extra, extra, extra large if you expect Giuliani to ever show cowardice in the face of islamic fanaticism."
It's not cowardice, it's common sense. The US has lost Iraq. Either it tries to mitigate damages *now*, or it will just keep on getting worse. - notque, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Every war I've ever heard of was self defense in the eyes of the attackers. Hitler was defending Germany from the Jews. America was defending Vietnam from the Vietnamese. Name a war, it was started by "defense" which is another word for offense. Kind of like the War Department being renamed the Defense Department.
- dmgordon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Dugg down because he actually is a doctor (ob-gyn, also, a flight surgeon during the Vietnam war.) Last I checked, it's perfectly legitimate to call a doctor a doctor.
- fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Actually, even Pelosi didn't vote against the war in the beginning. The only Congressperson to do so was Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). Not a party thing when it's an individual dissenting vote.
- grubwort, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4NY Times... welcome to 2003! Glad you could join us.
- YourDoom123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5mind explaining? my rant didn't come from listening to the news, but from various books i've read on the topic (The World is Flat, etc.)
- ChuckFreck, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Turned out fine? There is a reason why millions from the south fled the country. Every hear of their reeducation camps? Everything was fine if you were a communist I guess. If not then it was very bad.
- jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Popawoody, you clearly have no idea how editorials work.
This "unattributed" opinion is written by the EDITORIAL STAFF of the New York Times. It represents the "official" opinion of the New York Times as a whole, rather than being one person's individual opinion. This editorial is speaking for the entire newspaper.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html
This editorial is particularly impressive because of its length and detail. These editorials are typically no more than six or eight paragraphs. This is two pages. The New York Times is sending a very strong message. - empirefalling, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Removing the United States occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and keeping America from expanding through it’s Black Booted military force is the main priority of the World Body. The majority of World Citizens concur that the illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by American and British forces was nothing but an attempt at first stage Global Domination by the modern day Hitlers..Bush and Blaire. Starting with Bushes disastrous 9/11/2001 plot to terrorize the American public into obedience and the following invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, plans were hatched in Washington and London for the invasion of Iraq and Iran and the minor countries around them. What Bush/Blaire did not expect after their invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, was the vast Global Condemnation of those invasions and the subsequent murders by the American and British Gestapo of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and the detention, torture and extermination of hundreds, perhaps thousands more in the United States and Britain based solely on religious preference and race. If the United States is not stopped, millions more may die.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Dr. Paul?
I'm sorry, did Paul corner the market on saying the Iraq War was a stupid idea recently? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Al Queda was NOT IN IRAQ before Bush LIED US INTO WAR with Iraq. And THAT'S A FACT.
And there were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
King George lied. The New York Times never called him on it, and STILL hasn't . Therefore, the New York Times is an ass wipe rag.
YOU my friend are the one in serious need of a reality check. -
Show 51 - 100 of 182 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