What is Digg?106 Comments
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -20/+83I'm a liberal, and I don't see what all the fuss is on this one. A couple of Republican activists wrote a letter saying that this congressman took money from gambling interests, and he says he didn't. He calls them on the phone and says he wants to get together to talk about it, then says he'll take legal action if they don't meet to discuss it.
Yeah, technically it's a threat, a threat to involve the courts. Big deal.
The sensationalist headline here makes it sound like he threatened to beat them up or something. Trying to make a scandal out of crap like this just lessens the impact when there's a REAL scandal that deserves attention. - chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -16/+54Another GOP scandal. The otherone hasnt even cooled off.
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -16/+45Those wacky, nutty Republicans. Why would anyone even consider supporting them anymore? They've all gone mad.
- PatrickHenry, on 10/10/2007, -6/+34The Congressman has no basis for suit. The facts are plain in the matter. His FEC filings do indeed show he took monies from gaming interest as the couple claimed. His voting record is also available for anyone to see. He did in fact vote against a bill stiffening the fines and penalties for dog fighting as the couple also assert. For the Congressman to issue vague and veiled threats is illegal in this regard. As one commenter stated, the Congressman had his Tony Soprano moment!
The story about the letter to the editor and the threats are here:
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2676 - Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -13/+33That was without a doubt the lamest threat I've ever seen. I came hoping for a really juicy "rip your head off and ***** down your throat" type threat, and what do I get? "I may be forced to take steps.". FFS.
The Huffington Post may be politically motivated, but they should really learn to avoid hysterically blowing things out of proportion to score a cheap point.
Crap story, crap submission, no digg, buried as lame. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7That's because the Republicans (or, more accurately, NeoCons) have had at least one major scandal every single week of 2007 thus far.
http://www.digg.com/politics/There_has_been_a_major_GOP_scandal_every_week_since_the_beginning_of_2007
It would be a shame to let that streak die now, obviously... - IrishJoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He actually he said, "I’'d rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps, which I would rather not have to do." It's not clear what those "other steps" that he "would rather not have to do", but it does sound a little Tony Soprano-ish. The problem is that elected officials are actually the employees of those they represent. Imagine if you called your boss and said "I’d rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps, which I would rather not have to do." Think about that because that's what is going on here.
- smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9"Republican Congressman Threatens Couple"--that's exactly what he did. what is so misleading about the headline. i think you just have a reading comprehension problem or incorrect personal associations with the word "threaten." it is inappropriate for congressmen to abuse their position of power to threaten/intimidate individuals of the public or the media for criticizing them or their actions. what he did shouldn't be tolerated.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6They're vague, but they ARE threats, and they could mean anything.
- ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Also, for those who don't want to do a search, here are the FEC links.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/H6CO05159/
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H6CO05159
IGT is clearly listed as a donor. - techweenie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not much of a threat, but I guess the real point is that this buffoon thinks expressing an opinion differing with his is punishable. Perhaps a re-read of the first amendment is in order.
- IkeMavent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I can't believe people are frothing at the mouth over this. We honestly have no idea what he was "threatening". Everyone needs to back away from the frothing at the mouth partisanship
- malice8691, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Im not really seeing the issue here. I read the whole thing and didnt see any threats.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+3Lol, just like Richard Nixon, right? Or is that going too far back to matter?
- knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6i read the story, it didn't say anything about legal remedy.
- Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can't go around claiming that every politician that makes the news for this or real scandals is a neo-con and not representative of the party at large. Yes, the neo-cons make up a large portion of the upper ranks of both parties, but taking a glance at this guys voting record, such as it is, and his stated stances, he doesn't appear to be left of center fiscally.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He is a Republican.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Exactly how is this going to sway the Republican voters of Colorado Springs(Lamborn's district)? Last I looked Dems were an insignificant percentage of the population. The only way a Democrat is going to get elected in Colorado Springs is for Jesus Christ himself to run as a Democrat and even then I would expect James Dobson and 70% of the population to still vote for the Republican candidate.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Hey felchy (it was right there, sorry). From what I read, the couple that called out Lamborn had good reason for it.
http://www.coloradoconfidential. - iheartcrack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Even as someone who lives on the Left Coast, I have to agree...not the most threatening statements made by the Rep. Maybe they take on a different tone in voice form, I don't know. If anything, it just shows the guy is delusional with his be-in-Christ-my-way-or-go-to-Hell attitude.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, Neo-Conservative, while coined by Michael Harrington, was adopted happily by those it described. It has nothing to do with "Jew", it describes a political philosophy inspired by the like of philosopher Leo Strauss and Sen. Henry Jackson and was born out of rejection of 60's liberalism. Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and other prominent neoconservatives used and still use the term to describe themselves.
You are committing one of the most basic and obvious logical fallacies of all. While some Jews may be neocons, not all neocons are Jews - nor is the term considered a synonym for "Jew" anywhere but in the recesses of your fevered mind.
Your attempt to inhibit speech by implying that people who use the term are antisemites is rather pathetic. - knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i don't see what everyone is in such a huff over... this congressman is just "doing business" the way the bush whitehouse has suggested by example.
- shupy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Those wacky liberals, there they go trying to get to the truth again. The radical right could learn a few things about that. But whipping people into a lather has been so successful for the republican operatives. They can dish it out but squeal mighty loud when they are on the receiving end of it.
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm not saying the congressman had a leg to stand on - it sounds like the couple was completely right. I'm just saying he didn't threaten them in the sense this headline implies.
- eexlebots, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Ummmm....ok, but how does that list relate to what's going on here?
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3More like "Funny that a little thing like false accusations can get ANYONE up in arms when it is aimed at them by one of their own." Do you think that somehow republicans are more prone to get up in arms than a democrat? Let's take this outside of the political arena and say maybe it involved musicians making false accusations about other musicians.
- Kyderdog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Thats cause jesus looks like a damn hippie
- Segment, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Huh? What's the problem here? The guy is just taking matters into his own hands and standing up for something someone else said. What is the problem here? BTW - I'm liberal.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So because some Democrats have done bad things that gives the Republicans a free pass to do as they please?
If I started listing Nixon, DeLay, etc would that excuse everything the Democrats have done?
"But they did bad ***** too" has got to be the weakest response ever. - rpelayo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously, you guys have to introduce IQ tests for your politicians. I thought British politicians were crackers, your's make ours look reasonable.
- givemereplay, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8The only way this is a threat is if by "scriptural" he meant get medieval on their asses. This is distinctly possible, but I doubt it.
- kd1s, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So the Republican party is now comprised of:
Thugs
Child Molesters
Closeted Homosexuals
Yeah, conservatives alright. - Progression, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's no surprise the gazette wouldn't run the story. Colorado Springs is one big neo-con loving, Christian fundamentalist vortex of crazies (I lived there for about 15 years).
- BruceBannon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just a thought, but what would a coversation sound like between the American govt (personified), and the American citizens (personified) Citizen: "umm.. excuse me..." USA: "What is it now? Can't you see how busy we are keeping you safe from terrorists that hate you for your freedoms?" Citizen: "well about that... It's just that all this preventative safety war is costing alot of money, and It doesn't seem to be going so well over there..." USA: "would you rather be dead at the hands of murderous Al Quieda? Because we can let that happen if thats what you want...but any patriotic American understand the importance of why we must kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be safe here at home" Citizen: "well yeah...but won't killing more people just make them want to kill more of us?" USA: "That has nothing to do with it, they want to hurt you because they don't like the freedoms you enjoy as an American, if you want to be free, we have to kill Iraqi's" Citizen: "So if I am truly free, then I can voice my opinion about how the war in Iraq is wrong, and speak out about the fact that the war is undeclared and unconstitutional?" USA: "Sure, you are free to say whatever you want...*cough* to whoever will accept your collect call from your cell... Oh I'm sorry didn't we tell you, It's legal to be anti-war, just not anti-war with Iraq, sorry but all your assets are belong to us." Citizen: "What!?!..." USA: "Anything else we can help you with before you go?" Citizen: "Umm...can I have my stuff back?" USA: "Not if you want to be safe from those evil terrorists, you do want America to be safe don't you? Or maybe you are a terrorist..." Citizen: "What?...wait...no!" USA: "well just to be safe we are going to have to run you through guantanamo, thanks for your concern, please enjoy the accomodations...buh bye"
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why don't you submit them, if you can find them? This is Digg, the submissions come from the participants, not some editor.
Perhaps the reason there are so many more articles about the bad things the Right is doing, is because they are doing many more bad things? - alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know why but I'd have to somewhat agree with you on this one. Not once has that man backed down, not once. Not even when it's been made clear that he's going the wrong direction... SEVERAL TIMES!!!
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Of course, you're right, I immediately thing of legal threats when someone talks about one person threatening another.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or, someone who actually reviews the evidence, as opposed to someone who continually makes unfounded statements.
- spucky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've read a lot of your stuff and I don't think you are really a liberal. I don't know what to call you, but I'm sure that people smarter than I can figure it out. People like you poison the well. It is a republican tactic to suppress voter turnout.
- SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3In years of investigation (40 mill or so in cost), nothing could be found to show Whitewater was illegal at all. Travel-gate looks tame compared to firing US DAs over politics. The fact that you call everything -gate is proof your a tool.
Kennedy was never charged with anything except leaving the scene of an accident. He likely did something illegal, but he never was charged or convicted of a crime. Dislike him, but no matter what: It was 30 years ago.
Barney Frank never railed against gays or said they were naughty or anything - he just had sex with a prostitute. If you hung every Washington type who did that, the beltway would look more like the Appian Way, post Spartacus. Not that sex with a prostitute should be illegal anyway.
Neither side is lawful good, but this politics. No one's GOOD, you only can be less dirty. And right now, the Democrats sins are in the past. The Republican's sins are right now, and big as life. Sorry your a blind partisan. - netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is that you are a liberal child, who's never been involved with a legal suit. Less than known aspects of the legal system to children include:
1) When you are innocent and charged in a legal suit, you still lose. You lose the money you HAVE to spend on legal counsel to make sure you don't have to pay for a judgement against yourself. Its only when you have a valid countersuit or live in a state that helps defendants with costs when they win, can you hope to break even.
2) Only a multimillionaire can look at $100,000 in judgements and court costs and think it was NOT a threat. What if these people are fixed income retirees?
3) What kind of Republican (or Democrat) scumbag threatens legal suits against HIS CONSTITUENTS merely because he doesn't like what these people are publicly saying against him?
4) Based on what the congressman said, I could see an instance where he wasn't being a rich ***** using the legal system to harrass his opponents. A person who genuinely felt he was libeled and could win such a case in court could make the kind of statements that he made. But jerkass could absolutely have phrased it in a matter which didn't come off like he was COERCING people to retract statements under threat of legal action.
5) But you jackhole spinmeisters are the worst. "Oh, the only way you can use the word "THREAT" properly when its physical violence. When people only threatens to take a good chunk of your financial assets, its nothing." "By MY definition of threaten, its obvious liberals are blowing up the incident to make a mountain out of a molehill". Go ***** die, you mendacious *****. - mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lamborn is a douche. Jay Fawcett had more honor and intelligence in his big toe than Lamborn but didn't get elected because he had a (D) next to his name.
Colorado Springs would elect a trained monkey as long as it was Republican. - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Which part of my first statement do you disagree with, exactly?
That you can submit such articles if you wish? That submissions come from the participants, and are voted up or down by participants, and that participation is open to anyone, regardless of political beliefs?
Or can you point to the place in the sign-up process where it asks "are you a liberal or a conservative?"
What nonsense. If you disagree with my assertion, then present counter evidence. Commenting on my supposed "lack of logic or just plain idiocy" does not constitute a reasonable argument backed by facts. - kittell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not unless it's used in combination with "he knew him." As in the biblical sense. Otherwise, church would be R-rated and the phrase "the holy scriptures" would have a whole new meaning.
- sillywampa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the headline doesn't imply anything. He did not specifically threaten legal action. He said "...there are consequences to this kind of thing..." but made no mention of involving lawyers or courts. We are all at a disadvantage of not hearing the original statements and don't know HOW he said it. The couple heard him say it and whether they just overreacted or he said it a certain way, they conveyed their concerns to the media. I agree the headline can be read multiple ways so you can see it as sensationalist or as right on the money. That is left to the reader to decide.
My question here is, since when do congressmen directly contact people who write letters to the local paper. And how can he even dare say that they were blatantly wrong when FEC records show he accepted money from gambling lobbyists. - bobbknight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1OMG, this is so LAME!!!!!!!!!!
- outlaw4freedom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Look into Ron Paul... the exception to the gang.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Let's see - so far, in this one discussion, you have gratuitously brought up Jews and homosexual stereotypes.
I can't wait for what's next. - Gothvanhelsing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So would Democrat, unlike you I see there is scumbags on both side, and atlest the republicans force the scumbags out.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hate to point this out, but Digg wasn't around when Chappaquidick happened, or Barney Frank came out, or Bill Clinton had oral sex in the Oval Office. So exactly what is the basis for your cry of "hypocrisy of the liberals here on digg"?
Not to mention that this isn't a members-only club, anyone can submit an article, anyone can comment, anyone can vote. Saying "the liberals here on digg" is tantamount to saying "reality has a well-known liberal bias".
Thank you for playing. -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 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