What is Digg?82 Comments
- adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -9/+67It's only silly becuase he has no good answer.
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52This administration sounds more and more like a dictatorship every day.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46Clinton's "deal" with N. Korea was also made with the assumption that the U.S. would go forward with bilateral talks if necessary...a scenario that Bush has remained firmly against since day one and with a total disregard for the fluid nature of the situation these past years. This has been a game of blink between North Korea and a U.S. president whose mantra is "stay the course" - no matter what the consequences.
To suggest to our sitting president that errors may have been made in the past or that there might be room for improvement in the future and that this might be the time to look at adjusting current policy is obviously a "silly" thought.
Because rogue nations with nuclear weapons is just a silly thing after all - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+44Snow, formally with Foxnews, schlepping for the right without a good answer to a straight forward and obvious question? shocking, just shocking!
- titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45"...you need to give presidents the benefit of the doubt when national security is involved."
We tried that once; we got Iraq. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41it is truly amazing the arrogance this administration has. Tony Snow is a jackass...
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40I was just thinking this administration is sounding more and more like a satire every day.
- EbowUK, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36"you need to give presidents the benefit of the doubt when national security is involved"
what did he say next? "thank you very much, i'm here all week - enjoy the veal"? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Snow explained that “you need to give presidents the benefit of the doubt when national security is involved.”
Exactly backwards. When we're talking about something as important as national security, you need to examine the president's position and plan as closely as possible. Generally speaking, we give the benefit of the doubt in *unimportant* matters and closely scrutinize if it's something important. Furthermore, Snow seems to forget that Bush has a history of poor judgement when it comes to national security and foreign policy, making scrutiny and oversight all the more important. - iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29The administration sounds less and less like an administration every day.
- shuffle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27I was just thinking this administration sounds more and more like a joke everyday.
- patientzero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24"David, the accountability lies in North Korea, not in Washington"
As usual, the accountability always lies somewhere besides Washington.
This statement is emblematic of The Administration's 'No Apologies' stance on everything.
What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here" ? - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24All of the above plus mockery, disaster, *****, asylum, bunch of drunken vikings, tumor.
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Dear herr Goebbels, did Adolf make any mistakes in the Eastern Front matter?
"What a gratuitous and ridiculous question, ofcourse he didn't" - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@ Beckysue
Yeah too bad you don't understand the difference between nuclear power plant technology and nuclear weapon technology. N. Korea already HAD nuclear weapon technology, we gave them light nuclear power tech to make power plants in exchange for their agreeing to stop processing weapons grade material.
You got one thing right though, Madeline Albright said we were tricked, but not because NK perveted the use of the technology we gave them, but because NK never stopped developing weapons despite the agreement - it had nothing to do w/ what we gave them.
Since you're typing on Digg, you're at a computer and on the internet - it'd sure be great for everyone if you actually used it to do a little research next time. I'd suggest you start at Globalsecurity.org for a little refresher course. - bullish1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21She's being dugg down because what she said is false.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This reminds me of Black Bush, only Tony Snow is answering, and he's not knocking over any pitchers of water.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Perhaps this makes Snow the perfect press secretary for this administration.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16“you need to give presidents the benefit of the doubt when national security is involved.”
That's an abdication of our responsibility as citizens for the stewardship of our nation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@ Shaun944
Ooops.. yeah you're right. My bad, it wasn't facilities meant to process weapons grade plutonium, and apparently in an interview on the Daily Show with John Stewart, former Secretary of State James Baker let it slip that North Korea “...had a rudimentary nuclear weapon way back in the days when I was secretary of state, but now this is a more advanced one evidently.” He was Secretary of State between 1989 and 1992.
So that was during Bush 1... Well actually pretty much they started their weapons program during Bush 1, then continued developing intercontinental ballistic missles to deliver those nukes all the way through Clinton's 8 years even though he was trying to sit them down for talks constantly to get them to stop (hey at least he TRIED... *rolls eyes*), up until Bush 2 when they actually managed to set off a nuke.
So really we have 3 presidents on both sides of the isle who have failed miserably at persuading the N. Koreans to suspend their nuclear weapons programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#1989-2001 - shuffle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16I tried this at work today. I pushed out a new application that was filled with virii and when my boss came and asked whether it was my fault I said - "well, that really is a silly question. You really need to give me the benefit of the doubt here."
I'm no longer employed.
Why is President Bush? - julessiegel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12But, but...Clinton...
Is is it also a silly question to ask what Donald Rumsfeld was doing on the board of a company thatsold North Korea the nuclear reactors? - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12when will their satiranny end?!
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nice ad hominem, but you appear to have forgotten to post your reasoning on why you think this was a splendid way for a press spokesman to respond.
Or were you just venting? - hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Be Afraid of the Terrorist, so you'll let us take away your security.
Be Afraid of the Liberal, so you'll shut up.
Be Afraid of the Arab, so we can create wars and make money for our friends.
Be Afriad of the Bomb, so we can keep our power.
Be Afraid of the Gay, so we can put God into the halls of government.
Be Afriad that It Will Happen Again, so you'll send your sons and daughters to die.
Be Afraid that if you change anything, the world will end.
So buy your gas, mortage your ass, buy a big screen TV, watch Danciing with the Stars and give us the benefit of the doubt on everything.
As Congress tries to suspend Habeas Corpus
As We Become the Great Devil the extremists say we are.
As BinLadin laughs from his cave.
As we slip back into the eighties and the nucluear threat.
While we tout freedom for Iraq but allow near slavery to continue in an American Territory.
While we let rhetoric and sound bytes replace thought and debate.
While industry writes the law, and our body politic is bought and sold like a whore.
Keep pointing fingers at each other. Let partisnship dictate the dialogue. After all God is on our side.
Wake up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6OK, the silly question part was stupid. You don't mock the journalists for doing their job.
But I have to agree with one sentence, "The accountability lies in North Korea, not in Washington."
Dubya could not have stopped Jong-Il from going forward with this without direct intervention any more than he can stop Iran from developing nuclear reactors (it's, as yet, unproven that they're really going for the nuke). The only people who really get to make the decision to stop are the people who decided to start in the first place. Raking him over the coals for this is tantamount to saying, "You should have invaded," which is usually not an anti-Bush sentiment. - marksven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Tony Snow is sounding more and more like the former Iraqi Information Minister.
Just like Saddam and other dictators, Bush has surrounded himself with a bunch of yes-men -- all are party loyalists. Powel learned the hard way that you can't disagree with the neo-cons and expect to have a job. - hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And for the record. I love this country. I love what this country can be and can do. I support the troops and I dont want thier lives wasted for no damn good reason.
I am a Jeffersonian Patriot. I love my country, and I mistrust my government and hate what it's doing in my name. - noflyzone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Wonderful - these corrupt bastards don't even see it necessary to answer questions anymore. This shows that they regard their administrative power as 'god given' and any questioning of their position and their decisions is tantamount to treason. It's a shame what this country has come to...
- MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Iraq was based on the fact we thought they had WMDs.
North Korea we KNOW has WMDs (unless you subscribe to the earthquake theory).
In any case Japan is the key player now. The only way China will take serious action against North Korea (say, bleed their oil supplies) is if Japan announces they are going Nuclear in response to North Korea.
Nothing else will motiviate China enough to take sanctions.
The U.N. has asbsolutley no power in this case.
-Mike - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ Leviathan:
Well, I don't need the Simpsons to explain world affairs. Frankly, since you refer to a cartoon to get your world affairs fix, you and your ilk scare me.
Ms. Albright admitted that N Korea "tricked them", publicly, into believing that they would uphold their end of the bargain. They did not, so stop with the 'paused' BS. We don't want 'paused' you pinhead, we want cessation.
Coupling this argument, you libs ride GWB in inaction and action. 'Bush didn't do enough' regarding N Korea. WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE! Should we go to war w/ N Korea? Hmm..? - cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"Now, what will happen is over time you find out, Hmmm, that data point wasn’t right. We need to adjust. So for every adjustment, sure, in perfect hindsight you would want perfect information and therefore perfect policy."
I dont see any adjustment.. "Stay the course " - CharlieInCO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"... as required by the negotiated deal."
- yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7this site is no longer unique.
- iheartcrack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's all Clinton's fault. Always. Whatever the problem. Forever. Now quit asking stupid questions!
- CharlieInCO, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6He said that because he's too gracious to say "We're in this position because Jimmy Carter's 'deal' gave the NORKs another twelve years to work on their bomb, and pretty much foreclosed any opportunity to make real diplomatic progress because it gave the Chinese, Russians, French, and the IAEA fig leaves for their own malfeasance. So don't talk to me about mistakes: we were handed a big steaming pile and you morons have only now figured out that it stinks."
- hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, let's go point by point, and then we'll leave it alone.
Firstly, I wrote that as a gernal sort of reaction to the comments being made about the topic itself. It was a momentary expression of frustration made at both sides and the entire conversation in general. The "Patriot" post was a "pre-emptive" statement against those who feel that just becasue you (or in fact anybody) who expresses an opinon counter to the established tone, is branded "un-patriotic". We seem to have confused the idea of patriotism with support of the government. I was using the term "Jeffersonian Patriot" as a term of classification, not a statement of actualization.
My problems lie with the system, not whatever empty suit is currently occupying the office. The tatics I list are used by both sides, and are in fact used by every system. I, in no way belive that Democarats are any better than the Republicans. The fact that you read that and see it as a statement of one side against another just goes, to a certain extent, to prove the point that we are allowing the conversation to be dictated by two sides with no other voice or opinon able to be heard.
While yes, I agree (to a point) with your statement about taxation, I also feel that that is a minor issue when compared to the fact that we have no opposition party right now, and laws are being passed that have some very serious repercussions or our civil liberties. When faced with a choice between civil liberty and econoic liberty I will always come down on the civil liberty side first.
And again, why call it faggoty? Call it generalizations if you want, that's fine. A fourm like this is all about gerneralizations. It was a statement, and that's all it was. If one were to get techincal, your response was a bunch of generalizations as well. Using the term faggoty just weakens any arguement you have because then you are attacking it (and me) based not on the ideas I express or how I express them, but at a cheap shot at dismissing the ideas with a derrogortary word. Now we could debate like intelligent people who just have differing views on HOW things should be done. . .or we can engagne in school yard name calling because you don't like the way I express my ideas.
And yes, you can't have complete security and complete freedom. But which side wouldyou prefer the scale to tip on? I, myself, prefer freedom. Even if it is the freedom to post "mildess rhetoric and generalizations" in a "faggoty ass poem".
The only solution to the problems of the world is far more complex than the (if I may use borrow your term) mindless generalization of a democratic capitalist society. Which, by the way, one could argue that those two concepts are mutally exclusive of each other.
But in the end, my generalizations and your generalazitions don't matter. As much as we need to remove God from the government, we need to put ourselves back in.
And look at it this way. At least you and I are talking. Albeit in a manner and in a place that doesn't really matter. But taht's the idea isn't it? To start the conversation? To do something?
You can't ask for much more from some "faggoty ass" Poetry. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think Bush should have clamped a knife between his teeth, snuck in through Kimmy's back door and gutted the little bastard.
Then, single handedly karate chopped his way to the nuke test site and dismantled the bomb himself with his bare hands.
Finally, dripping with the blood of the no longer insane and unreasonable ex-dictator/ quickly assuming room temperature corpse, declared North Korea buddies with the entire world.
What?
It's better than anything else I've read in this bitchy thread. - charlie55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3exactly, wtf was bush supposed to do? invade n korea? you cant do anything. and if anything, the things buch is doing, like following through on the UN sanctions against iraq and going to war because saddam didnt lisetn, those are the things that teach dictators that we mean what we say. if we just spew out a ton of threats and never follow through, that emboldens the bad guys, becaue they know we are too weak to follow through.
for instance, if bush tells korea now to do something or he will fight, korea knows damn well bush isnt gonna pussy out. bush has resolve, and that is the most important thing when dealing with these dictator lunatics, they only respect force. the worst thing bush could have done regarding korea is not stay the course in iraq. - mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"After reading the comments from the diggerals,"
A play on the words "liberals" and "digg"! Your mastery of the english language astounds me.
"I've come to the conclusion that there would possibly be only one buyer for digg. George Soros."
Ooooo, burn.
"Congrats, Kevin, you've turned a gold mine into another stereotypical"
Care to give a reason for why it's stereotypical?
"anti-american"
Here's what I hate: we're not anti-American. You're anti-American. Your refusal to question authority and your rabid willingness to ***** all over the constitution make you less American than any liberal.
"liberal cesspool."
Do you smell those baseless attacks cooking? I do. - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are quite a lot of indicators Japan is ALREADY nuclear. JFGI :)
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Funny, I thought it was only silly because the answer is clearly yes, he did. Presidents make mistakes, it's the nature of the job.
- hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is that the best you can do?
Really?
At least counter me with an idea. With an actual thought that you forced up from your sad little, ADD afflicted, conformist brain.
And why "faggoty"? What about it strikes you as "faggoty"? Please, explain. I live to learn. - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Another vivid example of Bush Co's complete lack of integrity and inability to admit responsiblity for anything that happens on their watch. They all sound like a bunch of kids who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and then blame it on the dog. At least Clinton HAD a policy on NK. Bush has done NOTHING about NK since the day he set foot in office and torpedoed Clinton's agreement's with NK. Also, the 'nuclear techonology' given to NK by Clinton could not be used to make nuclear weaponry That's why the gave it to them so NK wouldn't need to use other means wherein they could make nukes(like the methods they use now thanks to Bush). Clinton has been out of office SIX YEARS. Stop blaming all the ills of the world Bush has created on Clinton...it's intellectually sloppy to say the least.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The statement, "he's [Bush's] not the one who made a deal with N.K." is wrong. See the article from 2002 explaining how Bush released nuclear funding to NK, waiving the requirement that NK allow inspectors in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm - autodata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The clinton administration did not give them "the nuclear technology." Their plutonium enrichment capability predates the clinton administration, and was in fact shut down by the agreement, and their uranium enrichment technology came from pakistan. The only potential nuclear problem that the clinton administration's agreement could have caused would have been north korea using the light water reactors to manufacture plutonium, even though it's difficult to do with light water reactors. Alas, the reactors were never built, so that potential problem never materialized.
- patientzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I believe Aidenag posted this article, not Kevin Rose. So, you're saying that because Kevin Rose created a public forum for opinions and ideas, he is responsible for many of them being what you call "liberal"?
The problem with the Right is their failure to realize that MOST people have a liberal slant. Often people vote conservative because of red herring issues like abortion and gay marriage.
That doesn't mean that they'd shun a government-aided single payer health care system or better schools for their children. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7As usual, I see that the extreme right has no facts, no arguments, just a bunch of whining that Digg *dares* to link to stories that aren't 100% pro-Bush.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3snow-job more likely.
- hyberion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Better than saying and doing nothing.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is