What is Digg?364 Comments
- Gannoc, on 10/12/2007, -36/+218Actually, I've also heard comments that Time Magazine is too conservative. If a media outlet is going to be critical of anything political, its obviously going to have to take a "side".
Should the media completely ignore the fact that the Bush administration has collapsed out of fear they'll be labeled too liberal? - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -51/+170@KDX
When you have no defense just blindly swing at the speaker. Standard right wing knucklehead tactic. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -29/+137Time's slant aside, the Bush administration has been riddled with failure and incompetence. Even people with strong republican history are finding it hard to swallow the ***** that is thrown around. It was clearly evident that Iraq was a decision made purely on Bush's personal vendettas.
- MrVictor, on 10/12/2007, -22/+122@KDX200rider
You should try to find fault in the essay writer's arguments before you question their motives. Anything else is a straw man. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+107Not one of the remaining Republicans here so far have even attempted to address the issue, that the Bush administration somehow isn't collapsing.
Three have attacked Time as liberal (even though this is an editorial) and didn't address the argument.
One attacks Digg as hypocritical and didn't address the argument.
One claims that "everybody does it" (ie. attacks the speaker).and didn't address the argument. - ColinCampbell, on 10/12/2007, -22/+93Was the ship ever afloat? Outside of a small period after 9/11, Bush and his Administration have done nothing but continually ***** up.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -16/+87 It is too bad that there are still some that defend this fella. It makes one wonder how badly someone would have to muck things up before those remaining 30% get it through their heads?
Still, what is more disheartening is that for a while, a good while, the majority of Americans bought this clowns act, while demeaning those friends and allies that were pointing exactly this stuff out 3,4,5 years ago....
I guess better late than never, but you all know he will still walk away from this without so much as a slap on his wrist...
Pretty sad, but if they want it, Americans can take back their country. I just don't know if enough of them want it. - keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -54/+124http://moveon.org
http://opencongress.org
Be counted and be aware - dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -19/+82What's frustrating is that there still _is_ a ship to be sunk.
It's nice to see them crash and burn but really we need to move on and start fixing things. - Sithlrd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56And he was right. He's united 70% of America against his administration.
- AttackMantis, on 10/12/2007, -21/+63Worst president of my lifetime. (maybe of all US history)
I love threaded comments! - FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+51>Nah, they are too busy watching NASCAR and getting fat.
Or watching ANNA NICOLE SMITH: STILL DEAD?, CNN's new special. - foooey, on 10/12/2007, -17/+57"Those remaining 30%" have been conditioned their entire lives to never under any circumstance think for themselves. The only way they could possibly "get it through their heads," is for the magical bearded guy in the sky to stop by and do it for them.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46@floppy
it's an OPINION essay. - Jeveran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41drkboarder,
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had been on for ten years. He did three years of Clinton (remember him?) satirizing before moving on to the current administration. Stewart is a bright, talented guy with a fantastic writing staff. Whoever lands in the White House, male or female, Republican or Democrat, religious conservative to social liberal, is going to present a huge target of opportunity.
Think about it for a moment. What president hasn't been easy to joke about? - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44This administration isn't sinking. This administration, is SOARING. We're re-arranging the chairs on the hindenburg.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -35/+63@darksheet
That's because there's a lot of intelligent people on digg, and intelligent people tend to be liberal.
Plus, most of the time when a conservative calls a news outlet liberally biased, it is usually just a swing at them (reality has a strong liberal bias you know). Granted there ARE some heavily liberal biased media outlets that just take swings at republicans, but usually it's not the case.
There's a lot of morons too; (see caoimhinn below) that's what the digg down button is for. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40If Time Magazine is so 'left wing' then why did they run two consecutive cover stories on the whitewater scandal during the Clinton administration?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960318,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940404,00.html - cosmokramer1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39Lets look at the bigger context here
Bush said, ' if you're not with me, you're against me ' - Translation - My way or the high way.
American approach - if you don't support the war, you're " conservative ", " un-patriotic ", " emboldening the enemy ", etc. etc.
We know Bush is a politician. Forget him for a moment.
As a common man, how hard is it to think " what if my president is wrong about this? ". If you term that ( also ) as 'un-patriotic', you're unfit to live in 2007. That's the crucial question that American's didn't ask and voted him again ! That's a mistake.
Going by the argument that in 2004, we didn't see what we see now in 2007, fine - agreed. But knowing what we know now, if we still don't have the gut to speak in one voice to say "no, I've been patient, now I don't accept to what you're saying", that's actually un-patriotic toward your country, than what they try brain wash you.
How do you say in voice - just stand up for yourself and reach out to local leader. Non-violent, un-cooperative protest will work. It has to e.g. Indian Independence, South African protest by Nelson Mandela. Why go so far - Martin L King.
American's need to understand that President is not god, he/she is an human being, who are prone to make mistakes, who are prone to be arrogant. Don't quickly conclude that I'm democratic, that's nonsense. The point is the approach of the people toward any person in power.
If Americans are going to say, oh well - we have him as the president, we have to support him, you're no different than a sheep following the other, no matter what.
This ignorance mixed up with arrogance is what people hate about this country, more than laughing at the incompetent leader.
Open your eyes ! - TheSource, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30@floppyllamadigg
Why would you read People anyway? I don't know if it's just me and a few of my friends, but does anyone else find the lives of celebrities completely boring. I love movies and have a bunch of favorite actors/actresses, but there's a point in which I don't care who they're dating, who they're breaking up with, or whose kid they're carrying. - foooey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Unfortunately, we won't see that until it benefits them the most politically.
The real gotcha is Bush has the best anti-impeachment insurance policy in the history of America. NO ONE wants to see Cheney as President.
It's incredibly difficult to impeach a president, it would have to be virtually impossible to impeach both the President and VP at the same time. - scrimaxinc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30@squantix
Your ridiculous over-the-top America bashing is just making Americans automatically disregard any criticism of them. Why read through a bunch of "Stupid lazy American" comments to get to something constructive.
@waiting2awake
Thank you for being coherent in your criticism.
Some of us did vote for the other guy. - ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42The article is dead on but one question remains; when will impeachment proceedings begin?
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -21/+41FTA "Arrogance", "incompetence" and "cynicism." I would add greed, corruption, immorality, and criminality.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30The only silver lining to the Bush disaster is maybe Americans will finally learn how to vote. It's NOT a popularity contest. You have to vote for the most qualified candidate.
- KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27NASCAR isn't "American". It's "southern".
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24what if the 2 wealthy candidates have already been pre chosen for you.
they have to ban companies from donating to candidates, and ban lobbyists for a start.
they are supposed to be "for the people" not "for my corporate buddies" - socket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Never. Congress doesn't have the balls. Not until the remaining few Bush supports open their eyes and demand him and Dick be held accountable for getting us into this mess.
- GoneSouth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Support the troops, rancor. Enlist!
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23@Spuy767
Read some literature on what the most extreme Christian neo-cons want.
Abortion: Illegal.
Birth Control: Illegal.
Gay Marriage: Illegal.
Homosexuality: Illegal.
Pre-Marital Sex: Illegal.
Heterosexual Marriage: Mandatory.
Having Children: Mandatory.
Religion: Mandatory Participation in a Christian Church.
Rejection of Darwinism.
Rejection of Scientific Study.
National Institution of Biblical Law.
Christan Fundamentalists are every bit as intolerant and terrifying as their Islamic brethren. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26mrfoos:
>The Collapse of Objective Reporting
It's an editorial, not reporting. In the print magazine there's even a title for the slow, dimwitted folk "opinion." Since you're evidently unsure, check the author. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18He's also the self-proclaimed "decider." He just decides against the proper course of action most of the time.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -19/+31Time does have a leftward slant, but does that mean this article is false and should be ignored? Look at the reasons Bush gives for justifying his actions regarding the three points in this article and then make a decision.
- londubh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23When did the mainstream media grow testicles?
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15What part of Opinion/Editorial eludes you?
- biggychong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@KDX200rider
Damn reality and its liberal bias! - yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15bugzero,
you are an idiot - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yes, it does matter. When you fail to hold a leader, any leader, accountable for their actions, a precedence is set. With any luck, more people will see how dangerous not voting or voting irresponsibly really is.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The simple truth is this:
- The Dems REMOVED IT FROM THE TABLE of their own accord..
- Impeach Drones will read, discuss, promote and orgasm over any article or opinion piece that comes along and mentions the word.....despite the fact that it has been off the table for half a year.
- The press realizes this and takes advantage of the Pavlovian tendencies of Impeach Drones to line their pockets with traffic revenue.
Anyone can make up a reason for impeachment being taken off the table. The most likely one is this:
- The Democrats in power know they don't have enough concrete evidence or the TIME to follow through with Impeachment proceedings. Motive placement does not stand up in court and they've all said the same exact ***** Bushie has said. In other words, THEY would end up looking just as bad in a legal contest as the President. They do not want this.
"Not having the ballls" is really the same as "I don't understand why." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Yeah, they could launch WMDs in 45 minutes. True! I heard it from O'Reilly! And Bush!
- Woomanchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That couldn't be any more true. Imagine if our lives were under this much scrutiny; talented comedians would tear our lives to shreds. This is definitely not exclusive to celebrities and political figures.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Yeah, cuz Iraq was so well equipped to bring war to America.
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I very clearly remember Bush talking about Saddam trying to kill his dad,as justification for war. It was not reported that he said it; it came from his lips. I also found it interesting I only heard that rationale once and then it became all about WMD.
- generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah and instead of idolizing Mao and Che, maybe we should follow real revolutionaries like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc...
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Bias is ONE tool, of many that you should use with critical reading, and it gets waaay too much weight on here. Probably because it's an easy way to dismiss something out of hand or make a snap judgement without actually using your brain. It implies some sort of bending of the truth to suit your agenda. Like shouting "Lies!!" without actually saying it. However, it pulls no weight if the "biased" person is stating facts. This article is pointing out facts. It doesn't matter if the most middle of the road moderate wrote it, or Hilary Clinton wrote it at an abortion and gay rights rally. It doesn't take away from the FACTS that are in the article.
- GoneSouth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Let us not forget to add cowardice to his list of failings. The Decider is going to leave the hard choices about cleaning up this mess, to his successor.
- Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10He is not even a captian. He is like that ***** kid with no skills who gets to play on the varsity football team because his dad was coach.
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15"I'm a uniter, not a divider". Nuff said.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Just what one would expect from you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6NYCMAC - I think those are all valid issues and I don't think things are OK. And furthermore, neither of these parties are going to make things OK. They are different sides of the same coin.
--- We are in agreement there.
More regulation is not the answer - less regulation is.
---- Hard to say. More regulation can mean bloated overhead but LESS regulation means that we are are trusting people (i.e. Enron) to police themselves. I am concerned b/c the 5 day work week, abolishment of child labor, pollution controls, etc. we not brought into industry voluntarily. The former Soviet Union is a good place to look at how things are when there is very little regulation. At least with the gov't we might have a shred of accountability in policing white collar crime.
OPEC switches to the Euro, I'm not sure how that effects health-care,
----- I was getting excited and trying to stress that the US is going to loose its primacy. Its not just that other countries are churning out more engineers and scientists but that our long-term future is really in jeopardy b/c of the economy. From my understanding, once we went off the gold standard the value of currency was just a matter of perception. Therefore, if OPEC switches to the Euro and away from the greenback due to the US economy being perceived as being managed by short-term thinking we would really be in trouble ---> and National Health Care would _not_ be a politically viable option?
but gov't control of health-care is not the answer. Getting insurance out of the drivers seat re health-care is the answer. How does supporting a multi-billion dollar industry to stand between people and doctors help reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of health-care? Making the insurance industry offer national policies would help reduce the costs and well as having insurance companies with a social conscience would help. paying the CEO of UHCG $40m/yr does not help anyone have better, more affordable health-care.
---- I am concerned that all other Industrialized countries have national health care and we don't. One of my best friends is an M.D. who it looks like will be going on an exchange-type program with the government of Denmark next year. In talking with him, he said that although taxation is high the Danish model actually gets a high approval rating from the public since all their basic needs are taken care of and they don't need to worry about the necessities of life. And, in regards to those that would say that this is "Liberal" or "Commie" or whatever he said "We'll you can complain all you want and point fingers but the fact is that they'll continue to have a safety net whereas we -- including the aging Baby Boomers -- will not." Basically, from my understanding, the US gov't actually lets Big Pharma and the health industry write their own regulation while all the time planting the public memes that _any_ type of socialized medicine results in super high taxes and long, long wait times for health care; two claims that are demonstrably false.
Our relationship with China is embarrassing. We harvest our natural resources, ship them to China, they manufacture things, ship them to us for more than they are worth. We get loans from China to buy it all. in effect we are shipping China boat loads of money because our business environment to so over regulated and mismanaged that we can't afford to manufacture our own goods anymore, that's what should be addressed.
---- Hmmm. I am a business owner and it seems to me that the problem with the US is not regulation its that our country is not protectionist enough to keep me from competing against zero environmental regulation and - dare I say it - slave labor. The only reason why Wal Mart and others exist is because poor people want to buy things and our gov't allows Chinese goods to be shipped halfway around the world and still cost less than local produced goods. I am concerned that by the time people "get it" (that is, that gov't is the only thing that can create a good economic environment) that the "free market" argument will have already spiraled to the bottom: a large share of white-collar jobs will also go overseas and the same people now arguing that the free hand of the market will take care of everything will be the same people in 5 years who are out of work b/c _their_ job has been outsourced.
I don't think you will find anywhere on DIGG where I've said "We're number 1" I simply don't think being a knee-jerk socialist is the answer.
--- I am interested in this. Is any gov't oversight "socialism"?
Do you think you should pave the road that you drive on in the way to work? Do you think that there should be no safety net, kind of like how third world countries have with the ultra rich and the ultra poor? And what about the countries (think of northern Europe) that self - identify as "socialist"? Is their standard of living really bad? From what I remember its not just Nokia that's doing well financially up there... and have you seen any of the TV specials having our fifth graders taking knowledge tests vs. their fifth graders? Although I am not interested in moving (Not yet?) from talking to people from and who have traveled to other countries it seems like we, as Americans, have a lot of mis-conceptions that are getting in the way of us looking at differing models for health care, education, etc. I'm not saying that we go whole hog and adopt things outright from ...whomever... but I wonder why no one stands up in Congress and says "Hey! All the other industrialized countries have national health care and they can't _all_ be worthless; let's look into these existing systems and craft one of our own." It seems to me that a good way to stop change or attempt at change would be to just shout "Socialism!" whenever anyone talks about something new in the US instead of looking -- critically -- at existing systems from other countries and seeing what we can learn from them. -
Show 51 - 100 of 353 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