What is Digg?61 Comments
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -4/+21
FOX News, conservative talk radio, conservative authors Glenn Beck are NOT conservatives. They advocate big government and deficit spending. They advocate international meddling like never before. They advocate governmental intrusion in Americans' lives.
Whatever you want to call these buttwipes it should not be conservative.
Want o know how a real conservative acts and thinks, read about Barry Goldwater who would have ended Vietnam before it killed so many thousands of soldiers, or better yet, look at Dr. Ron Paul's policy positions. There is a real conservative - Kanzan, on 12/06/2007, -10/+23Few can speak Truth to Power like Uncle Walter. Heed his words.
- XavierOnassis, on 12/06/2007, -10/+23We can only hope that Walter can pull us through our warmongering ways once more.
- TheWorm, on 12/06/2007, -4/+15Well, he ended Vietnam in a way. "If i have lost Walter Cronkite I have lost the American people" -Lyndon B Johnson. The only problem here is that our president does not seem to care one way or the other what the American people think.
- ZenFountain, on 12/06/2007, -2/+12We stayed in Vietnam five years after Cronkite called it lost during the Tet Offensive...I wonder if we'll still be in Iraq circa 2012.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/06/2007, -5/+15Cronkite was the bast damn reported I've ever seen. It's a shame he's not still doing it, I would imagine all of our news networks would still be respectable.
When Walter Cronkite says we should get the hell out of Iraq, we should ***** do it. He's been around long enough and is certainly well informed enough to recognize a bad idea. - inactive, on 12/06/2007, -5/+15Its quite cute, all the kids blaming the Vietnam war on Walter Cronkite - didn't you get the memo? We WON Vietnam the day we began the withdrawal. And by "we" I mean the common citizens of the US, especially those conscripted into military service. The only "losers" in that war were the military-industrial complex and their congressional enablers.
- fonebone2, on 12/06/2007, -5/+14Wow, you're either a unabashed liar or a mouthbreathing idiot. I suspect some combination of the two. From the link you posted:
"There is a rumor widespread on the Internet that Giap has written some book (unnamed in most versions of the rumor) stating that the Tet Offensive was such a disaster that the Communist leaders were ready to abandon the war effort. Many versions even use the word "surrender." But then the Communist leaders saw statements by anti-war Americans indicating that United States was giving up on the war. Various versions of the rumor blame Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, or members of the US Congress. These statements persuaded the Communist leaders to fight on. All versions of this rumor are false. Giap has not, in any book or elsewhere, said that the Communists were on the point of abandoning the war in the aftermath of Tet."
How do you like your crow? - archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Still believing the lie that it was the media and liberals who lost Vietnam, eh?
Vietnam was unwinnable. The US basically picked up a colonial war where the French had left it. All the Vietnamese wanted was to be masters of their own destinies. No one could have prevented them from achieving that, nor should they have even tried.
"You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." --Ho Chi Minh to the French, late 1940s - katrayun, on 12/06/2007, -4/+10Oh, we don't need help.
- arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Because those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana - scotticus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7The war is being conducted by the commander and chief and his cabinet. Which party is he in again?
Blaming the democrats for the Iraq debacle is like blaming the film critics for Gigli being a ***** movie.
I really hope you're being sarcastic. - costpercopy, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6That's just .. like.. your opinion, man.
- fonebone2, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Nope. CIA's own estimate put the number of Vietnamese civilian casualties at around 3 million. This was corroborated by Vietnamese gov't estimates, which were actually kept secret initially because they didn't want their own people to realize how much they'd sacrificed. US bombing of Cambodia killed another 400,000 to 1 million. Estimates for the number of Camodians killed by Khmer Rouge hover around 1.5 million. The 3 million figure for KR deaths was pulled out of someone's ass back in the late 70s but still occasionally gets touted as gospel.
- rand0mm0nkey, on 12/06/2007, -3/+8because rightwing propoganda is working really well for us right now, eh? Wake up...
- archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6"Americans FINALLY get to see BOTH sides of the issues. ....and based on the great success of FOX News and talk radio, I'd say Americans choose the conservative point of view when they are presented with ALL of the facts."
Sorry, but poll after poll shows that, by and large, Americans mostly hold liberal views. I think your own bias is severely skewing your perception of public opinion in the US. I suggest stepping out of conservative echo chambers once in a while... - arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4GOOD CHRIST! Someone actually does their homework....
- brad3378, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Here's the long version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i214f5-w19w
- scotticus, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Heh. Retards can type. Who knew?
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -5/+9Am I the only one who thought this guy was dead?
- archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5"Loosing" the war? Really? :-D
How do you win an occupation? Hint: the surge isn't working - the reason there are less casualties is simply because of all the ethnic cleansing that has been going around. - arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5We certainly don't care when YOU can't capitalize, spell or use punctuation.
- tribecom, on 12/06/2007, -4/+8re: bottled sunshine ... Interesting anecdote , unfortunately that's all it is. Try looking up the word "rumor", then notice there isn't ANY credible citations, and finally figure out you're reading WIKIPEDIA you moron.
- archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5The only reason conservatives now claim that Iraq can be "won" is that they've lowered the bar so much it almost touches the ground.
You guys must be tired, always moving those goalposts. Iraq is *already* a disaster - the fact that there are less civilian deaths now is no reason to cheer, unless you're a neocon who cares more about "winning" than the suffering of others. - archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Yes, you're right about the Vietnamese figures, I was only looking at military casualties, and not civilian ones. I stand corrected.
What a senseless waste of human life... - fonebone2, on 12/06/2007, -3/+6Vietnam lost over 3 million people and suffered under a crushing embargo for the next 20 years. Not much of a victory.
- MarkKezner, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2This is just blatant trolling. Shame on you. Get a job.
- arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Walter Cronkite will be remembered as a voice of reason. His career was a journalist is replete with quality, professionalism and dedication, he was reporting action in WWII/North Africa before the Bill O'rilley ***** were a stain on mommas matress. The folks you mentioned will ultimately be remembered as the Paris Hiltons of spam media howling, and you, you will fade away like all your ilk, back to the cesspool of ignorance from which you sputtered out of.
- arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Amen.
- arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3The difference there sparky is an educated, reasoned, thoughtful, experienced opinion. Not just another Glen Beck loudmouth-get-in-step spamfest.
- archiesteel, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Actually it's more like 1.3 million (including South Vietnamese). I think you're confusing this with Cambodia.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Right, the war killed 3 million and the survivors achieved victory in that the killing of their brothers stopped - who knows how many more would have died if the war had continued?
- Dukeye, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Don't dictate reality to me, son. For one thing, the whole area is a clusterf*uck because of Western meddling for generations. The West (Brits) created Iraq, and the CIA enabled the Islamic Revolution to take place in Iran by supporting a military coup (over a democratically elected President) in 1954. (And we're there to give them democracy?) The U.S. gave weapons and support to Saddam and Osama bin Laden during the 80's and possibly more recently. This is the sad reality.
We are killing thousands of Iraqis who want nothing more than to not be occupied. Our brave servicemen and women are being killed and wounded. We are spraying depleted uranium around Iraq. We are spending $500,000 a minute (while borrowing this money from China). We are creating more hatred, more Al-Qaeda recruits. The American and Iraqi peoples will be better off when we leave.
Oh, but we should stay for cheaper gas, right? Tell that to the families of dead soldiers. Not to mention that constant threat of conflict with Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. isn't exactly hurting the oil companies bottom lines... - Stevanoski, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2Mr. Cronkite and David Krieger, bird of a feather, both liberal blowhards full of themselves.
- scotticus, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3Vote for the freedom candidate! He's anti everything! End funding for public works, education, science, police, military...
Let's live in a society with a weak government. It's worked well for Somalia and it'll work great for us!!!
The government is corrupt, let's throw the whole thing out like and ipod with a dead battery!! - MadKennyP, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Truth: emboldening our enemies since 2001.
- fixedcoma, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Sorry Cronkite, but you just made the terror list also! Watch out!
- OriginalLucid1, on 12/06/2007, -9/+9Yes, by all means get them the hell out before they win the damn thing and ruin the democrats chances in 08!
- hospitalcio, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Forget about the war, Walter. Diggnation is waiting for you to weigh-in on the important stuff. What about the Gamespot controversy?
- lazyfisherman, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2And Bush Cheney still doesn't give a damn.
- whatthefu, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3Definitions of ideologies change over time, no matter how much you don't want it to. Conservative is a term that can cover both neo-conservatives and classical conservatives.
- loki49152, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1Actually, I saw a former VC make this claim in a documentary on television about.. hrm.. 16 years ago.
I can't provide a reference, obviously. But remember - Wikipedia isn't more accurate just because it says what you want to believe. - OC73, on 12/06/2007, -1/+0"I suggest stepping out of conservative echo chambers once in a while.."
Um, i think it's safe to say he's on digg and you're not on FreeRepublic. - arcangelgabriel, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1I was going to reply, but tribecom stated it best.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2Walter Cronkite, aren't you dead yet? Wipe the drool off of your chin. Your legacy is Dan Rather and Katie Couric. On second thought, I hope you live long enough to see Rupert Murdoch by CBS.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -10/+7why would anyone care what Walter Cronkite thinks?
- rand0mm0nkey, on 12/06/2007, -7/+3please stfu. Support someone more than 12 people will vote for. Thank you.
- MoonDogAFO, on 12/06/2007, -11/+7I'm not really interested in ANY journalist telling me what is best. As far as I am concerned, Walter Cronkite is another US citizen expressing his opinion. I am sick to death of journalists expecting the :common man" to listen to them because they know best...like reading copy makes them better qualified than us.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 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