digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at wired.com —

Disturbing New Photos From Abu Ghraib

wired.com — Forget Obama, Ron Paul is the ONLY man that will stop these atrocities. America, WAKE UP! We can't have business as usual, we need a Thomas Jefferson to bring our nation back to life!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lukelucas, on 02/28/2008, -116/+779i've only dugg for the photos and the light shed on the atrocities. i am NOT digging this for the obscene Ron Paul propaganda attached. presidents and congressman don't/won't change the potential mental instabilities brought on by war, combat, and thousands of miles of desert all around you.
    • lastnymleft, on 02/28/2008, -92/+116What the hell are you talking about? Democrats have had two years of control of both senate and house to end the war, and HAVE NOT DONE SO. They could end it *TOMORROW* if they wanted to. The only way to end this war, and stop this crap, is to vote for a Commander-in-Chief that is wholly against it. McCain is happy to see another 100 years of it, Hillary supported it at the start, and all along the way, Obama was initially against it, but has voted FOR it every step since! And Huckabee's all for it, of course.
      Ron Paul voted AGAINST the war at the start, and has voted AGAINST the war at every opportunity that has arisen. This is outrageous, and needs to end.
      • americangoy, on 02/28/2008, -19/+85I am very much a liberal in my viewpoints but lastnymleft is 100% correct.
        The Democrats now are using the war in Iraq as a voting strategy, so that the frustrated people will keep voting them in.
        Similarly, they did not impeach Bush Cheney etc or even tried to (as they should have), because, again, bush in office is good politics for Democrats - having him in office sways most voters to vote Democrat, no matter what, where or what position.
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -36/+63Exactly, anyone who thinks Obama will do anything to end the war once he gets the power has not looked at his record and is listening just to his rhetoric. Only Ron Paul has, for TWENTY years, voted perfectly. We can trust him, he's NOT just another politician.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 02/28/2008, -34/+19I agree way more with lucas. First of all, at this point Ron Paul isn't going to do jack ***** because he has ALREADY lost. I am on the Ron Paul mailing list and as it's become more and more apparent that he is going to lose, the e-mails they have been sending me get more and more ridiculous. I supported him at first, but now I'm glad he lost. And also, Democrats being in control of Congress doesn't have anything at all to do with the stance that Obama wouldn't put in the effort to end the war like he says. It's just that Ron Paul has fed you all that every one but him is a "neocon" and you are eating the ***** up. Are you people even aware that RP wants to legalize pot, but illegalize abortion, and that he thinks the health care system is perfect as it is right now, or that he sees nothing wrong with our economics of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. He calls it "the fairness of a free market". YOU PEOPLE are the drones that need to "wake up"
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 02/28/2008, -19/+4Oh yeah? Please explain how I am inaccurate. And you should know as well as any one that lifting the legalization of abortion and leaving it up to each state to decide is going to end up with illegal abortions in most states. And funny how no one has argued my statements about his health/economical views. Grow the ***** up and choose a candidate based on something more than empty promises to end the war and legalization of pot (which I'm sure is the real issue). I want legalization too, but not from a president that pretends to care for the little guys without stepping in on the economy or the health care system
          • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -5/+5"but illegalize abortion"
            Wrong as usual, try using sources when you make insane statements if you want us to even waste time on replying to you.
            "he thinks the health care system is perfect as it is right now"
            You couldn't be more wrong, read his ***** statements on health care. He has said our health care system is a mess.
            "Congress doesn't have anything at all to do with the stance that Obama wouldn't put in the effort to end the war like he says"
            Obama has voted for funding the war. Obama has also voted for the patriot act and supports both the "war on drugs" and "war on terror".
          • baller90210, on 02/28/2008, -4/+4i ***** hate this ron paul propaganda. he isn't gonna do *****.
          • jollins, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Leaving abortion up to the states to decide on just makes it so that the rich can travel to the states where it is legal, whereas the poor would have their babies or seek abortions illegally.

            Leaving it up to the states is not a good policy. It makes the situation more worse, whether you are pro-choice or not.
          • card51short, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1OH MY GOD LEGALIZE POT NOOOOOO
        • dmjarrington, on 02/28/2008, -24/+22"Are you people even aware that RP wants to legalize pot, but illegalize abortion, and that he thinks the health care system is perfect as it is right now, or that he sees nothing wrong with our economics of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer."

          Did you even read up on his policy positions?... That's wildly inaccurate you know.
          • DroogInPhoenix, on 02/28/2008, -8/+22He doesn't believe in abortion, but believes it should come down to each individual state to decide... Get your facts straight.
          • WasabiBomb, on 02/28/2008, -10/+8Abortion is either murder (in which case it should be illegal), or abortion is a medical procedure (in which case it should be legal). Allowing each state to choose whether it's legal or illegal is just pandering for votes.
          • xerigen, on 02/28/2008, -4/+6@WasabiBomb: Ron Paul has said multiple times that he thinks abortion is murder and is therefore decided by the state because making laws for murder is not the job of the federal government. He's not pandering, and he never has, he follows the Constitution.
          • thebellmaster1x, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4@xerigen
            If he follows the Constitution, he should know that it is the JUDICIAL branch whose power it is to interpret the laws, not his branch or the President's branch. If the Supreme Court says that states cannot ban abortion under the 14th Amendment, he has no right to simply say "lolno."
          • grinchdec23, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1What Judicial branch would wade into this ?? surely you jest.
          • israelanderson, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2People here, and elsewhere DON'T read his policies on http://RonPaul2008/com/issues/ they just listen to the media. just look at these comments. These people have no clue what Ron Paul stands for. And that are ***** scared of actually going to his site and reading up on his issues, because they know there's a bloody good chance they'll come back here and have to admit as so many others have that they are now a Ron Paul supporter. DIGG is the only proof anyone needs to verify the existence of Sheeple.
        • 1randomguy08, on 02/28/2008, -17/+13***** all American politics its all *****
          • kevlarbaboon, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8****** all politics.
          • odigity, on 02/28/2008, -5/+4Less government = less politics. It's the only way to go. Shrink government.
          • archiesteel, on 02/28/2008, -4/+5less government = more power to corporations = less power for individuals

            We don't need less government, we need *better* government.
          • baller90210, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1i wish i could digg this comment 1000000 times. these ***** just hatin on the truth.
      • johnnyb3, on 02/28/2008, -31/+32I don't mean to be a Democratic apologist, but the "power of the purse" that Congress holds isn't enough to contradict the President in any meaningful way. If they take away funding, the President will not really be able to withdraw successfully (it will be forced and likely a disaster), and if they fund the troops on a condition with a timetable, Bush has promised to veto it. What we really need is a President, commander-in-chief that can help withdraw, and this is what Obama has promised to do.
        • Exarchos, on 02/28/2008, -17/+18Dugg for truth.
          • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -10/+8Thats why Obama supports the "war on terror", "war on drugs", "Patriot act" and votes to fund the war. Only a dumb ***** would argue that you can wage war without funding.
          • israelanderson, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Buried for BS.
        • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -23/+11Buried as Crap. Obama's another CFR stooge.
        • AGsilver, on 02/28/2008, -3/+8Actually the Democratics could have ended the war by making it ILLEGAL to stay in Iraq. All it takes it dedication to continuously voting every single day on the matter. So far neither Hillary or Obama has had the courage to do this, so to say they don't have any "power" is BS. They don't have the courage and are making up excuses.

          Here are the words of Democratic Candidate, Mike Gravel who ended the Vietnam draft singlehandly with a 5 month filibuster:
          "We need to find another way. I really would like to sit down with Pelosi and with Reid, and I would hope the other senators would focus on, how do you get out? You pass the law, not a resolution, a law making it a felony to stay there. And I'll give you the text of it. And if you're worried about filibuster, here's what you do tactically. They can pass it in the House. We've got the votes there. In the Senate, let them filibuster it. And let Reid call up every -- at 12:00 every day to have a cloture vote. And let the American people see clearly who's keeping the war going and who's not. And that's just the beginning of the tactic, if they're tough enough to do it. "
        • atheos13, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I think Gravel is a terrific candidate and have always been amazed by his approach to politics, not because it seems impossible, but because no one else does it like he wants to. Sadly, there are only three candidates who have the delegates at this point to win any nominations, and of course Hillary is lagging behind more and more, and Obama has a clear shot at beating McCain, but that's kinda beside my point. As far as the primaries go, Gravel and Paul are still running, they just can't really be elected since they lack the appropriate delegates at this point in the game. I just want something different than what we've had for all this time and I think of the three candidates, Obama will bring that about in the best way.
      • koko775, on 02/28/2008, -18/+52I may get dugg down for this comment, but here goes:

        While the Democrats haven't done a great job (and by some metrics, their performance has been terrible), it's not like they have enough senators to override a filibuster. I think you're overlooking the political reality to justify your outrage. Your support for Ron Paul is justifiable, but your willful ignorance of politics is not. Not that I agree or disagree with your support of Ron Paul, but you really need to calm down and tone down the rhetoric.
        • johnnyb3, on 02/28/2008, -15/+27A rational argument based on reality... you must be new around here.
      • yonoz, on 02/28/2008, -4/+11Do you not understand that this is not a triviality of war?
        • mateo60, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1guess it's different when it's not you or your family. you sound like a right-wing chickenhawk.
      • wentwj, on 02/28/2008, -13/+33Come on guys, I know it's cool to be all supporting a minority candadte here, but you don't have to be willfully dense. The 'control' the democrats have is minor. They HAVE sent bills to end the war, but they've been vetoed and they don't hold the power to override it. Their 'majority' in the senate counts Leiberman, who is pro-war, and thus they have a minority. And besides that, defuding the troops is NOT the same as ending the war. That only works if Bush would actually pull them out, which I have no faith he'd actually do. Instead our troops would be LESS equipped then they are now, and more chaos would ensue.

        The democrats don't have 'control' in either the senate or the house when it comes to the war.

        As a side note, it's mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to win the republican nomination, even if every single US Citizen that hasn't voted in a primary yet, voted for Ron paul
        • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -12/+10Not if Mccain has a stroke. :fingers crossed:
        • mrdab, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Bit to much my friend.
        • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -2/+4As a side note, it's mathematically impossible to wage a war without funding.
          • Dantetheinferno, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1As a side note: The definition of mathematically impossible doesn't apply to everything that is impossible.
        • odigity, on 02/28/2008, -3/+5wentwj, you're an idiot. you clearly understand nothing about the election process. votes ain't got nothing to do with it. hint: there's a convention in september.
          • cwgannon, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Please, write out the scenario in which Ron Paul receives the Republican nomination this fall. My son's daycare is having a fantasy literature contest, and I'd be more than pleased to enter your work.
        • israelanderson, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2It is sooooo hilarious. You see, I have spent the last 6 months learning about the nomination process for the Republican nominee. But I come here and see these comments telling Ron Paul supporters that it's mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to win the nomination. Which as clear as day reveals that you ain't got the foggiest about how it works, and yet here you are trying to school others.

          So sit down, and pay attention and let me give you the ultra short 1020 on the (R) nomination.

          Firstly, the poll results from the primaries don't mean didly squat. It is not primary voters, but party members through the delegates that go to the convention and vote for the nominee. Some, and most, but certainly not all, are bound on the FIRST round of voting, to vote for the candidate that "won" them on primary night. They are morally bound, not legally bound either. McCain will need to get 1191 votes on the first round of voting to win the nomination. Admittedly, the odds ARE in his favor that he will get the 1191 he needs. Just. But wait, you said mathematically impossible. Sorry, but you're dead wrong.

          After the first vote, if someone does not get 1191, they will vote again. And here's where it gets VERY interesting. Every single one of those delegates are now unbound and can vote for whoever they choose. And Ron Paul 30 minutes earlier just gave the most passionate and on-fire speech of his career to a room full of delegates that are now required to rethink their choice. You're getting this right?

          And then comes the spanner. Yes, one of those terrible things that messes up the system and creates chaos. Ron Paul's campaign has always been about one thing. GET OUR DELEGATES IN PLACE FOR THE CONVENTION. Oh, NOW you're starting to get it.... Many many MANY of the delegates currently bound to McCain, are RON PAUL delegates. HUNDREDS of them. HUNDREDS OF THEM....

          If we get to that second vote, all bets are off, and I guarantee you, Ron Paul will be the last man standing.

          If you want further war and atrocities, if you ignorantly hate Ron Paul, you had better get out an d campaign for McCain. Because if he doesn't get his 1191, Ron Paul is going to be the nominee, and the President.

          Suckers!
      • GawtMilk, on 02/28/2008, -6/+13In the same way that "Congress hasn't ended the war [what, by not funding it? Our troops need all the money they can get]", Paul won't make the changes he says he will. He'll be blocked by Congress the entire time.

        He's better as a congressman.
      • raynar, on 02/28/2008, -17/+1While I am against the torture going on, I wonder what Americans would think if the result of this torture was a confession revealing of something worse than 9/11.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 02/28/2008, -5/+10I just want to point out these are more pictures from the original Abu Grhaib scandal. I know for a fact this stuff isn't going on there now. Just after the scandal broke the army sent trained correctional personnel over there to supervise the prisons there and correct issues. I have several good friends who were part of the team sent over there to straighten out the prisons over there. The first thing they saw was that the infantry and cavalry running the prisons who had no corrections training were just doing crazy *****, like beating inmates and carrying guns inside the walls, etc. and the leadership didn't care what the soldiers did as long as the inmates didn't escape. They put a stop to it first off. This stuff hasn't been going on since the original scandal and I know that from the mouth of the people who oversaw the changes in the system.
        • alenox, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Ya no *****!! the original photos caused international outrage for torturing prisoners
          But what u seem to forget is that its not just a few bad soldiers - so much of it was top-down instructions! that's why Dr. Zimbardo testified (look up his study) and i bet way more horrific acts were perpetrated agianst these "enemy combatants" that got covered up or there didn't happen to be someone dumb enough to take a picture of
        • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6They sent a few CIA agents to make sure no more pictures would be leaked but there is still torture on a less lethal basis.
      • redstormpopcorn, on 02/28/2008, -6/+3To be fair, there aren't a whole lot of things Ron Paul hasn't voted against. Mostly just his own *****-crazy legislation.
      • POINT84, on 02/28/2008, -7/+3VOTING TO FUND THE TROOPS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING FOR THE WAR, DUNNY
        • Herostratos, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6Yes it is. How do you wage a war without money?
          • cwgannon, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1There's this thing called the deficit, and this other thing called the debt. Either one could explain to you how one goes about things without any money.

            But please, set up your strawmen so you can knock them down like the Paultilian nightmare we all know you to be.
    • rileyhallwood, on 02/28/2008, -106/+131can everyone stop with the ron paul BS?
      no one gives a *****.
      • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -44/+19When the Obama BS stops on Digg (Come on! 3 articles a day on the front page!), the RP BS probably will as well. Don't you have some hope, change, and nose blowing videos to be watching Obamatard?
        • EtherGnat, on 02/28/2008, -9/+11Obama is a major candidate with bright future prospects and broad support on Digg. Get over it.
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -5/+6That;s interesting, because his grassroots support, that is, the support NOT controlled by media, is entirely dominated by Ron Paul. But I guess he's NOT a major candidate with a bright future, because the media has the final say right.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3I kind of like Ron Paul, but he does NOT have as much support as Obama. You can claim Digg is biased if you want, but I'll remind you that until Super Tuesday (less than a month ago) there had been more Ron Paul stories than Obama stories on this site. Ron Paul just doesn't have the support at this point for a serious Presidential run, regardless of how you think the media is screwing him.

            If you really want to make a difference, do something more productive than complaining on Digg. Yes, you can donate and volunteer for Ron Paul, but he's never going to be able to accomplish much alone. If you really want to make a difference volunteer and donate to local candidates that share his philosophy. You can have a huge impact at the local level, and build support from there.
        • xerigen, on 02/28/2008, -5/+4The Obama bandwagon must be huge. How many clowns can they pack into a Mini Cooper? I don't particularly like Obama (I do think he is better than Hillary and McCain), but it's funny when I digg/comment on Ron Paul articles I'm a "Paulbot" and a "RP spammer" but the same people who criticize me digg Obama articles until their fingers bleed.
      • MillionsLivio, on 02/28/2008, -18/+37And that is exactly the problem with the average American, none of them give a ***** about all the crap happening around them.
      • misconstrued, on 02/28/2008, -19/+48I give a *****.
        • csw1342, on 02/28/2008, -12/+12Ditto
          • csw1342, on 02/28/2008, -4/+11Okay, digg that down, digg this as done well, I am not an average american. I am concerned about events occuring in my current environment. Henceforth, I give a "*****".
        • uptown, on 02/28/2008, -11/+13You two should date!
        • sarixe, on 02/28/2008, -10/+2i take a *****
      • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -14/+17Go watch American Idol rileyhallwood!
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -19/+7You don't give a ***** about your country.
        • fasda, on 02/28/2008, -5/+9sure he does just doesn't agree with Ron Paul.
        • rileyhallwood, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1i give a ***** about my country, i just dont about yours.
      • bluezinc, on 02/28/2008, -29/+22***** Ron Paul, I'm sorry, but saying Ron Paul will stop these atrocities is close to calling him the second coming of jesus. You have to know you're spouting *****.
        PS: He denies evolution, case closed.
        • dt3k, on 02/28/2008, -19/+10What?!?!?! A person of faith denied a ***THEORY*** that contradicts there faith? SAY IT AIN'T SO!
          • SteveMax, on 02/28/2008, -4/+6In science, the definition of "theory" is different from the definition used by layman. A scientific theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
            Evolution is a theory, and one that has been predicting a lot of things that happened over the past century. It could easily be falsified by fossil evidence, or by an animal species living on an unfriendly area that wouldn't experiment an adaptation to its environment. It passed.
            Pay attention on how this is different from the common usage of "theory", which would represent an unproven idea. Scientific theories aren't unproven ideas, they are ideas that could be tested and passed those tests.

            PS: "there faith" (sic)
          • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3And in science the theory of evolution is in absolute crisis, so your point is moot. Follow the evidence not Richard Dawkins.
          • StormTroopr, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2where faith?
          • JNCoward, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_a ...

            Read this and be enlightened.
          • SteveMax, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5"in science the theory of evolution is in absolute crisis"
            Good joke, but no. No matter how hard some unscientific groups in the USA try to pass this ***** along, the fact is that evolution is pretty well grounded. If it is ever replaced, its fate will be like the Newtonian gravity's: it will remain valid in the parameter space we tested it, and expanded to a new parameter space (just like Einstein's General Relativity is a superset of Newtonian gravity, expanded for large masses and velocities).
          • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.notjustatheory.com/
        • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -9/+13But Ron Paul isn't about forcing his belief into the system.
        • sgiffy, on 02/28/2008, -11/+7Re VikingoTJ: He wants to force his beliefs regarding government, taxes, monetary policy, etc on to 'the system'.
          • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6You mean he wants to the "system" to stop forcing it's retarded policies on us.
        • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -9/+7Unlike you Obama trolls, we never said our candidate is Jesus.
          http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
          • bluezinc, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1You somehow believe he'll stop all evil in the world. At least, this poster decided to speak for you guys.
      • gandhii, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1"no one gives a *****" is given as a reason to ask people to stop giving a *****... ironic.
    • ReadItAndWeep, on 02/28/2008, -15/+138I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and I agree with you. The pictures speak for themselves and do not need to be used for political purposes. Ron Paul has a devoted following which, for the most part, has been very helpful to his campaign. However, there is a small group of Paul supporters who have done more harm than good by promoting him in a very "in your face" style that turns people off. The submitter even used the "WAKE UP" phrase. I sympathize with this phrase sometimes but it has been so overused that it is now a cliche that is laughed at.

      I do disagree with you on one thing. I think that having the right leadership in political office can make a difference. These pictures show what happens when you have the wrong leadership in power. Hopefully Americans will realize this and vote for candidates accordingly.
      • iraq, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9Sad, I've been trying to talk to those specific supporters for some time now. They don't understand the social dynamics of it all and are either completely ignorant to politics or choose to ignore the reality of how our system of government works. Maybe they are young and dumb or old and apathetic, but the fact remains that this element of the 'revolution' will sink it every time, because you can't have a revolution if the following of libertarian principles doesn't increase in size. Organization and numbers is necessary and until these passionate advocates pick up on that, it's all going on deaf ears.
      • geoboy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+13I'm glad I'm not the only Ron Paul supporter who cringed while reading the description.

        Hey, submitter. WAKE UP! It's people like you who make Ron Paul and his supporters look like a joke.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3I hope you don't believe that. because that's not true. We are devoted, why are we treated and persecuted differently?

          Don't fall into the trap that we can't shamelessly plug the person we support. Do you trash people who support the founders or digg or youtube or the iphone or the mac? NO, so what's with the doublestandard for us?

          Sounds like reverse propoganda to me.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Wake the ***** up. Seriously.
    • Light0, on 02/28/2008, -39/+63Yea, Ron Paul can stop this. Does he have a shot in the dark of winning? No. RP propaganda is over and done, thx.
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -7/+7McCain could keel over. He's old.
        • revisrev, on 02/28/2008, -5/+15and then people would vote for... Romney, he only suspended his campaign, he didn't drop out. But don't let the truth stand in your way.
        • LeeSoong, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4The '' Dirt '' on Romney and McCain is coming - the democrats are saving the most damaging stuff for right before the election - just watch.

          The Spin is Out There !
          • LeeSoong, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Oh, John McCain is partly responsible for Pushing a $40 Billion dollar deal through the Pentagon and into the hands of the European Union company AirBus, putting Boeing American workers out of a job.

            Well now - can we find E.U. money, AirBus Money,
            or Northrop Grumman money going into the John McCain fund?

            http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp ...

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

            It seems Boeing ran into a little problem:
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4277927.stm

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

            http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/2/1277/92 ...

            http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/297 ...

            http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002500121 ...

            The '' Top Spin '' is John McCain is a Hero against government waste,
            and abuse of the system. The AirBus is a technologically advanced and superior system for the U.S. Military.

            The 'Bottom Spin' is that John McCain is a monster who ruthlessly took jobs away from Americans to give $40 Billion to French men and E.U. corporate fat cats. Now cut to the woman out of a job at Boeing trying to by baby food for her children while on unemployment, all because of John McCain - sell out puppet to the E.U. and the one world shadow government run by bankers and former Nazis.


            The truth hits square in the Middle:
            John McCain did help expose some bad dealings going on in Military spending, resulting in some people getting fired and sent to jail. BUT, if stratetic air force systems are being built by foreign powers - it doesn't take a lot of creativity to install weak links. The 'Battlestar Galactica' cylon problem - kill the massive tanker planes with a flip of a switch that knocks out a weak point in the AirBus system. No One, and I mean no one person at all, could detect the weak link or espionage inserted into an AirBus - it is built in many, many locations.

            I personally believe Key Military Hardware - Tanks, Planes, Ships, Guns, Computers, Ammo, etc - used by the U.S.A. military must be built inside the USA and by USA citizens. No exceptions.

            Some might see that as old fashioned cold war thinking - but you can not deny the old lessons from WW-2: loose lips sink ships.

            Made in America might seem to cost more,
            but the price we pay for losing control of our own military assets is far too high.
      • j0keR, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1It's about the message, stupid.
        Oh, and digg won't shut the ***** up about Obama.
    • dmjarrington, on 02/28/2008, -14/+54But isn't it true?... I think Ron Paul is the only one advocating withdrawal as early as immediately. Do you not think occupation is what causes this kind of tyranny in the first place?

      The first step towards abolishing secret prisons is to reach a consensus that they aren't a part of the American spirit in the first place. Isn't Ron Paul a step in that direction? Do you really not see the significance of his candidacy after all that has happened? It just seems so plain to me, the reality of it all. I can't understand why any freedom loving individual would WANT to suppress an advocate of peace at the same time they would decry images like these... It just seems so counter-productive.

      Maybe I'm not meant for this world.
      • nakani, on 02/28/2008, -11/+7You shouldn't feel bad for not being a whiny bitch. You aren't the problem, they are.
      • johnnyb3, on 02/28/2008, -15/+8Does it really matter at this point what Ron Paul believes? I was into the whole RP momentum at first, but now that he's pretty much an insignificant candidate, can we move and discuss which *feasible* candidate would be best?
        • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -8/+18LOL All of the "feasible" candidates are pro-war.
          • fasda, on 02/28/2008, -10/+4didn't Obama vote against authorizing the war in the first place and has promised to withdraw the troops?
          • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8Didn't Obama vote for everything for increasing funding for the war in Iraq to the patriot act?
          • 15charmaxwtf, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4And he wants to increase the military by 80,000 or something. The word imperialist popped into my head.
        • dmjarrington, on 02/28/2008, -1/+20I think to suggest he is insignificant might be an underestimation of Ron Paul's political muscle. His movement will continue to grow long after November 2008 regardless of who wins. That is the difference in what we are building here. Republicans must not be allowed to pursue the same old failed policies as always. They must be challenged. This is what we represent. The march on Washington in the coming months will show the world that we aren't going to just go away. Our coalition is here to stay whether the GOP likes it or not.
        • 15charmaxwtf, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4If he's so insignificant why are the establishment scared of him? why was there a virtual media blackout of him just when the elections started? They always used to say they would report on him more when he started getting more money, that didn't happen. Then they started when he got more votes, he got more votes than Rudy a lot of the time and in some states like Nevada did well but still a blackout. Hell, even McCain was speaking recently about the battle between the old (Taft, Ron Paul) right and the new right.

          I must admit I did think he would get more votes, after all I did not believe for one second they would get 4.3 million dollars on the first big money bomb - I thought the people predicting even 2 million were so very optimistic (I might not have had such a polite word in my head at the time ;) ) Sorry I'm waffling.
      • LeeSoong, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9'There are no secret prisons, comrade.

        We would like to talk to you about these ideas you are having,
        come with us now please...'

        [Black Van pulls up to your house.]
    • RomgRim, on 02/28/2008, -6/+9I think you are right. In fact I am certain you are right. This is a big decision: whether to address more focus on domestic issues and thereby abandon these poor people. But please do not delude yourselves into thinking RP is a solution to any of this unless he can end the military mindset in the US. I think he has a better chance than anyone else. The downside - to be weighed in against him - is his total lack of a clue when it comes to domestic policy. But I too feel it almost a civic duty to support RP.
      • misconstrued, on 02/28/2008, -2/+9When you say 'domestic policy" I certainly hope you aren't referring to domestic economic policy. A subject that he knows far more about than any of the other candidates running.
    • jugger74, on 02/28/2008, -10/+23First off it is truthful and a fact that RP could and would be the ONLY candidate who stop this insane ***** so call it propaganda if you want that makes it no less true. Secondly there was no mental instability due to combat or anything else here. It was a simple case of stupid redneck soldiers following specific orders from direct superiors in a chain of command leading directly to the white house, The low level grunts who performed the atrocities were rightly sent to prison while their superiors were promoted and encouraged by the white house to continue spreading their evil to Gitmo and several other secret prisons around the world. The best accounting of what went on so far is in the Oscar winning documentary Taxi Cab to The Darkside.
    • DavidinBoston, on 02/28/2008, -6/+3These people didn't need miles of desert or the horrors of war to become evil necessarily. They very certainly could have been evil ALL ALONG.
      • misconstrued, on 02/28/2008, -0/+16Actually research shows that under the right set of conditions virtually anyone can be manipulated into doing "evil" things like this. It is the job of their leaders to prevent such conditions and they are not.
        • tlm2021, on 02/28/2008, -5/+2You are correct. So tell me how much personal interaction the Commander in Chief has with the grunts? Ok, now subtract the amount of personal interaction just used for photo ops? That leaves almost none.

          There's one of two arguments here, and you have to choose one. Either Bush or those very close to him did order the kind of atrocities that happed at Abu Gharaib, in which case I believe any of the remaining candidates would stop it. Or, it's the result of those directly supervising the grunts, who the Commander in Chief also never interacts with, so no President can do anything more than fire/punish those supervisors, which is what I believe every remaining candidate would do.

          This Ron Paul stuff is just *****, and I wish his supporter would try to focus less on how he's allegedly a revolutionary, and more on the damage his policies would cause (case-in-point: get rid of any institution not explicitly called for in the constitution. The constitution is a frame, not the entire blueprint).
          • nicholai, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Why do you hate America?
          • TheGreat0ne, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3the constitution IS a blue print for the national government. it explicitly states how the national government is to be set up and what the national government can do, and specifically leaves the rest to the individual states. if you dont like it, it provides a way to change it. ignoring it leads to it being massively overstepped by power-hungry politicians.
      • raynar, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3How would he stop it? Politicians say what they need to get elected, then its open range.
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3Perhaps this is why people call Ron Paul a statesman rather than a politician. He has a 20 year record in Congress that erases any doubt that he will do as he says he will. No one has that kind of a record to back up their claims. Certainly Obama doesn't, he has the opposite, his history shows that he will indeed say anything to get elected and then flip flop at any point. We should be able to put some trust in a guy that has lived his entire life without flip flopping right? Give him a chance...
    • deMonkey, on 02/28/2008, -7/+34Weird, that story didn't say anything about Ron Paul.
      • csw1342, on 02/28/2008, -8/+8Yeah those pictures aren't exactly new either.
    • jarjarbinx, on 02/28/2008, -11/+3Although the dems have been in control for 3 years, we can't just leave. As Obama said, someone (Bush) drove the bus into the ditch, now there are only a few alternatives of getting out. This means that it is already too late to leave. Leaving RIGHT NOW will make it like what we did in Afghanistan back in the 80s.
      • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4BS! Stop believing the media. The British left Basra, and nearly all violence ceased immediately. Oh, but why are you hearing that on CoNN and Faux???
        • jollins, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1Basra is not Iraq. I'm all for withdrawal, but it needs to be done STRATEGICALLY. Every situation is unique.
    • Asianwaste, on 02/28/2008, -15/+5Oooh I like this game. I can arbitrarily attach other topics onto Abu Gharib too. Let's see.. Oh I know! Drive Hybrid cars! If we use less oil, there'd be no reason for us to be in Iraq and thus would end horrible atrocities like Abu Gharib. So if you hate torture, drive a Hybrid today!
      • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3It's a war. Ron Paul is trying to be the Commander in Chief. Oh yeah, completely arbitrary... like your brain...
        • Asianwaste, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Ohhhhhhh I see... so you have to draw some dots then connect them... THEN the story will be about Ron Paul! Ok that was totally not clear to me before. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

          Let me try again. I'm sure my arbitrary brain can come up with something... (whatever the hell that means). Afterall, why stick to the main topic of the article? See if I draw some dots outside the story to my agendas, I can make any article about ANYTHING!
    • eliot2000, on 02/28/2008, -16/+10RON PAUL? Seriously, it's a little late. I know it was always a long shot, but I think McCain has it locked up at this point.
      Let me explain, The odds of Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination at this point are exactly the same as the Patriots' odds of coming back to win the Super Bowl last month.
      why don't you go say your prayers to Ross Perot- that will work as well.
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -7/+17It's a long term thing, man. Ron Paul Republicans (Libertarians in disguise) are going to take over the Republican Party. It's happening already, and we're running all across the country. The Revolution's here to stay. The James Sensenbrenners and John McCains are on the way out, and the next wave of Goldwaters and Pauls is on the way in. The Renaissance is nigh.
        • sgiffy, on 02/28/2008, -7/+2Nope, not a chance. There are not enough of you and most republicans disagree with most of what you have to say. I'd give it the same chance as communists taking over the democrats.
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8Communists taking over the Dems? Well that's pretty much HAPPENED, so I guess our chances are GOOD then.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 02/28/2008, -13/+16Since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate willing to stop this and you seem to think what he says is "obscene Ron Paul propaganda" then you are full of ***** that this bothers you in any way. As long as people like you are willing to go through life with your head in the sand then you better start getting accustomed to this being a part of your life.
      • lukelucas, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1my head in the sand? at what point did i say i was ignoring any of it?

        what i'm calling obscene is attaching Ron Paul Propaganda to this, as if magically waving a wand of RONPAUL will change the temperament and psychological damage incurred from being in Iraq. get over yourself and your god Ron Paul. i'm an Obama supporter, and i believe in change, but i'm also not a ***** fruitcake who believes things will change overnight if my candidate becomes leader of this nation.
    • smek2, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11"This photo from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is taken from a presentation by Philip Zimbardo on how ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, become evil." -- welcome to the third reich.
      • midbc, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Taxi To The Darkside is something you should watch
        events at Abu Ghraib prison are a little more involved than that

        www.taxitothedarkside.com
      • LeeSoong, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I don't see how this is 'becoming evil' - Western Civilization sees the whole world as a resource to be consumed. There is the USA, God's Chosen People with Guns, and then there is the rest of the world.

        The rest of the world is food, to be consumed by the USA. Sorry - but it's how it is - every U.S. policy and every U.S. government and military program treats the world as food, except the Peace Corps.

        Now if this was a typical scene in an American prison in Idaho, of prisoners caught for speeding tickets, - I think more people would be concerned.

        But many American military generally treat all foreigners as ' undermenchen ', especially if they
        are foreign enemy criminals - that is about as bad and as low as they can get.

        1 Day In Iraq =
        http://bp2.blogger.com/_44ev6Q8AhCw/R632Kwqcu_I/AA ...
    • ICanRead, on 02/28/2008, -3/+18Shhhh... Hide the pictures. They are old news.
      We already dealth with it. It never really happened.
      It's "Us" against "Them." Support the the troops...

      The majority of this country voted Bush back into office for a second term.
      Take responsibility.

      America did this. Your and my tax dollars paid for this. Congratulations.

      Since this is old news... what are we doing now and how are we hiding it.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 02/28/2008, -18/+3OMG THEY KILLED A MOUSE IN A MOUSE TRAP!!!!!

      IM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • arcangelgabriel, on 02/28/2008, -1/+16My friends, you don't know the half of it.
    • RedHairedMan, on 02/28/2008, -8/+7I'm so ***** tired of people telling me to 'WAKE UP!' or vote for one candidate or another because they're 'the only one who can end this!'
      You go beyond talking out your ass when you turn a torture and abuse scandal into your own soapbox. Moreover, you just make your candidate seem like the misplaced messiah of a generational subculture of social rejects.
      • nalicosh, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1who's more of a messiah now, Ron Paul or Barack Obama? At least Ron Paul supporters agree with him on principle and on the issues. Most of us are willing to discuss philosophy and economic theory all day long. How many Obama supporters actually know what he stands for? other than vague generalities and platitudes like: "Change and Hope, and the Hope for Change." Did you happen to note that Barack is unwilling to take any military "options" off the table? including the ***** DRAFT and Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes? at the last debate he suggested that if Al Queada creates a base out of Iraq after we leave, than of course, we'll just go right back in!!! That doesn't sound like a whole lot of "change" to me.
    • ClyWbr41, on 02/28/2008, -5/+16And I get Obama propoganda shoved down my throat every half hour thanks to the media. I think you can deal with a little bit of the truth every once in awhile.
    • rexblade, on 02/28/2008, -7/+15Neolibs act exactly like Neocons. Its to bad really that someones pride is more important then being right. I was a democrat but i switched to republican for Ron Paul. Why? Because the truth.
      • imorgan82, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3That's easily the dumbest thing I've ever seen someone say on here. You can't just make up words. "Neoliberalism" is an economic philosophy of worldwide free markets being able to promote development. It is what fueled the economic boom of the Reagan years, with the pesky side effect of us basically tearing all of South America apart in pursuit of. Since Ron Paul supports neoliberal policies, you might want to do some reading on it, schmuck dogmatist.
    • LeeSoong, on 02/28/2008, -16/+13Dugg for Ron Paul,
      if the rest of congress and the house followed Ron Paul,
      the troops would have been home by now, or they would have not gone to Iraq in the first place.

      Too bad for that guy's knee - looks like a bad cut, but they did bandage it.

      Ron Paul is still the USA's number 1 choice to return our country back to Americans,
      not just another part of the puzzle in the hands of the globalists.

      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about

      When do we start paying our United Nations and North American Union income taxes?
    • pedo, on 02/28/2008, -10/+3reverse psychology? maybe you are pro-RP and made that comment to get people to digg this despite the RP propaganda. i've seen this tactic used before by RP assholes. they pretend to be anti-RP but they aren't.
    • diskit, on 02/28/2008, -8/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Lies_Ag ...
    • imorgan82, on 02/28/2008, -7/+5Wow. This thread just continues to support the assertion that Paultards don't even know or understand their candidate's positions. They are just blindly open to demagoguery. To associate him with protecting against Abu Gharib photos is the same type of visual propaganda as Bush standing on top of the WTC with a bullhorn on 9/11. You people are every bit as bad as the sheep backing every other candidate.

      ... And for the record, a candidate that doesn't understand (and therefore accept) evolution is not to be excused as someone who is stalwart in their beliefs. They are a stupid, ignorant, emblem our our nation's shame that should be mocked, not exalted.
      • dmjarrington, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3You are wrong, sir. It is not "demagoguery" if it is true. Look at his goddamned voting record and give us a break for Christ's sake.

        Your ideas about evolution are irrelevant in a presidential campaign... So what is the president supposed to do... use supreme executive authority to throw money at evolutionist campaigns?... I believe in evolution, but that doesn't make such abuses proper in a constitutional form of government.
        • imorgan82, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1evolutionist campaigns? what does that even mean? first off, the evolution comment was pointed at an earlier comment. some people's litmus test is a candidate's stance on abortion, mine is evolution (that they not be retarded), and that they not be living in the early 19th century, geneally. Ron Paul fails 2x. There can be no policy on the issue, just a demonstration of the person's mind.
          Additionally, the supposition that Paul is "the ONLY man that will stop these atrocities," is a predictive statement, therefore by definition not "true." To claim anything to be true of a candidate that has not been demonstrated ipso facto, is the definition of demagoguery, "sir".
    • cfelix, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4Blah Blah Blah. The soldiers have the moral duty to stop this. PERIOD. I do not need a president or Ron Paul to tell me what is wrong and what is not. That is the way fanaticism and mindless slaves are born.
    • kfed2, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5"presidents and congressman don't/won't change the potential mental instabilities brought on by war, combat, and thousands of miles of desert all around you."
      Good point, but Ron Paul would END THE WAR - thus TAKING THE SOLDERS OUT OF THAT ENVIRONMENT. America has chosen to continue the war because Americans like war even more than we like saying we don't like war.
      The US has started over 50 armed conflicts since the end of WWII - we are the worlds #1 producer of war and violence, and our voting record indicates that we like it that way.
    • Jorin, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5I just think this Ron Paul thing is kind of sad. People are so devoted to him but he's clearly not in a strong enough position to make a difference. If only his followers could stop relying on him so much and organize themselves better instead of participating vicariously though the internet.
    • DiggMember01, on 02/28/2008, -2/+0Glad you dugg it lukelucas, it's an important story; I saw some RON PAULITICS in the blurb hit bury by reflex.
  • Yukatafish, on 02/28/2008, -54/+40Agreed.
    • LukasSmith, on 02/28/2008, -21/+10I find these pictures disturbing. But I also recognize that these pictures are from an event from long ago that has been dealt with. Waving pictures of gas chambers and mangled limbs in holes can shock people too. But we must realize this is the past. This situation was brought to light and dealt with long ago. Simply saying there shouldnt be a place on the map because this happened is wrong. The place was a prison and a few people there decided to be total *****. Doesnt mean all people that were there were *****. OR that the entire army are *****. Does the fact that 1% of all Americans are behind bars right now mean we are all criminals? Does the fact that 1% of the military are ***** mean they are all bad people? These pictures represent the worst of humanity. We must learn from them and move on. I dont find it hard to believe that there are dicckheads in the military. The military is like any other grouping of people like highschool, sports team, congress. You will always have bad apples. In general though I hae full faith in our military.
      • counterplex, on 02/28/2008, -4/+8Since you're alluding to the holocaust it's pertinent that, regardless of the actual people involved in the persecution of Jews and the operation of the concentration camps, anyone connected directly or indirectly to the operation was and continues to be prosecuted. Abu Ghraib is hardly equivalent in scale to the holocaust but surely similar logic should apply?
        • neko6, on 02/28/2008, -4/+7These camps were created to enslave and murder all people of certain beliefs and races, so anyone who helped that cause is prosecuted. Abu Gharib was created for legitimate reasons, and thus people who were there aren't and shouldn't be prosecuted if they weren't involved in atrocities.
          • counterplex, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Legitimacy, morality, etc are all debatable topics because they are relative. Certainly the Germans believed what they were doing was moral, righteous and legitimate.
          • FKnight, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Yeah, but the Germans were actually wrong.
          • aliengoods, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3The sad part is a comparison between US troops and German soldiers at concentration camps can be made. How did we let ourselves get to this. Oh yeah, TERROR, TERROR, TERROR!!
          • mbelrose, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Well, technically Abu Ghraib was created by Saddam to torture dissidents. Fortunately, we came along and...
          • counterplex, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3@FKnight - I see you missed the point of my comment. That or you got it but forgot the /sarcasm tag :)
          • dcingraham, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1@ aliengoods: This is nothing against you, but the reason that this comparison has been made is because of the same reason that our societies self-proclaimed "thinkers" have drawn comparisons between President Bush and Adolf Hitler--Being hyperbolic and outlandish is a certain way to become an internet tough guy.
      • LukasSmith, on 02/28/2008, -7/+4I was just pointing out all nasty human mutilation pictures have shock value. Not comparing the events. Sorry if it appeared I was doing so.
        • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3Again, It's a long term thing, man. Ron Paul Republicans (Libertarians in disguise) are going to take over the Republican Party. It's happening already, and we're running all across the country. The Revolution's here to stay.
        • yonoz, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1I thought you were on the moon.
    • LukasSmith, on 02/28/2008, -17/+8Also if you want to brainwash the masses into voting for Ron Paul, these pictures wont work. I think from what I remember from college you need to associate Ron Paul with happy pictures. Maybe rainbows? Ron Paul doesnt have a chance at this point anyhow. So go back to bed Ron Paul supporters, the highschool bell is about to ring.
    • Mahstah, on 02/28/2008, -9/+2The only atrocity here is that we give them foot baths, as can be seen in picture 4. Disgusting!
    • arplayer2k, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4If this is the measure of American diplomacy, I am shocked, appalled, and ashamed to be an American.
  • hollyberrry, on 02/28/2008, -26/+292The caption on the side reads "how ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, become evil." Wow. What did these prisoners do that warranted this? What greater purpose does this serve? This whole situation is so sad. What an embarrassment for America. To think that these military personnel could be my neighbors, the people I pass in the street, my co-workers. How did it ever come to this?
    • sparf, on 02/28/2008, -5/+47It's always been like this.
      Mankind is beautiful and broken.
    • manicleek, on 02/28/2008, -1/+12could it be referring to that experiment, where under an authoritive figure, a normal person could be driven to give lethal punishment to a stranger?
      • steeeeve, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7That would be the Milgram Experiment.
        But ithink the other one, Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment, describes this situation better.
    • thesparrowband, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9the film, Taxi to the Dark Side, (http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/2792/Taxi-to-the ... which was on Digg last week, tries to answer that question.
    • tgc1, on 02/28/2008, -4/+13It's an embarrassment to all of human kind.
    • CrudeDarkness, on 02/28/2008, -16/+14in Islam we are not allowed to torture.
      • lornefs, on 02/28/2008, -15/+2***** off!
      • moush, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2Bombing random civilians is cool though.
        • Alfonzo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Ummmm, Christians do that too . . . people seriously need to stop and think about the racist ***** that they spout
    • cababika799, on 02/28/2008, -18/+7You have part of it wrong hollyberrry... These prisoners are terrorists. They are of the same breed and the camp as the ones that seek to do harm to innocent men women and children in America. They absolutely deserve everything that they got.

      With that being said....it shouldn't have happened. In spite of what evil men deserve, it serves no justice to do the same unto them. America is supposed to be bigger than that. We're supposed to rise above the others in situations like this.
      • fabthegerm, on 02/28/2008, -3/+3... you didn't watch the news, did you?
        i almost started laughing at your comment, but then i looked at the picture again...
      • phobe, on 02/28/2008, -2/+15No, actually on numerous documented occasions, the US has routinely imprisoned and tortured individuals who were not "enemy combatants", who weren't "terrorists", and who were held for long periods of time without charge and tortured in hopes they'll sign false confession agreements. All this is documented.

        See the Tipton Three, Jawad Ahmed (Canadian journalist imprisoned so far for 4mths w/o charge and reported torture) or numerous individuals (later proven innocent) who were taken out of various countries of residence to be flown to others where torture laws are "flexible" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_renditi ...

        America has shamed herself.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1It makes me really think.. why have the Democrats saved us from this embarrassment? or is there more to the story than showing some pictures for political gain?
      • LeRenard, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5"They are of the same breed and the camp as the ones that seek to do harm to innocent men women and children in America." There is no proof of that, and that cannot be determined to my satisfaction without a fair trial.
      • nikipedia, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4It doesn't matter; torture is never right.
    • UnstableMind, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3Actually, I think it's more related to self preservation. I believe most of these people who did this were told, do it or face court martial and go to jail for disobeying orders. So, with that in mind, said grunts performed their assigned duty.
    • frenchi, on 02/28/2008, -3/+5It's called WAR my friend, it's been happening forever and will continue to happen forever. If you think it doesn't happen anymore you're just very naive.
    • johnkelsen, on 02/28/2008, -8/+3That chick next to the corpse was totally hot tho.
      • johnkelsen, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Whatever digg me down, but she was hot. Also the fact that she was pictured next to a corpse means she probably has loose morals.
    • e36wheelman, on 02/28/2008, -11/+6Why is everyone re-mad? Abu Ghraib has been cleaned up since these pictures, which were ones from the original set they showed on the news 2+ years ago. They're new in the sense that they haven't been released publicly. Is this all that it takes to stir you people? Post 2+ year-old photos of an atrocity that has been stopped?
    • dougdiggerton, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2the girl posing with the corpse was pretty sick, but the expiriment done by phillip z, showed that the vast majority of people when given power (of a prison guard in his case), will abuse it, and this is obviously and extreme case. wiith that said, these people were definately not innocent civilians.
      • rficwizard, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2How do you know they weren't innocent civilians? Were they found guilty in a fair trial? Or do you think that no-one in the military or intelligence could possibly make a mistake, especially under pressure?
  • cyenu, on 02/28/2008, -68/+151Dugg for the photos, not the description. Are we really still talking about Ron Paul? How does Ron Paul even enter into this conversation? This is atrocity. No president will stop atrocity from happening in the world. It's up to us to do something about it, and not to believe that by electing so-and-so into office, we'll be able to fix the problems of the world. Wake up to your own absurdity.
    • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -19/+53Ron Paul wouldn't have had US troops over there for an atrocity to occur.
      • claytrainor, on 02/28/2008, -23/+38Ron Paul was the only candidate on either side who is against the war.

        He has more Active Duty Military Support than all of the candidates on either side combined. The things he talks about should be taken very seriously by everyone, even if the media's blackout worked.

        Ron Paul wants to stop the wars but unfortunately it doesn't look like he's gonna be president. That doesnt mean his message will just die. His supporters are very passionate, and you wont stop hearing from us until our goal is accomplished. We are still growing at exponential rates as well.

        We carry the message of the founders... the powerful message of the American Revolution in 1776. The message of liberty. No other candidate supports the principles of america, that's why we must consistently spread the message ron paul has shown us!
        • truthmatters, on 02/28/2008, -12/+38Wrong. Dennis Kucinich voted against the war and it's continued funding. Dennis Kucinich is also the most fearless defender of our Constitution.
          • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5don't leave out mike gravel. there are a few candidates who the media ignored.
          • rficwizard, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4As Ron Paul pointed out on the Tonight Show, he and Kucinich have some important areas of agreement.
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -18/+13No Dennis is NOT. Dennis is a great guy, and I have a lot of respect for him, but he believes in BIG government and socialist policies that are a DIRECT contravention of the US Constitution. So don't EVER say he is the most fearless defender of a document that he picks and chooses what bits to uphold. Certainly he is the best Democrat and would make a find President, but he doesn't hold a candle to Ron Paul's claim as the CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
          • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3he's a champion of the constitution, except with it comes to separation of church and state:
            "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."
            http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
            or in the case of abortion. what a woman chooses to do with her body is private and protected by the constitution.
        • revisrev, on 02/28/2008, -8/+5Can you point me to the the small government clause in our constitution?
          • uptown, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2We don't find that one until American Treasure 3.....
          • rficwizard, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3The whole document is the "small government clause." The federal government was given specific powers, and all other powers remained with the states or with the people.
          • revisrev, on 03/02/2008, -0/+0@rficwizard: The constitution does not limit the size of the federal government, but it does limit its reach. If you can point me to the section of the constitution that states something equating: "The federal government cannot employ more than X people", or "The federal government cannot spend more than X", then I will concede my point.
        • floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7Dennis Kucinich seems to stand along side Paul in defending the rights of individuals and not calling something a "war" to strip more of them away. It would have been a nice ticket: Paul/Kucinich or KucinichPaul
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
        • e36wheelman, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3No. I don't know a single person in the armed forces who likes or knows about RP. They won't shut up about how cool Bush is for giving them a raise.
          • Willravel, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2HA! Finally some truth in this goofy digg article.
          • rficwizard, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Funny that Ron Paul was raising more money from active duty military than any other candidate. It's strange that they would give money to a candidate that they had never heard of.
          • Willravel, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Wiz, it's not funny at all. e36 said he doesn't know a single person in the armed forces who likes or knows about RP. Let's say he knows 50 people in the military. Do you think it's possible that 50 people in the military don't know who RP is?
        • israelanderson, on 02/28/2008, -3/+7That's really funny. Because 3 military divisions are the largest contributors to Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul receives more contributions from active military personal than all the other candidates put together. So frankly, I'd say you're full of *****.
          • Willravel, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Obama gets more $$ from soldiers than Paul.

            BTW, calm down. It's just digg.
          • israelanderson, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1No Obama does NOT get more money from soldiers whatsoever... Even the damn MSM will tell you that. Stop believing what comes out of O's mouth. He's a liar.
          • Willravel, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I don't get my news from Youtube. According to ABC News, Obama gets more.
            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542&pa ...

            BTW, Ron Paul dropped out. You know, because he had barely any votes compared to Huck, Romney, and McCain. Because "internet sensation" isn't the same as actual votes.
      • Dumbledorito, on 02/28/2008, -10/+4Yet this has occurred, and it's quite easy to see what policies and people are responsible. However, unless Ron Paul also has a time machine, invoking him in this context makes about as much sense as saying he could have prevented 9/11 or stopped Hurricane Katrina.

        Having political heroes is one thing. Worship on a par with fanaticism is quite another.
    • lastnymleft, on 02/28/2008, -17/+32Democrats have had two years of control of both senate and house to end the war, and HAVE NOT DONE SO. They could end it *TOMORROW* if they really wanted to, but clearly they don't. The only way to end this war, and stop this crap, is to vote for a Commander-in-Chief that is wholly against it. McCain is happy to see another 100 years of it, Hillary supported it at the start, and all along the way, Obama was initially against it, but has voted FOR it every step since! Both Clinton and Obama refused to pledge that troops still wouldn't be there by the end of their first term, January 2013! And Huckabee's all for it, of course.
      Ron Paul voted AGAINST the war at the start, and has voted AGAINST the war at every opportunity that has arisen. This is outrageous, and needs to end.
      • Dumbledorito, on 02/28/2008, -9/+17No they couldn't. Their majority cannot override a veto, and the GOP will not turn on their dear leader in sufficient numbers.
        • leonster, on 02/28/2008, -4/+12You don't need to override a veto. Congress controls the money. If even 41 Senators would get together and filibuster the budget until the funds ran out, then there would be no money for the war. The President doesn't GET the money, until Congress approves a budget. Just take the war funds out of the budget if you have 51 votes, or filibuster if you have more than 41 but less than 51.
        • revisrev, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1Most reasonable people understand that we can't just up and leave. We need an exit strategy, and it may take a while. An immediate exit will probably end up costing more lives that a smart, well-planned withdraw. I don't like the Iraq war anymore than the next guy, but I'd rather America try to fix her mistakes than just leave and try to forget it happened. We can set up a timetable with the Iraqi government and make them understand that they have, say 9 months for Political Milestone A, because we're pulling out 80% of combat troops in 9 months. 9 months after that we'll be pulling out the rest of the combat troops so you better have achieved Political Milestone B. After 2 more years we're leaving all together, so you damn sure better have reached Public Works Milestone C and Security Milestone D.
        • geoboy, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8Can't have a war if congress doesn't declare it or fund it, can we?
    • misconstrued, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7Ok cyenu. Let's gather up some people from Digg and head over to Gitmo and shut it all down..
    • Picaroon, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2He doesn't. In fact, John McCain has repeatedly said he would close Guantanamo. So why isn't this about John McCain too?
      • lvp1138, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Because John McCain would close Guantanamo but he is not against opening new ones.
      • samuellclemens, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5McCain voted against the ban on torture
    • Xcel, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1"It's up to us to do something about it, and not to believe that by electing so-and-so into office, we'll be able to fix the problems of the world. Wake up to your own absurdity."

      Electing the right individual to lead us would be the right start to "us doing something about it".
      What do you propose we do almighty cyenu? Fly over to Iraq? We must try our best in all aspects and electing the right individual to lead us is a step in the right direction.
  • iraq, on 02/28/2008, -53/+315President Bush and Administration are ultimately responsible. The assholes in the White House need to be placed in handcuffs and tried for war crimes and treason, IMMEDIATELY!
    • Habemus, on 02/28/2008, -45/+11Under the Geneva Conventions it is a war crime to PUBLISH photos that degrade and humilitate prisoners. These do just that. The publishers and editors of WIRED magazine are clearly committing a war crime by not blurring the faces of the prisoners. But sine it will not help you politically, you will not speak out against it.
      • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -3/+29There are exceptions when the purpose is to inform as part of an act of protesting against this sort of thing. It's quite the opposite of what some jack-asses in Iraq did when they emailed digital copies of the snapshots they took of their own victims at Abu Graib.
        Is there any hope that you'll give up your attempts to minimize all this and sweep it under the rug, since you cannot justify it?
        • Habemus, on 02/28/2008, -18/+6>There are exceptions when the purpose is to inform as part of an act of protesting against this sort of thing.
          There are no such exceptions in the Geneva Conventions or any case law based on them or any related case law. The only acceptable way to protest this and use the photos is to blur the faces or cover the eyes with a black strip as was done before in previous instances. Blur the faces as to make them personally unidentifiable and keep the impact-- acceptable. Publish the photos with identfiable faces-- warcrime.
          • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -0/+15Then, the Library of Congress, the Department of Defense (formerly the US War Department), and numerous sources, including high school history teachers, have been committing war crimes by circulating and displaying videos and photographed images of Holocaust victims whose faces were not concealed, but could have been recognized by any survivors that managed to escape the Nazi genocide campaign. I never saw any black strip or blurred face in those images.
            People on both sides of the argument over the war in Iraq have republished videos of beheaded American civilian contractors, allegedly at the hands of masked Arab militants. Are these people war criminals, too? Not only did these videos show the heads being cut off, but each person, including the ones that had been previously taped while begging for their lives, was identified by name and home town. The people that republished these videos are war criminals?
            What about the people that ignored intelligence specialists that tried to tell Rumsfeld and Cheney that there was no reliable evidence to support the WMD lies that were used to "excuse" this war? Cheney, Bush, Rove, Rice, and others, including Tony Blair, are war criminals. If not for them, there would have been no Americans torturing (including raping) and murdering the unfortunate Iraqis whose identities appear to be a greater concern to you, than the fact that life for them did not get any better when the American "heroes" came to "rescue" them from Saddam's torture and rape chambers.
        • floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You are "spot on" TrevaLVF!

          "...Presumably they were taken by a U.S. service member, and they began widely circulating over the Internet today. The Pentagon has not released pictures like this, because from what it claims is an intent to abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits photographs of prisoners that might hold them up to ridicule."--Lou Dobbs

          Someone is getting ridiculed all right but it is not the 'prisioners' in the photos. Can a country violate the Geneva guidelines for WAR against itself? What's that saying again about an organism being at war with itself? Oh yea; "It is doomed" --Carl Sagan
      • MajorLeague, on 02/28/2008, -13/+2You support exceptions convenient to you. Imagine if a Bush supporter said there were "exceptions"? You'd probably find him and shove six copies of the constitution up his ***** and publish the photos on wired.
      • MindTrigger, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9You can't be serious. These photos were published to make the world aware of the crimes against humanity at Abu Grhaib, not to humiliate anyone. People need to see these images to understand what is going on there. If they are suppressed, then how can the world take steps to bring the issue into the light, and charge those involved?
    • masterm1nd, on 02/28/2008, -18/+9You giving the dems a free pass? What a surprise.
    • mcm020, on 02/28/2008, -27/+9I support torture. Digg me down bitches.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 02/28/2008, -3/+15Well, then, I hope you're tortured someday. Perhaps I could smash your son's genitals in front of you? You DO support it after all.
        • uptown, on 02/28/2008, -8/+4If you're offering to do that, I guess you support torture too....
        • mcm020, on 02/28/2008, -9/+2How hypocritical, you don't support the "torturing" of someone who is suspected of blowing up innocent people yet you support torture of someone who supports torture. Your logic is full of holes. That's why you're a pussy.
          • mbelrose, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8It's called the social contract. In the old days it was called karma.
          • dumpyhumpy, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1you're a ***** idiot.
        • floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Oh, I would say "touche" exept that d'humpy's comment appeared to be sarcasm. *****.
      • Vet4Peace, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1It must be torturous just being so retarded.

        Bitch
    • misconstrued, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4We can start there...
    • Kendralee5, on 02/28/2008, -7/+6The people who should be responsible are the people that are actually treating them like this. I think this is wrong on so many levels, but to say the president and the administration are responsible for the the girl in the picture giving a thumbs up sign beside a rotting corpse is ridiculous.
      • iraq, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11Wrong, this isn't the first or last we'll hear of extraordinary rendition. This isn't the only illegal act achieved by this administration. Our nation has been betrayed by our leadership on so many fronts, the constitution is barely recognizable and to defend or apologize for our top-level leadership because they didn't do the actual beheading is *****.
      • floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I don't think it is "ridiculous" at all. Being over there is what is, and staying so long in such an environment is creating a "culture" where it is not "ridiculous" to brag about being a necrophiliac and creating the object of one's desire out of members of a given populace. These types of people are coming home to roost here in the United States of America and the worst of them will go into 'law enforcement' to feed their newly aquired tastes. **ENJOY**
      • queenstarsha, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2they *are* responsible. republicans in power gave 18-year-old soldiers with bad educations no guidance but "act like jack bauer" and "don't cause organ failure." "stress positions" and all this perverted nude crap totally came from the upper echelons. the republicans have done nothing to stop these atrocities. their only response to allegations of torture has been, essentially, "pics or it didn't happen."

        it ***** did happen, and the pics are just the tip of the ***** iceberg.
    • iraq, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8Stealing this from a comment below because it is relevant to your comment and I couldn't find a better way to state it:

      One word: Neuremburg. People don't have to be bad to do bad things, its that the leadership and system reward them for it and punish them for things which would usually be considered good.
    • tofus, on 02/28/2008, -3/+21337 username.
    • moush, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1I don't think you can blame the president for soldiers committing the wrong acts. I guess Bush is the perfect cop-out though.
    • BESTenemy, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Send Bush and his office though Dealey Plaza in an open-top limo.
    • blackeagle613, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1bush can pardon himself remember?
    • L4WL3RS34L, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1I hate to say it but the Bush Administration will NEVER go to jail. And sitting around on Digg and typing a comment isn't going to change anything...
  • allowners, on 02/28/2008, -16/+221No justification whatsoever, no excuse.
    • Habemus, on 02/28/2008, -32/+8You need look no further than your local state prison to find similar activity. This stuff happens in US prisons every day. Why are you not protesting that?
      • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -3/+32I protest that. Is this your way of excusing these activities?
        I get tired of hearing some people in this country attempt to justify things that we know to be wrong by using the old "Happens every day," argument. And how do you know that allowners doesn't protest rape, torture and murder in our country's state prisons?
        • Habemus, on 02/28/2008, -25/+4Link to any protest of US prison conditions that you have made here on Digg under the name TrevaLVF. You can't. Doesn't exist. Zip. Zero. Nil. None. You only want to "protest" something if it will advance your political party's power. You care not one whit about the people involved.
          • JEWestbrookJR, on 02/28/2008, -3/+16Move along troll
          • Habemus, on 02/28/2008, -12/+5It's not a troll if it's true, and it's all too true.
          • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11First of all, I don't belong to a political party. I am not loyal to any political party. Had you really checked out my activity here, you would have learned this, Habemus.
            Second, you will not know the full scope of my beliefs and what I protest simply by seeing what content I decided to digg here. Such as, with the prison conditions in this country, which do concern me, especially since I know former inmates and a few present inmates that I care about, despite the reasons for their incarceration. The abundance of my activities here have begun recently, much of which is based upon what I found thus far and what has been brought to my attention by others.
            You've basically revealed yourself as assumptive and, in this case, you've made a fool of yourself by wrongfully assuming to know all about me based upon what you suggest you've learned by examining what I digg.
      • roodammy44, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7People get brutally tortured in US prisons?
        Why the hell aren't people protesting that.
        US authority is sick
        • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7Not just in prisons, but also in jails. Had Habemus really checked out my diggs, he would have discovered where I stand on police brutality in this country. He'd have learned this, perhaps, by finding my digg related to a case where a cop in Louisiana beat the hell out of a woman that had been taken in custody and on her way to do a breathalyser test (suspected of driving while intoxicated). It should stand to reason, if I'm outraged by cops mistreating civilians in this country, then I'd be outraged by mistreatment of jail and prison inmates.
      • allowners, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Habemus, you are blowing smoke my friend. My stance on this moral issue stands on its own, you are using the technique of distraction to deflect attention from the facts in this particular case. Sure there are many, many, many other examples of moral repugnance in the world, but it is expecting too much for me to put all of them in a succinct comment about a particular subject.

        If you had really dug around my profile you would have found evidence of my speaking out against brutality in any form, including police bruttality. Forgive me if I missed any cases, I'm not omniscient. You are speaking nonsense with a cynical political agenda.
    • MyBacchanalia, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1This reminds me of the psychology study I heard about in which half the volunteers were going to play the role of "wardens" and the other half were going to be "prisoners". They were all just regular people, none of which were particularly violent or agressive. They played it out in a jail setting, but apparently at the end of two weeks, it had to stop because one of the guards had severely beaten (and killed?) one of the prisoners. Regular people becoming killers in a silly made up situation.
      As of late, all I can see is the immense failure of the penal system. It is used to mentally undermine the prisoners. It is cruel and inhumane. Whether in Abu Ghraib or Alabama, those in power will always mistreat those they are allowed to abuse, mentally and physically. Maybe it's a ***** up human trait present in all of us...hopefully not, though.
      As a side note: that photo of the prisoner covered in mud was beautiful. He looks like Jesus....I think it could be a photo for our time.
    • maddhopps, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1***** Steelers fans...
      (10th picture)
    • Impeller, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2This is why they hate US...
  • muckemuck, on 02/28/2008, -9/+74Mean people suck and they aren't going away anytime soon.
    • makkaveli19, on 02/28/2008, -1/+9i'm sad:(
    • rizzo2008, on 02/28/2008, -5/+2These pictures are OLD (2004). Buried for misleading title
    • nutzngum, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1that's a rather glib comment. way to emote!
  • truthmatters, on 02/28/2008, -20/+126These pictures are so hard to look at. This is pure evil at work. Bushco has done more to damage America's reputation in the international community than any other president. We the people, need a revolution to impeach, remove, and jail, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld if our corrupt Congress isn't going to do it. They are all treasonous war criminals!
    • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -0/+14Eventually, we will exhaust all peaceful and predictable means of confronting these issues. We really need to be more strategic and creative in ending this and holding the tyrants accountable. They should be in prison. Bush and Cheney should not be able to enjoy the benefits they'll receive (at our expense) once they leave office.
      • Zecchetti, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4only prison? I can think of far worse things to do to the war criminals
        • TrevaLVF, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8I'm keeping within the boundaries set by my conscience. Life in prison with no chance for parole, no special treatment, stripped of all benefits gained from the time they held in a government office, and forever marked as war criminals and tyrants, the way Benedict Arnold is still known as a traitor, is hardly pleasant. It is far less tolerable for people that have enjoyed power, prestige, material wealth, protection and being treated by their allies and others with the utmost respect.
      • floatingorb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1 "I have a dream..."
        http://digg.com/users/floatingorb/gallery/5456542
        { "It's not that bad; I can has paddle ball game on Tuesdays"-- GW BUSH gets life }
    • mcse2k3, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2.
    • geoboy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Hey, man. Congress has more important things to do, like figure out whether or not some baseball player put some kind of hormone into his body. That is the important *****! The future of America's reputation hinges on it!
      • 5urr3al5am, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1yeah it is funny how that seemingly got super high priority for congress?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Not sure how your quick to condem the US, when you don't completely understand the context of each photo? I guess the only other way to handle this war in Iraq is the just give the Iraqi military complete control.. you know really arm them up so they can handle the situation on their own... Only things is when they capture a suspected terrorist they'd shoot them dead on the spot
    • MCDupree, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1The real criminals are the troops in the pictures. Bush didn't tell them to do what they did, they decided that themselves.
  • hyoomen, on 02/28/2008, -18/+124While I am an avid Ron Paul supporter, I agree that this DIGG seems a bit disturbing to use as an unofficial campaign advertisement. Yes Congressman Paul was and is against this and any other unconstitutional war, and yes he is highly supportive of giving veterans the benefits they deserve (including psychiatric support) in an age when soldiers are being taken advantage of. Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing we can all unite behind as an example of the detriment of war and it goes above and beyond political affiliation.
    • Pritchard, on 02/28/2008, -3/+7Seriously. I find this propaganda in the description about as terrible as the images. This is sick. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, too!
      • Pritchard, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I should probably have noted instead of being a Ron Paul supporter - "I'm a decent human being!"
    • wishninja, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Actually Republicans I know try to justify these actions. I remember when the story broke Rush Limbaugh was saying "these guys were just having fun and blowing off a little steam." Recall that the Bush Administration never prosecuted anyone of a high rank for this and nothing more than a slap on the wrist ever happened to anyone. Bush, McCain, and most republicans advocate torture. Ron Paul is taking a stand against that type of Republican. Hell yes vote for Ron Paul if you want to shut these people up! Otherwise they will never get the message. This is not about the military as much as how it is being run and who runs the military??? The president! and who is running for president? Ron Paul!!!
  • fissionignition, on 02/28/2008, -46/+27buried for the goddamn RP-spam...

    honestly, though...
    • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -23/+5LOL You are one of those idiots that call anything you don't agree with "spam". I don't even understand why people whine about spam in their email. It is so easy to ignore.
    • supermajic, on 02/28/2008, -9/+7Maybe he does agree with Ron Paul but he's sick of people claiming Ron Paul will fix all the world's problems if he becomes president + rp won't win anyway, so it's not even worth trying.
      • Firgof, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3It is ALWAYS worth trying. Are you saying that it is 'not worth it' to express your opinion?

        If so, then give up your freedoms and surrender to your masters; you have nothing else left and nobody else to turn to.
    • VikingoTJ, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1