What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- ChloeMS, on 11/24/2008, -30/+160Where was THIS damn article in 2003? Maybe we could have booted ole King George out sooner!
- Waiting2awake, on 11/24/2008, -6/+49People all over the world were warning the US abotu Bush and this Admin since back in 99. America just wouldn't listen and return the warnings with labels of being a "terrorist sympathizer", "Anti-American", "Islamo-Fascist" , to pick only a few.....
But even though Americans should have taken care of these guys before they managed to kill over 4000+ of your best, wound countless other Americans while killing over a million others...There is still time to get these clowns if America gets off their asses...- PhoenixAvatar2, on 11/24/2008, -3/+17You know that if Obama manages to screw up the neo-cons will be saying the same thing in a few years.
- nextekcarl, on 11/24/2008, -3/+5@PhoenixAvatar2, they will be saying that anyways because at this point there is no good way out, so even a great job will be painful. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
- MacParrot, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11Wait are really saying that people warned us about Bush in 1999? BEFORE he was elected? When he was just one of many candidates?
As much as I dislike the direction this country has gone in over the last eight years, to say that we warned about it 2 years before they took office is garbage - MWeather, on 11/24/2008, -8/+6"Hindsight is 20/20 and all that."
In this case, foresight was 20/20. - 5urr3al5am, on 11/24/2008, -5/+4wow.. just wow.. with that kind of foresight .. how did Gore lose? he must have been a pretty sh1tty candidate.
- grennick, on 11/24/2008, -4/+4@5urr3al5am
Well, he did win the popular vote... - floorman56, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Well, he did win the popular vot
He lost his HOME STATE how do you lose YOUR HOME STATE?? - aaronhoffmeyer, on 11/25/2008, -2/+7Gore was not a ***** candidate. He is a thoughtful, intelligent, articulate man, and would have made a good president.
Gore lost for a variety of reasons.
First, he is kind of stiff and has unusual mannerisms. He also made a few statements that were overwrought ... "I invented the Internet." He didn't use the right words. He was not a technical inventor, but he was a strong supporter of its creation in Washington.
Second, he served in Vietnam as a military journalist, and saw combat. Apparently there is a curse against anyone who served in Vietnam in favor of some guy who got a deferment or who was not old enough to serve. So far, three Vietnam vets have been a major party's nominee, and all three have lost. In fact, the opponents of all three used that Vietnam service against them during the campaigns (Obama and his campaign did nothing to disparage McCain's service, but Democrats did. Rollingstone famously published a very damning article that was widely read on the Internet in the weeks before the election, as one example.)
Third, rich, fat cats backed Bush financially almost 2 to 1 over Gore. Bush had deep pockets because of that backing and was able to influence the rich and lobbyists to vote overwhelmingly against Gore. Bush had committed to roll back the Clinton taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Gore did not make the same commitment because the economy was humming along fine.
Fourth, Gore embarassed himself and his wife with a kiss that was too intense after accepting the nomination. While not as damning as the Howard Dean barbaric yawp, it was still off-putting.
Fifth, Tipper Gore was an outspoken advocate for censorship which deterred some liberals and libertarians from supporting him.
Sixth, Gore was generally perceived as less likeable by the middle class and poor. He wasn't someone they wanted to have a beer with.
Seventh, despite being a Christian, which seems to be a requirement to be elected to the presidency in the US, Gore was not a hard-core, born-again Christian like Bush. Baptist and Pentecostal and other very conservative protestant zealots flocked to Bush overwhelmingly.
Eighth, there was significant voter fraud issues in key states. While the Republicans were not caught with enough of a smoking gun to cause rioting in the streets, many voters were denied the right to vote or had their votes invalidated. A lot of dirty tricks helped to get Bush the key states. Gore had 267 electoral votes to Bush's 246, discounting Florida's 25 electoral votes. On the initial count, Bush won Florida by 2000 votes. Later it was discovered that 58,000 votes had been invalidated by the Republicans, claiming they were the votes of convicted felons, and almost all those had voted for Gore. In reality, 85% of those people were not convicted felons and their votes should have counted. Still, a recount was scheduled in accordance with Florida law, and if that recount had been completed, Gore would have won Florida, even without those invalidated votes. However, before the recount could be completed, the Supreme Court stopped it, stating that the recount was unconstitutional.
Finally, and most importantly, Ralph Nader ran as the Green party candidate and got 2.74% of the vote. That is almost 3 million votes, and almost all of those came from the pool of voters that would normally vote Democrat. If 85% of those had voted for Gore, instead of Nader, Gore would have won with a margin similar to the margin Bush had over Kerry.
As it was, Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, yes ... and he even won Florida based on a statewide recount where votes were counted only where the intent of the voter was clear (as was requested by Bush), although it was never officially declared as so. Instead, the Supreme Court decided the election by stopping the recount. If Nader had not run, Gore would have won the popular vote by about 4 million votes, and would have won the electoral college by nearly 100 votes, instead of losing by 4 electoral votes. Democrats have subsequently supported Nader philosophically, but not with their votes. - MWeather, on 11/25/2008, -1/+6Gore didn't lose.
- BuryHuffPost, on 11/24/2008, -36/+12The Huffington Post was founded in 2005.
Clearly, Bush didn't stop them from creating and having an extremely successful blog community.
They use every ounce of that success to tear down the system that gave it to them.- Zenham, on 11/24/2008, -7/+34Yes! Because DISSENT IS UNAMERICAN!
Get lost, fascist shill. - FairDinkumMate, on 11/24/2008, -4/+20And here I was thinking it was the First Amendment that gave them their right to free speech! Silly me. Had I known it was Bush & co I may have felt differently these past 8 years.
So you are now so blinded by rhetoric & self-centered that you consider Bush & Co 'the system'?
No need for a constitution, Bill of Rights, etc - we have Bush & Co, they'll look after you! - BuryHuffPost, on 11/24/2008, -21/+7Thank you two for your typical response.
On one day, you act like Bush has stripped you of every one of your freedoms.
On another day(today), you argue that Bush has nothing to do with it. - OUberLord, on 11/24/2008, -2/+12Are you dense? Their point was that Bush had absolutely nothing to do with them being able to start their organization, the Bill of Rights has more to do with how they can be critical of the government and not get shut down. Their other point was that Bush not only doesn't represent the government as a whole, but has been a pretty piss poor representation of traditional American views and direction.
- laizzesfaire, on 11/24/2008, -13/+8Bury,
don't bother, that line of logic and reasoning is lost on these loons. They are so blinded by their hatred for Bush that he can do nothing but evil even if arguments are contradictory. - srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -4/+13Bush didn't create the possibility for the Huffington post to be created, you're a ***** idiot, shut up.
- OUberLord, on 11/24/2008, -4/+13Oh I wish I was blinded as I watched our country driven into the turf by a man who started baseless and costly wars on a whim, costing over 4,000 servicemen to lose their lives all in the name of doing nothing more than destabilizing a country that at the time had no ties with any current threat to our nation. I wish I was blinded as I read about how we suddenly decided that torturing people whom we only suspect as our enemy was to be considered in the name of defending our nation, or of how we keep many people imprisoned without trial or even telling them what they are accused of.
Did Bush start all of these? No, but his hands were involved and if there was a shred of decency in the man there would be apologies and steps taken to right these wrongs. At this point the fact that he hasn't actually cut a hole in the Constitution and raped it is a small victory, let alone the fact that somehow the freedom of speech still stands in effect.
No, sadly I wasn't blinded, and frankly I only hope that I will eventually see a time where things are put back to being something that a patriot can actually look up to and be proud, and not have to constantly apologize for the actions of their nation when traveling abroad. - 5urr3al5am, on 11/24/2008, -10/+3The crap that you liberals believe is truly ... astounding and unbelievable .. the liberal mindset became clear in the very beginning back in 2000 when President Bush took office and the Clinton Liberals trashed the white house like a bunch of spoiled a-hole frat boys. The direction of that mentality hasn't changed, it's only become emboldened.
- pickleprince, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5@5urr...
You know that has been debunked eons ago.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/ ...
- Zenham, on 11/24/2008, -7/+34Yes! Because DISSENT IS UNAMERICAN!
- richmomz, on 11/24/2008, -24/+6To expand on the article's WWII comparison, we HAVE been liberated from Fascist neo-con control... and shall henceforth be ruled by Communist/globalist democrats.
- singularityv, on 11/24/2008, -4/+10If you think that globalism is a form of oppression like fascism and communism, you're "special".
With that said, I'd agree that we just exchanged one form of big-government statism for another... - srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -10/+10If you think policy of Obama is socialist or communist in any way, you need to go back to 9th grade history class or learn how to google those two words. Seriously
And if you really bring up 'Sharing the Wealth' *****, i'll give you the same response. - srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -6/+9Also, the last thing liberals want is globalism, why don't you take a look at Bush's agenda over the last 8 years and then rethink that statement.
Later tonight while your watching Fox News make sure you thank them for making you look like a complete retard. - 5urr3al5am, on 11/24/2008, -3/+3@surssell870 -- Really? Would you say that the UN is a step towards or away from globalism? Who in the government backs UN sanctions against terrorists states. When you get you're head out of your ass and realized that France, Germany, and Russia opposed military force against Iraq, you'll also realize they were in bed with Iraq for billions of dollars via the oil-for-food scandal.
- richmomz, on 11/24/2008, -4/+6To all the Obama fans above, I will only say "wait and see." Don't get me wrong, John McCain would have been every bit as bad, but that is only because both parties are batting for the same globalist team. Time will tell, and I hope I'm wrong.
- singularityv, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3Bush, Obama, and McCain are all statist, big-government types.
Globalism is the antithesis of big government and statism.
I want a president who embraces globalism and rejects big government and statism. - ingodwerefucked, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3hahaha oh my god. globalism is the DREAM of corporate big government *****. why take the money of strictly u.s citizens when you can take the money of the WORLDS citizens?
Globalism has been the ultimate goal of the worst fascist dictators world wide. hate to bring it up, (because i know you narrow minded two party fans cant think outside of your two-party mainstream media brainwashed arguments), but HITLER, yes hitler, wanted to take over the world.
stop being so apathetic. your government is taking SERIOUS advantage of you. i suggest you all do some google searching on:
the trilateral commission
the counsel on foreign relations
the bilderberg group
the north american treaty
and while your at it, THE CONSTITUTION.
snap out of it. really.
OH and PLEASE bury this down, to prove ONCE AGAIN, that you are all satisfied with your middle class uneducated fat american lives.
- singularityv, on 11/24/2008, -4/+10If you think that globalism is a form of oppression like fascism and communism, you're "special".
- pintomp3, on 11/24/2008, -6/+14wouldn't have made a difference. we had rich *****'s like t. boone pickens funding the swiftboats and karl rove getting the bigots out to vote on gay marriage. people seem forget what happened in the last few weeks before the election.
- jfsimard79, on 11/24/2008, -1/+17There were plenty of articles. You probably ignored them.
- mizike, on 11/24/2008, -4/+20Doubtful since half of you people still voted for McCain after 8 years of Bush's insanity.
Not that I should be saying anything as my country currently has a Conservative jackass in power thanks to all of the oil drinking rednecks in Alberta.- MarkusDee, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8I love Alberta, it's my tenth favorite province, but I think it is a bit unfair to peg Harper solely on them - even if they did pretty much spawn that sack of *****. Many is our country fell for the propaganda campaign they ran (straight out of the Republican 2004 playbook). I still think it is ironic that the separatist party saved us from what could have been a serious catastrophe. I thought people would warm up to Dion, obviously I was wrong. I've never been more ashamed of my country in my life.
- Bhima, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9I just want to say that as an American, the fact the so many people voted for McCain astounds me but does not surprise me. And NOTHING Obama is going to do is going to change their minds.
- creepydarkwurm, on 11/24/2008, -6/+3There are a lot of bad things about Liberal leadership too. About the wasted billions from various departments or outright fraud in some. Or the lack of doing anything they promised even though they were in power for years and years.
The reason why the Conservatives are in control, is people are tired of the same old crap are realizing the conservatives aren't as scary as everyone makes them out to be. Now I don't support all their ideas, but it the lesser of two evils right now.
And Alberta alone doesn't decide which party is in power, it all comes down to Ontario and Quebec. Western Canada lacks the proper representation it deserves. - 5urr3al5am, on 11/24/2008, -5/+4So many people voted for McCain because he had 30 years of leadership versus Obama's one and a half years of junior senator experience.
- ohplease, on 11/24/2008, -6/+5
People voted for Harper because they were tired of being robbed by the Liberals. Cretien shut down parliament early so that the findings in the Ad Scam theft wouldn't be read til he left office.
He was quoted in a news conference saying "So someone stole a few million dollars, who cares?"
That's the Liberal party. At least Harper hasn't stolen my money, given it to some buddies and then given me the finger on TV. - apetrie, on 11/24/2008, -3/+7You're right ohplease, lets completely ignore that our country was in much better shape under liberal leadership. Lets completely ignore that we were enjoying a national surplus, were better respected in the world and were better off as citizens of this country when the liberals were in charge. You don't like the attitude they gave "you" on tv by being unapologetic about running an extreme effective, successful government that actually reflected the will and wellbeing of the people of this country because a couple of million dollars went missing, so they deserve to be punished unendingly and the rest of us should suffer with a less-than system because you and petty little bitches like you just can't see the big picture.
Thats right *****, there are more important things. You feel slighted? Get the ***** over it so the rest of us can have our happy healthy country back. If you feel that strongly about it, see that the people to blame are punished for it. Voting against the "liberals" as if they are all responsible and forever will be is selfish and petty. - Kohaxx, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1It doesn't really matter, even though Obama really kicked ass amongst independents and rallied the Democratic base, those who voted McCain will vote Republican no matter how bad the ship gets. It's the "It's all the other guy's fault" philosophy. No matter how bad things get they'll just assume it's the other side messing things up.
- Ishiguro, on 11/25/2008, -2/+1@apetrie
mentioning surplus is autolose. Surplus was under republican congress, and wasn't really a surplus since it still used Social insecurity moneys to get there.
- vizeroth, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6The real issue is not the articles and so forth, it's that the Democrats couldn't be bothered to run someone that could beat Bush, or even someone that would rally enough people to go out and vote.
The Dems learned their lesson after two close losses in the electoral college and got people on the ground to rally the voters, and they managed to get a candidate up there that helped push against voter apathy. They also fought to gain ground in traditional Republican strongholds that had already been electing Democrats to state offices, something they couldn't be bothered to do in 1999 and 2003.
Getting out young voters was a big push for the Democrats getting Clinton elected, and they had even better results in doing so this time around, with a candidate that appealed more strongly to younger voters than any candidate in recent history. Gore and Kerry just never managed to get the turnout they needed, or didn't have the right people working to get people out to vote in the right areas.
It's also not often that either party gets a candidate that not only appeals to people in the party's base, but also in a good portion of the opponent's party. Part of that was helped by the insanely low popularity of Bush in the last couple years, and by the Republicans picking the one guy that didn't spend his time in the primaries trying to distance himself from the President.- Kohaxx, on 11/25/2008, -2/+1Gore was close and he did have good support, Bush managed to gather the Reagan religious political vote which made an idiotic candidate seem fantastic to the right. All it took was a little push and a few riggings here and there in Florida to win the election.
Kerry was an awful candidate where the choice really was a douche and a turd sandwhich, all he had going for him was "I am not George Bush". Personally, I wanted Dean but he lost when he got excited and the media made fun of him for it. How could we afford a President who gets excited about the race? We clearly needed a lifeless zombie to run.
At least they got their act together this time around.
- Kohaxx, on 11/25/2008, -2/+1Gore was close and he did have good support, Bush managed to gather the Reagan religious political vote which made an idiotic candidate seem fantastic to the right. All it took was a little push and a few riggings here and there in Florida to win the election.
- jeh0753, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2...because ALL moderate and conservative Americans read the Huffington Post, right?
- satori3000, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry, I don't understand why anyone would need an article to work out that Bush was and is incompetent. I don't even understand how so many people voted for him the first time when the facts were quite easy to find.
- squelched, on 11/25/2008, -1/+4in retrospect, Americans still are as mindless as they were in 2003. don't fool yourself.
- DealCracker, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2You people are awfully sure of yourselves. Have we really traded a corrupt king for a white knight? The cabinet picks for the new administration look more like old time politics as usual than fresh change. In fact, I believe Clinton had a much fresher administration than this group is shaping up to be.
Let's come back in about 4 years and decide; white knight or dark knight.*
*Before the creeps jump all over me, I am speaking figuratively here. No racial meaning what so ever.
- Waiting2awake, on 11/24/2008, -6/+49People all over the world were warning the US abotu Bush and this Admin since back in 99. America just wouldn't listen and return the warnings with labels of being a "terrorist sympathizer", "Anti-American", "Islamo-Fascist" , to pick only a few.....
- woodyinthehoody, on 11/24/2008, -84/+33mr babyman has such a deep love for huffingtonpost
- tumatakuru, on 11/24/2008, -13/+20who doesn't?
- Bartboy919, on 11/24/2008, -8/+30Real Americans of course! You know, the people who live in Sarah Palin's "Real America".
- rogue780, on 11/24/2008, -5/+7People with a brain?
- bactin, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2It's amazing people consider it a news source.... it's nothing more than a blog of rich elitist who feel bad that they inherited their parent's money but will still drive around in their high end cars. Just look at the founder.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/24/2008, -15/+5Burried as HuffPo Rag news
- rudeboyskunk, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2it would have been better had the person not kept typing "it's" as the possessive form of it.
- reywind, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0Thank you!! Was I the only one who noticed how badly-written the article is? Not just errors like that, but sentence structure! It made me not want to read the article, even though I did anyway to see what all the fuss was about. And yes it's good.
- tumatakuru, on 11/24/2008, -13/+20who doesn't?
- stillpissed, on 11/24/2008, -18/+73At least now when I read an op-ed like this I feel relieved knowing the neo-con's reign will soon be behind us.
- DangerCollie, on 11/24/2008, -6/+33But if there are no consequences...significant consequences, then they'll feel like they can do it again. What's to stop the next Republican president from appointing a political lackey to head Justice and put us right back in that alien occupation?
- KaseyCarbone, on 11/24/2008, -2/+17x100
It's not over until the criminals are behind bars. - Kohaxx, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3It's kind of hard to use a justice system to incriminate the head of that system. The Bush family's reach is so broad it will clearly be an uphill battle to get anything done against him and meanwhile we have problems that need to be dealt with immediately.
Bush Sr is the only Ex-President to get top level CIA reports after leaving office, that should put it in some perspective for you.
- KaseyCarbone, on 11/24/2008, -2/+17x100
- traveler1217, on 11/24/2008, -6/+25Even worse, when times became good under the benevolent leadership of Bill Clinton, neocons began to sow seeds of discontent among the vast throng of the narrow-minded, the ignorant, the racist and the anti-intellectual christian fundamentalist right. Sadly enough, they bought into the psychology of hate, greed, lies and hypocrisy for the next 8 years. Now, those of us who knew better have the chance to fix the terrible mess that is left, but can we all be smarter now moving forward and be vigilant enough to recognize the neocon hypocrisy and lies for what they are so that this plague of vile ignorance can never take hold of the nation again?
- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -1/+19We've been looted. Since we collectively have that syndrome that erases our memories every week, we'll never bother to tote up the damage. The bailout of the "financial engineers" alone is already over four and a half trillion, and we're paying it directly to the thieves themselves, since government is of course too incompetent (according to the FE's and their champions) to oversee business decisions.
And it's now all Obama's fault. I'm hearing this by listening to people who obviously are listening to Fox News. Obama is causing the depression simply by being elected. This is no joke: they believe this with all their angry little hearts. - cubicledrone, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Since we have no journalists, we will never bother to calculate the damage.
- MacParrot, on 11/24/2008, -7/+4The benevolent Bill Clinton??? Holy crap are you crazy? Clinton is no better (but certainly no worse) than what we've just had to go through for 8 years. Sure we had some surpluses, but it was more in spite of than because of his policies.
Everyone please understand. The President does not set fiscal policy, the President does not make the budget (he only does or does not sign it). The economy was gangbusters in the mid to late 90s because of the first Internet boom NOT because Clinton waved a magic wand. When that boom ended in 98 (2 years before he left office) what happened to the economy? Ooooops, no more surpluses and more deficit spending.
If you want to hate Bush for some of the idiocy over the last 8 years I'm there with you, but don't pretend that Clinton was a better President because of circumstances beyond or in spite of his policies. The US deserves better leadership than the likes of Clinton or Bush and hopefully Obama will provide that. - samboy, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6The internet boom did not end until 2001 or 2002, after Bush took office. In 1998, the Internet boom was in full swing and expanding like crazy.
- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3@cubicledrone:
No journalists? Why, here ya go:
U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update2)
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar ...
--
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response...
--
3.18 already on the table, and they are prepared to double down at least until almost 8 trillion is BORROWED to give away to the "financial engineers". Guess who will make the interest on that 8 TRILLION dollars we're going to borrow? The same people who got the tax cuts for 27 years - the very wealthiest. We're paying to borrow money for their tax cuts, and they get to lend the money back to us at interest. We're engaging in the largest wealth transfer program in the world to the very very wealthiest people in the world, and it will go on forever. So we could get 27 years of pitiful, useless tax cuts. Thanks, Reagan. That's 11 trillion now, + 8 trillion more, so the cost of Milton Friedman's End of History is now starting out at 19 trillion dollars. That we borrowed. Borrowed. We haven't even started to pay it back; only Clinton's fiscal austerity and tax cut repeals started to pay a tiny amount back. - Bhima, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1You know as imperfect as Clinton was... you aren't far off
- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -1/+19We've been looted. Since we collectively have that syndrome that erases our memories every week, we'll never bother to tote up the damage. The bailout of the "financial engineers" alone is already over four and a half trillion, and we're paying it directly to the thieves themselves, since government is of course too incompetent (according to the FE's and their champions) to oversee business decisions.
- richmomz, on 11/24/2008, -3/+7But not before their corporate/banker buddies have finished robbing us blind.
- singularityv, on 11/24/2008, -11/+14And we just elected another group of big-government ***** to replace the big-government ***** currently in power.
- dave122, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11exactly, yes obama is different on a lot of things, but on the grand political spectrum they are very similar.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11Yes, but the new big government ***** aren't as stupid and have regard for things other than corporations such as people, the environment, our military, etc.
- dave122, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2I hope so, and we will certainly find out if you're correct pretty soon.
- Jareth86, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Exactly! Russia and Amsterdam may look like completely different countries up close, but if you look at them from Phobos, they look very similar.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6@srussell8570
I like Obama personally much more than McCain and W, but I don't see his plan as being any more help to the United States than anyone elses.
We are still going to go bankrupt. We are still losing our freedoms. Corporations will still be in power. I think the best we can hope for is that it doesn't get any worse during Obama's reign.
- Asmodeus04, on 11/24/2008, -9/+2Hope not to be replaced by crazed left-wing nutjobs.
Here's to hoping.- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6We have no "left wing". Milton Friedman and his Chicago School declared "the end of history", remember? Increasing the minimum wage is considered communistic now. Yet somehow giving the financial engineers eight trillion dollars
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar ... is not.
This is ***** engineered theft, just like Friedman's Chicago Boys directed in Russia, Bolivia, Poland, Indonesia, Brazil, and so many other places in the last fifty years. Disaster capitalism: engineer the disaster, move in, cut wages, kill government spending, and buy up public assets cheap. And they always send the bill to the poorest and most helpless. - singularityv, on 11/24/2008, -9/+2I despise both increasing the minimum wage and handing out bailouts.
Both of them are the products of big-government *****. - Jareth86, on 11/24/2008, -1/+8Its left-wing *moonbats*. The right wingers are the nutjobs. If you're going to engage in pointless partisanship, please get the terminology right.
You [insert political affiliation here] are all the same. - eviltandem, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9@singularityv
I think you should go back in time 100 years and try not being rich. You were, in an almost legal sense, a second rate citizen compared to a wealthy individual.
Lose your hand working in that factory? Hope you didn't have a family, because they are going to go hungry too.
Big government isn't all bad. It's a lot better than big capitalism to live in. - Kohaxx, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2So you would rather be ruled by people with their personal financial interests in mind versus the interests of maintaining office by appeasing majorities of Americans?
There's a huge difference in accountability when you say Big Government and Big Business are the same. Big Government that acts independent and monitors Big Business is a good thing.
It seems like the Right when along the lines of "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" this round, even though they want to expand government, just for different goals and different interests.
- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6We have no "left wing". Milton Friedman and his Chicago School declared "the end of history", remember? Increasing the minimum wage is considered communistic now. Yet somehow giving the financial engineers eight trillion dollars
- Ne007, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Don't even think that they are out of power. NeoCons will still pervade in the Obama administration. There are NeoCon democrats and Obama has already appointed some.
- denizen42, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2Only a more people-oriented wisdom can keep the demons at bay in the future.
- FURBjr, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1Don't bet on it! I can see Obama leading us towards one world government at an even faster pace than the Bush administrations.
- singularityv, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2One-world government would be a good thing.
We need a body that will protect everyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness across the entire world. - StratoStreak, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3Yeah, the people pushing the one world government all believe in that stuff :)
- singularityv, on 11/25/2008, -1/+2One-world government would be a good thing.
- DangerCollie, on 11/24/2008, -6/+33But if there are no consequences...significant consequences, then they'll feel like they can do it again. What's to stop the next Republican president from appointing a political lackey to head Justice and put us right back in that alien occupation?
- elshizzo, on 11/24/2008, -12/+58- Robbing of the US Treasury
- richardwb1, on 11/24/2008, -18/+209The Treasury has been looted, and the Constitution trashed. A foreign occupier couldn't have done worse.
Should we just let bygones be bygones?
The criminals must be held accountable!- spacedog800, on 11/24/2008, -3/+16My favorite political cartoon was one labled "Obama Day 1" and hes taping the ripped up pieces of the constitution back together.
- patpl22391, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3My favorite part is where Obama, instead of taping the constitution together, throws it in the furnace.
- mcsenget, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2and it's a ***** cartoon, also. remember that part?
- Ishiguro, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Did he accidentally lose the second amendment part?
- laizzesfaire, on 11/24/2008, -21/+12Treasury has been looted, Democratic congress wrote the bill to loot it. Once Obama gets in its just going to get looted more. This is NOT all on Bush.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -5/+8...what?
- purrsuede, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Not all on Bush? Who the hell has been President the last 8 years?? Hello??? And Bush is still railing at Congress for not bailing out the Automakers...
No you're right, it's not all on Bush, it's also on Cheney, Greenspan, Rumsfeld, et al as well as the Republican-led majority in Congress for six years that assisted in the rape and pillage of America, morally, financially, environmentally, hell every way you can think of... - kerosion, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Phenomena of interest.
Throughout the election Digg comments were bombarded with semi-intelligent propaganda. Semi-intelligent in that it could contain correct punctuation and paragraph structure--but floated ridiculous assertions contrary to clear fact. It became fun for me to friend the accounts producing this format so that I may follow and pick apart their commentary. Once the election ended however, each of my new friends were deleted from Digg.
The propaganda goes beyond Fox News.
- omgwtflawl, on 11/24/2008, -6/+10I'll agree that Bush did that, but do you think Obama is going to be any different? I don't really here a lot of "getting rid of government programs" coming from Obama. I actually hear quite a bit of the opposite, and I bet we can expect a big new non-discretionary spending package from him. I bet we go from being completely broke in 2020 to being completely broke in 2015.
I also see a big war on the horizon. Democrats, anti-war rhetoric aside, actually love a good war. See: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Bill Clintons' third-world *****. Obama will be the same, I'm sure, and will start a war without calling it a 'war'. He will say we are sending our soldiers to Darfur on a "police mission".
Expect complete amnesia from both Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans completely forgetting the past 7 years of warmongering and going back to their isolationist tendencies and railing against 'foreign entanglements', and the Democrats completely forgetting the past 5 years of being "anti-war", and assuming their rightful place as the War Party.- Hermmunster, on 11/24/2008, -8/+1I'd worry about where you were raped by Bush, in your big dirty ***** before I'd go clubbing the new guy coming down the walk.
- jgzman, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2I don't have a problem with 'police actions' really. Clinton's third-world *****, as messy as they were, were at the very least well intentioned, and according to some managed to do quite a bit of good. Do we have a number for how many American troops died in those events?
Whereas the Bush administration skipped the police action, and went straight to WAR. Oddly enough, war with the country that embarrassed daddy several years prior.
- spacedog800, on 11/24/2008, -3/+16My favorite political cartoon was one labled "Obama Day 1" and hes taping the ripped up pieces of the constitution back together.
- PersonalJesus, on 11/24/2008, -37/+287Only 8 years? Try since 1492...
-On behalf of Native Americans everywhere- bleh19799791, on 11/24/2008, -16/+16And we've been paying for it ever since...one nickle at a time.
- gopher043, on 11/24/2008, -5/+23with Buffalo Nickels?
- omjeremy, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2I think it's a reference to gambling. derp
- Meocross, on 11/24/2008, -9/+5i think america wont be healed untill 2802 man the historic mistakes are too great.
- SSUK, on 11/24/2008, -0/+21But we'll still be waiting for Duke Nukem Forever...
- G-RaZoR, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Sadly, SSUK is probably correct.
DNF, WE WILL NEVER FORGET!
- cle2105, on 11/24/2008, -27/+63Native American tribes were killing each other the whole time. They were not the peace loving people portrayed by Disney in Pocohontas. Digg me down for not subscribing to the "noble savage" stereotype propogated during de-colonization, I don't care
- howea, on 11/24/2008, -2/+34A bit like the European tribes that came to conquest?
- b166er01, on 11/24/2008, -1/+22oh, i didnt know that they were already killing each other... that does justify killing them to finish the job.
this same logic is used to occupy palestine "but there were only arab tribes fighting each other" - cle2105, on 11/24/2008, -4/+4I wouldn't say "the White Man" was justified. I just don't think they were more unjust than the indian tribe that slays another tribe to take over their territory. They were all doing the same *****
- Hetman, on 11/24/2008, -4/+48I am native American. And our oral history definitely states that we were fighting with each other. Just like almost every other society in the world. But that does not justify Genocide.
- personalj, on 11/24/2008, -17/+1Hetman, maybe your relative Great Running Bull should have been looking into critical thinking activities such as scientific research as done in Europe instead of prancing around a pow-wow in a Wolf costume?
- Hetman, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Wrong tribe. But anyways maybe he should have. But their really was no need to. Even being a native I would never like to live in a culture the way they did. But they were able to live contently off the land.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/24/2008, -1/+10What are you talking about? In "Pocahontas" Pocahontas has to save John Smith from the chief and stops him right before he bludgeons John to death with a club. That's not exactly "peace loving" by my account.
Also, you should read some real history. The in fighting between the Native American tribes consisted largely of none fatal squables. It was more like territorial sparring than open warfare. It wasn't until Europeans entered the picture, bringing guns and horses and money with them, and delibirately turned the tribes against each other in their own self interest that real violence escalated between the tribes.
The Native Americans were not entirely peaceful (no civilization is) but they weren't hyper violent savages either. They often had, and still do have, a lot of pride and deep tribal divisions that run back generations. They were played by European political treachery, and became what you describe out of desperation or greed or both at times. - lolwaffle, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3So basically, we're all humans, guilty of fighting each other for land just like all the humans that came before us.
- TheCamino, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0
SpeedSteamBoat-
As a person who has read that history, you're terribly misinformed.
They took slaves themselves, and Hurons and Iriqouis tribes were fantastically violent.
What about the Shawnee and the Pawnee? The Blackfoot?
Any of these names ring a bell? If you knew the names, you'd understand at least some of the fear that people had of them.
In the time of Hernan Cortez, the Aztecs slaughtered so many people to appease the gods that the water supply was overstocked with E. Coli, causing plant growth issues.
Saying that North America was a peaceful place with mostly non-fatal confrontations is like saying the same of Africa before the whites showed up.
It's utter horsecrap.
Also, the argument you make about improved weapons doesn't change the propensity to kill.
You could replace spears with rifles all day long, but the truth is, if the tribe has a predisposition to be peaceful, the guns will be used mostly for hunting, as expected. If you give an improved weapon to a warlike tribe, you'll get a very expected outcome.
- TheNWO, on 11/24/2008, -26/+5Your ancestors (and you look like you only have a trace of native in you) have been conquered. It's over. You are better off for it.
- dave122, on 11/24/2008, -3/+9NOPE! give me some reparations!
/sarcasm
While although what happened to native americans was horribly *****, it's in the past and there is no way to make up for it, nobody alive had anything to do with it - and you're right they are probably better off for it.
1/16th native american. - OUberLord, on 11/24/2008, -2/+14I'm pretty distant from Native American affairs and even I found that statement to be ***** up.
- pintomp3, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8i bet you are the type of xenophobic ***** who claims the mexicans are taking over.
- dave122, on 11/24/2008, -3/+9NOPE! give me some reparations!
- RudeTurnip, on 11/24/2008, -5/+32You mean those guys from Asia that were crossing the ice over several thousand years and sacking the people that had crossed over before who had sacked the people that had crossed over before who had sacked the people that had crossed over before....etc?
- fluxion, on 11/24/2008, -7/+3yah let me go rape and pillage a local village like my Germanic forefathers of old. apparently civilized societies have no obligation to at least feign being civilized
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/24/2008, -0/+10I'd argue your point on the basis that this article is about the United States. Columbus didn't land there, he tooled around various parts of the Caribbean, spreading syphilis and goodwill toward all enslavable men.
- spacedog800, on 11/24/2008, -3/+2i like your handle and your comment since the natives manifest destiny was a christian-motivated movement.
- fluxion, on 11/24/2008, -3/+1his point still stands people
- fartcloud, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11There's a statute of limitations on this *****.
- Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -4/+5There is no statute of limitations on murder.
Gifting people with smallpox-laden blankets is biological warfare... America has a tainted past. Most countries do -- but it is never anything to be proud of. - fartcloud, on 11/24/2008, -1/+10"There is no statute of limitations on murder."
Even when the murderer and victim are looooooong dead? Get the hell outta here. - JustinNoland, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Just like reparations for black people. Look, I'm sorry that your family was enslaved/killed 150 years ago, but I didn't do it, my parents didn't do it, and my grandparents didn't even do it, so GTFO.
- Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -4/+5There is no statute of limitations on murder.
- flamesrule, on 11/24/2008, -3/+4I live in Canada half of the year and the Natives there awful. There seem to be new land claim issues every week, and 99% of them are outlandish and ridiculous, one man laid claim to an entire town a few years back. The dispute at Caledonia has been going on since November 2005 with no end in sight. The Natives have disrupted an entire town, halted construction at a site being developed for homes. Eventually the government had to buy the land from the developers and the Natives put up illegal roadblocks and temporarily shut down rail lines.
People are frustrated that the Natives can do whatever they want and get away with it. Injunctions against the Natives in Caledonia aren't enforced, only adding to a growing anti-Native sentiment. They have been given so much and still want more. Land has been bought legally but they of course ignore that fact. Not to mention that the cheap smoke shops are everywhere and are notorious for smuggling tobacco and drugs and of course, they don't pay taxes on that either.
I can't imagine the Natives being worse in the US than they are in Canada.- Hetman, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8My Tribe is currently sueing for the most of New York. Because of a peace treaty that was broken. Oddly enough the peace treaty is still at the library of congress.
- fluxion, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2im sorry guys, but im pretty sure we all got the better deal here.
- Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8Treaties with Native American tribes were treated as though they were toilet paper. My grandmother's grandmother lost family on the Trail of Tears when Andrew Jackson disregarded the Supreme Court decision MAINTAINING the right of the Cherokee people to the land they held in Georgia. Eleven thousand people were pulled from their homes at Christmastime, and marched to Oklahoma in the clothes they were wearing. Only seven thousand people arrived, and many of them died from illness after that.
Jackson should have been impeached for defying the Supreme Court ruling; the Chief Justice was an old rival, and Jackson had the army, while the Supreme Court only had the law.
If these treaties had been made and broken with European countries, America would have been at war with the world. Since it was "only" Indians, nobody cared.
It's better to keep your mouth shut and look ignorant than open it up and prove it. - gabbagabba, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1The Land claim issues are because companies are trying to take their land, and the government of canada has promises them land then break their treaties. Not to mention the residential schools issue in Canada that was a form of genocide which only ended 14 years ago.
- flamesrule, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying that the schools weren't a big deal because they were, however I'm talking about land claim issues that need to stop. I'm not saying that the treaties weren't broken and that some land could be given but let's keep this sensible. If the land was promised to be given back from say 40 years ago and there aren't any land developments on it, fine, take it. However if someone is laying claim to an entire town with no proof, claiming that a treaty from 200 years ago (some predate Confederation) then sorry, nothing will be done. People have built homes and businesses legally on some of that land and they should not be punished. Go to the government and get a reasonable amount of money, then take that and invest it, do something with it to enrich your lives and make your heritage proud. Don't start another cheap smoke shop, go to school, hire a bank to do something with it. Look no further than what the Seminole's in Florida did by buying the Hard Rock franchise. Granted the Canadian tribes won't get that much but by making smart business deals, they would be creating a better future for their children and breaking the stereotype that people already have of them sitting on the reserve waiting for their monthly checks.
- hobbler, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0Jackson had nothing but respect for the Cherokee, but their way of life wasn't sustainable considering the massive influx of settlers. There was too much jealousy and animosity between the two camps (mostly on the side of the settlers) for them to peacefully coexist. Jackson chose the American settlers over the Cherokee because he knew that they would win in the long run due to numbers and there was no way he could keep the settlers under control.
So instead of just letting the settlers wipe them all out, he forcefully resettled them. - TheShad0w, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1The sins of the father shall have no bearing on the son. I understand that your ancestors were torn from their homes and relocated. I understand that our forefathers broke promises and treaties. But that is just it. Our forefathers did it. We didn't. The government has tried to make amends. But here is a question. Why persist as separatists from the Union? Instead of dwelling on the past why not work towards unification. If you don't want to be apart of the world around you fine. Then don't be and stop trying to influence it. You can't have it both ways. Either you choose to play a part in this country or you don't. I still look at the Native Americans as a noble people with a rich culture and set of ideals but when do you stop being Native Americans and become just American?
- pintomp3, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2http://riseofideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/ ...
- boiserck, on 11/24/2008, -5/+3wow, your old.
- wownotagain123, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Most of the United States of today was ruled by Native Americans well past the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
- GoodKharma, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Thank you my brother, for stating the truth.
- TheSpook, on 11/25/2008, -2/+1What happened to your ancestors was certainly a tragedy, but YOU are better off today.
- bleh19799791, on 11/24/2008, -16/+16And we've been paying for it ever since...one nickle at a time.
- josh2203, on 11/24/2008, -94/+18yet annother article from the liberal media putting down america, this makes me honestely sick, if we were ever in a depression it's article like this that would keep us there and make us unable to recover...no shame at all aparentaly
- fedja, on 11/24/2008, -4/+108To be critical is to be patriotic.
- antiLIBERAL1, on 11/24/2008, -12/+1Would you say the same for the Sean Hannity show or Rush Limbaugh?
- ashfish, on 11/24/2008, -2/+7There's a difference between critical and just ***** crazy.
- PoonGnarfler, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4@antiLIBERAL1,
Yes, one could make the argument that those two are patriotic because they are critical of the government in power, if they ever criticized the government in power. However, all I have seen them spew so far is their absolute love for all things Bush. But, in your defense, to everyone digging you down, their critiques of the soon-to-be administrations policies could and should be construed as patriotic. Only blind allegiance to the government goes against the grain of all things democratic. Unfortunately for you, Digg is a little on the liberal side (if you hadn't noticed) and they probably just dugg you down because Sean and Rush are giant d-bags. - denizen42, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1And criticizing sociopaths boils down to loving your country.
- fedja, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Your name is antiliberal. That's a sign of retardation. Of course, someone calling himself "anticonservative" would be the same.
A wise person weighs the pros and cons. A wise person makes sure the government serves the interests of the people.
- doublefelix, on 11/24/2008, -2/+54Even though we haven't been treated as such, I think Americans are adults, and able to handle the criticism that comes from the freedom of the press. Good news or bad, it also helps to make informed decisions when one is, in fact, informed.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson - JumpingJack79, on 11/24/2008, -2/+50The right approach, of course, is that of conservative media, always telling everyone how great the US is, while the country and the world collapse.
- Dauntless1, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Well, you know "faith" trumps "facts" in the eyes of most conservatives, right?
- DangerCollie, on 11/24/2008, -4/+37Hey, josh, you could always move. Big world, lots of options. Plenty of places where it's actually illegal to criticize the behavior of one's country. You could try North Korea or China, if your preference is more European you could relocate to western Russia.
When you're ready to go, let me know. I'll round up some mofo's to help you load the truck.- ApokalypseNow, on 11/24/2008, -1/+23Ordinarily I'd frown on these types of comments - the "if you don't like it, move" attitude has been far too prevalent over the last 8 years.
However, in this case, the shoe is on the other foot. Now those who have been with the party in power for the last 8 years are the ones bitching. The ones who have been calling us unpatriotic and un-American for criticizing the Bush regime are now the ones whining. To those people, those who can dish it out but apparently can't take it, I would like them to read this next sentence very slowly - it should sound familiar, but this time it is coming not from their mouths, but from ours.
If you don't like it, move.
Turnabout is fair play, bitches.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/24/2008, -1/+23Ordinarily I'd frown on these types of comments - the "if you don't like it, move" attitude has been far too prevalent over the last 8 years.
- bsmang, on 11/24/2008, -2/+38I think it was Bush and his buddies who put America down... HuffPo just mentions it. Oh hell, it looks like you tried to bring it down too - by supporting McCain.
- Delphium226, on 11/24/2008, -3/+43George Bush is not America you ***** testicle.
- Hoffpa, on 11/24/2008, -26/+6This is not media. its huffpost
- sizzzzlerz, on 11/24/2008, -1/+12Open your eyes, there, josh. There is a whole world of reality out there waiting for you.
- srussell8570, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11If it wasn't for dissent, America wouldn't exist in the first place. josh2203 I'd love to see your educated definition of 'American'.
- Lloydinator, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Your McCain avatar says a lot:
"The fundamentals of the economy are still strong." - metapop, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2liberal vs. conservative is so 1998. honestly, the 2 do not exist any more. we live in an age in which those that govern us have to be judged first on one main thing: their character. if they are willing to take soft money from corporations and vote accordingly, they have no business being an elected official.
- GrigoriSom, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Josh, you forgot to add "go ahead and digg me down, liberals".
No worries: consider it done, aparentaly.
- fedja, on 11/24/2008, -4/+108To be critical is to be patriotic.
- aereaus, on 11/24/2008, -15/+89The thing is the top 100 families in America have been running the Government since the beginning. The difference this time is that the American people finally got over their collective apathy and voted. In Europe you usually see 80+% of the population voting, but in America it's usually only around 40%. This last election brought out around 60%. If you continue to have higher turn outs in the future you can keep the asshats out of power and have a true Democracy.
Pretty simple if you think about it. But on top of this... National Elections should be linked to your SS number. That way no one can deny your right to vote. And like here in Denmark, Election day should be a paid day off.- doublefelix, on 11/24/2008, -1/+17I'll vote for that!
- Hellman109, on 11/24/2008, -1/+13Exactly, if 40% vote then the government will appease that 40%, because they are the only ones who count.
Here in Australia its manditory to vote (fine if you dont), and I know it goes against your free will spirit and all that, but it seriously works, you cant pander to side groups that vote more, because everyone votes.
It means they have to look after everyone, because whether you have $50 or $50,000,000 you get one vote, which you have to use.- JumpingJack79, on 11/24/2008, -0/+32It's not just the low turnout rate that's the problem, it's first and foremost the stupid winner-take-all electoral college system. So it's really not that you have to appease 40% of all people, actually that would be a lot, but in reality you only have to appease just 40% of SWING STATE RESIDENTS. If you're not lucky enough to live in a swing state, your vote doesn't count *****. Talk about disenfranchisement. When the DNC refused to count the votes in this year's Democratic primaries, it was a HUGE scandal, but guess what, all the people in most states (at least 35-45 of them) are disenfranchised all the time.
The US likes to think of itself as the greatest democracy in the world. Well it might have been the greatest when it was founded, but the problem is that because of America's obsession with tradition and patriotism, the system hasn't changed in more than 200 years, simply because no one is allowed to even think that it's anything less than perfect. Just about every other democracy has a better and more modern electoral system, but the US people still vote on TUESDAY. Why? "Because on Sunday people go to church, then on Monday they travel with a horse carriage to the polling place, so they can vote on Tuesday, and on Wednesday they travel back." And the elections are of course held in November, because the work on the field is finished by then, so people can take 3 days off to go vote.....
And, um.... Every adult citisen has the right to vote, but somehow there's always this huge mess with voter registration. WHY do people have to register to vote? WHY isn't everyone with a valid ID automatically allowed to vote???
AMERICA, WAKE UP! Your "greatest in the world" electoral system has been obsolete at least since the industrial revolution (that was 100+ years ago)! Don't be afraid to modernize it. It's not like it's sacred or something. Washington, Jefferson & co. were not gods, they were just pretty smart people who thought with their own heads - something Americans now seem to be afraid of... - Gemfinder, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6Good point, JumpingJack79. Personally I'd love to see the electoral college go away, but that would require amending the Constitution. And that's worse than pulling teeth — which can be a good thing, I guess. We'd have boondoggles like Prohibition and its repeal every year if the Constitution could be amended at will.
In short, I'll accept the presence of the electoral college and a Tuesday election if it means I can keep my guns and drink wine with dinner, I'm not forced to put up, equip and feed a platoon of soldiers out of my pocket, and the Baptist Church isn't anointed the official state religion. - sanosuke001, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4JumpingJack79, I don't see anything wrong with a Tuesday election except that people work. Though, employers are required to let you take time off to go vote. It would be easier for people on a Saturday or Sunday; but it being on a Tuesday isn't reason enough not to vote.
The only real issue you bring up is the electoral college. It should be popular vote. Every vote should be counted. No state should matter more than any other.
As for having to register. Just imagine that anyone with a valid ID is allowed to vote. I could go to every district and cast a ballot because they would all have to let me in. Only allowing people to vote based on where they're registered stops this from happening. It also spreads everyone out so no on polling location gets bogged down more than another. It could be possible to limit voters to 1 ballot, but look how much trouble we have with electronic voting as it is. Do you really want a country-wide system put in place that tracks where/when you voted? It would be much more trouble than registering is. - vizeroth, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Any given state can change the way they determine who gets their electoral votes. The way most states do it now certainly isn't the way it's always been done in many of them (especially the older states). What most have found is that if they don't throw the whole state's votes at one candidate, they're less likely to get any attention during the election, since the votes will more or less split along the same lines as the House of Representatives, which is usually pretty even for any sizeable state. The problem is really with states that don't change sides very often, and the fact that politicians think they can take states for granted. In some cases they're probably right, but Obama didn't win by just pandering to the traditionally Democrat states.
As for voter registration, the issue is that we need to be able to supply people with the proper ballot for the area in which they are registered. If electronic voting can be fixed so that it works properly, it would be a minor step (though probably a costly system to implement) to take someone's registration information and program the card with the proper ballot so that you could vote anywhere in your home state (or possibly even out of state if they standardized across the country). This was a big issue for me because many of the polling places nearby were not busy at all in the afternoon on election day, but my particular polling place had a 45+ minute line all day. Of course, better options for early voting would help with these things, too. - itzac, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I got the impression from watching the election that registration is much more complicated than it needs to be. In Canada we can register when we vote. You need to bring ID or documentation to prove you live in the riding you're voting in. If you register, then move, you might be able to vote in two ridings, but since there are records of who voted at what polls (but not how they voted), you'd likely get caught.
We also don't vote on 20+ races on a single ballot. That's just asking for trouble. - uncleosbert, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1"Here in Australia its manditory to vote (fine if you dont), and I know it goes against your free will spirit and all that, but it seriously works, you cant pander to side groups that vote more, because everyone votes."
that doesn't make any sense. the word "mandatory" means that it's not fine if you don't... it's required.
i don't know what you're trying to describe... i do wish that our system set up fewer hurdles for voters. it should be easy to register to vote, you shouldn't have to re-register every time you move inside the country and we should probably make election day a holiday. the ideal should be as many voters as possible. we don't have to make it so difficult and expensive.
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
which is why i thought it was so crazy to see the republicans freaking out over acorn, again. every single time their plan is to purge the rolls because it benefits conservative candidates. it would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so evil. i don't know why more voters aren't unnerved by those kinds of shenanigans.
i do know that the aussie in front of me going through security at the airport was amazed with what we americans will put up with. - lolwaffle, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Voting requires identification to prove who you are, what district you are in, and that you only vote once. For all the people against a national ID, this sounds like a good use for them. I too believe that we shouldn't have to register, at least not on the federal level; it should be automatic for all citizens by default. Registering would still be required on smaller scales, like state and districts, because address changes need updating and to avoid fraud (like Mormons moving to CA to vote on Prop 8), there should be a minimum time of residence in the district.
- lerker, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1@uncleosbert: The "fine if you don't" part meant you are charged a penalty (i.e. the alternate meaning of 'fine') if you do not vote.
- JumpingJack79, on 11/24/2008, -0/+32It's not just the low turnout rate that's the problem, it's first and foremost the stupid winner-take-all electoral college system. So it's really not that you have to appease 40% of all people, actually that would be a lot, but in reality you only have to appease just 40% of SWING STATE RESIDENTS. If you're not lucky enough to live in a swing state, your vote doesn't count *****. Talk about disenfranchisement. When the DNC refused to count the votes in this year's Democratic primaries, it was a HUGE scandal, but guess what, all the people in most states (at least 35-45 of them) are disenfranchised all the time.
- humptyz, on 11/24/2008, -1/+29Definitely agree on the paid day off, e.g. make Election Day a holiday; it's that important.
I'd also throw in America should change its voting system and get rid of winner take all election schemes. People like to bitch and moan about the two party system over here, and while that's nice to complain that doesn't fix the problem. We continually have only two major parties because the voting system encourages it. Since all votes that don't go to the eventual winner are discarded it's in your best interest to vote for who you think will win, not for who you want. (If you're lucky enough that the person you want to win is the person you think will win, so much the better.)
Proportional voting schemes are much much better than winner takes all. Instant runoff voting (IRV) can better represent your vote. You rank the candidates by your preference, when the votes get counted if no candidate got greater than 50% of the vote then the last place candidate is eliminated from the round of vote counting. Instead of the votes that went to that candidate getting eliminated they are instead transferred to the person's #2 pick. Counting continues until a winner is found.
I feel like a broken record because I keep harping on the virtues of IRV but I really think a change in how votes are counted will encourage more people to vote. When you have a sense that your vote will matter you'll get off your butt to vote. Hopefully will help us get to that 80+% voting participation European countries see.- Lythium, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2One of the reasons this sort of thing was initially frowned on is that everyone was so terrified of the tyranny of the majority... But the alternative seems to be a tyranny of the minority, so THAT didn't work out so well. The electoral college system is also a bit of a throwback to a time when the states acted more like the traditional definition of a "state," rather than as an organized collection of provinces. Definitely obsolete, definitely time for more proportional representation.
- drlha, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5The problem with linking voter eligibility to SSN is that lots of non-US citizens have an SSN, but right now it is illegal for a non-US citizen to vote in a presidential election.
- subliminalurge, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5As do convicted felons, who are also not eligible to vote.
- Lythium, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1An SSN-linked system would make it easier to filter out the votes of ineligible people - that's not the problem. The main argument against tying SSN to voting is that it obliterates all semblance of the closed ballot. One tiny security breach, or one disgruntled employee, or one bored hacker, and everyone's voting record is blazoned across the whole Internet.
- neurobox, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3...unless there are clearly two separate systems, on letting you enter a booth to cast one anonymous ballot, the other counting it (even on paper).
- richmomz, on 11/24/2008, -6/+15Voter apathy is high in this country because many people realize it doesn't make a difference - both parties follow the globalist, corporatist CFR agenda and will break whatever campaign promises they make within their first year in office - to hell with what the people want. Same goes for Congress - the huge outcry against the $700 billion dollar looting of taxpayer money was simply ignored. True democracy in the US died a long time ago. What we have now is a corporatist/globalist dictatorship with a bit of theatre every four years to lead the masses into thinking they still have a say in government.
As the late George Carlin once said "You think you have politicians... you DON'T. You have OWNERS - they OWN you."- KaseyCarbone, on 11/24/2008, -5/+3"You think you have politicians... you DON'T. You have OWNERS - they OWN you."
With all due respect to Mr. Carlin, that's a loser's mantra. Everyone in the US is free to get off their ass, get an education, make money, buy property, live abroad, and do whatever the hell they want within the framework of our reasonable laws.
There are many countries which claim de facto OWNERSHIP of their citizenry, but the US is not one of them. Only pathetic whiners claim that it is. - neurobox, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2&KC:
You're still in 'bootstraps' mode.. it's too far gone. You just displayed the kind of apathy that's just given $27,000 in debt from each American to "I don't know" courtesy of Bernanke, and at least another $80k each to likely vaporize in bad debt, meanwhile giving 'government' greater ownership in the banks which are not passing on the 'credit' by the way, as well as inflating the money supply so the money you have will become worth much less over the next two years..
And you are absolutely powerless to stop it given your current system of government that you are so proud of, nor do you care, because the tv is still playing the same old tune - everything's fine, y'all settle down. No whining, now.
- KaseyCarbone, on 11/24/2008, -5/+3"You think you have politicians... you DON'T. You have OWNERS - they OWN you."
- devophl, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4In 2004:
214 million Americans of voting age
144 million registered voters
122 million voted for president
85% of the registered voters voted in 2004 which is likely to be higher than in 2008. But its the 33% of the voting age Americans that never bother to register that's disturbing.- Dauntless1, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2A lot of people are getting tired of the ***** "lesser of two evils" argument. That you should cast a vote just for the sake of voting is stupid. It's about ***** time we got some people in power that we can actually respect enough to want to get out and vote, instead of what we have now, where people seem to be voting out of fear.
- TheCamino, on 11/25/2008, -0/+0
What's actually disturbing in this country is that you have to 'register' to vote at all.
- i4ybrid, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5I think a lot of people don't vote because we're given a choice of asshat #1 and asshat #2. I think south park said it the best when they said you will always be forced to make a decision between a turd sandwich and a giant douchebag. This year it just wasn't so much the case.
- MicahT0078, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1I will agree with everything you were saying except for the"top 100 families" part. That implies that they are the best. 100 richest, 100 most well connected. All that doesn't stop them from being dirtbags.
- Dauntless1, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1It doesn't stem from them being upstanding members of humanity either. Especially when those "qualities" that put them in the "top 100" were inherited.
- DFutureIsNow, on 11/24/2008, -24/+121Republicans always wreck the country thats why no one should be voting for them anymore, I truly hope their party becomes so irrelevant that it disappears, then a strong libertarian party can come out of the shadows, then them and the democratic party can slug it out every four years. The republican party, a party that considered that Sarah Palin was ready to take us thru the tough times we are in should NEVER be allowed in power again.
- roho76, on 11/24/2008, -12/+13I struggle between working from the inside to revamp the Repugs or trying to get more of a name for the Libertarians. Remember these Repugs are not representative of true Republicans. We were taken over after Bush 1 was elected. That was the real downfall of the Republicans. Most Republicans were like Ron Paul. These Repugs of now are actually from the Liberal side believe it or not.
- Delphium226, on 11/24/2008, -12/+12So the ***** neocons are actually liberals?
Yehaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Gimme some of that ***** to smoke! - Hetman, on 11/24/2008, -1/+22They are fiscally liberal. As in the fact that they spend way to much money on everything. But socially they are still very conservative.
- vbullinger, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8Delphium226 and everyone that doubts roho76:
Look up the neocons. See where they originated. They were people who left the Democratic party because they weren't getting anything done and they wanted to at least get something done when Republicans were in power, too. So, no matter who's in power, real conservatives lose all the time.
Granted, the things that they want to get done are evil, but I'm just saying. - dave122, on 11/24/2008, -1/+8@Delphium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
It's people like you that see everything as "neo-con vs liberal" that perpetuate this joke of a political system we have. Stop thinking in the black and white that the media wants you to and actually take some time to look into political theory and philosophy, you might be surprised what you find. - xenuxenuts, on 11/24/2008, -1/+9The worst part of their spending is they spent the money on handouts to their buddies rather than investing in the country. Every dollar spent by the government have a clear return to the people, otherwise it shouldn't be spent.
- Delphium226, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1When was the last time the US had a budget surplus?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0 ...
How much is our national debt today?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Want to talk to me about dems being financially irresponsible and conservatives being fiscally conservative again?
If you want to wage expensive little wars they have to be paid for either by taxes or loans. And sooner or later you gotta pay back those loans with interest. So keeping taxes low is all nice if you're living for today, but you're just doing it at the expense of tomorrow.
- Delphium226, on 11/24/2008, -12/+12So the ***** neocons are actually liberals?
- traveler1217, on 11/24/2008, -5/+13In another digg post, I had opined that the Republican party is beyond reform: it was so full of evil, greed, ignorance and vile hypocrisy that it needed to be completely disintegrated to powder and the remains shipped into the sun. Naturally, it got severely dugg down, but it is refreshing to see that other people are starting to bring this up. Hopefully, more people will have the guts to face reality and you won't get as severely dugg down as I was.
- Umasstrogdor, on 11/24/2008, -25/+6you're right, we should let hippies and p.e.t.a rule the us. good call.. why not just put a communist in the white house? oh wait, you stupid hippies already did that. lets just redistribute the wealth to people who dont deserve it. liberals shouldnt be allowed to vote.
- gopher043, on 11/24/2008, -4/+10you must have missed the short bus this morning for school.
- sizzzzlerz, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6Hippies? You been watching that PBS fund raiser program on the songs of the 60's?
- spacedog800, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6srsly, if the R party sticks around they need to drop the religious fundy part and return to a fiscally conservative, small govt, liberatarian type party... then they might have a shot
they'll probably just wait for the dems to screw up and come back n do the same thing they always do
ebb and flow - Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -2/+4Republicans always wreck the country, but there are always a lot of belligerent idiots willing to believe their lies because it suits their own prejudices and the hope that one day they'll get rich quick and be able to join the rich white boys' club. They don't realize they have no chance at all...
- lolwaffle, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2I don't think the Republican Party can be reformed or restored. The vast majority of the party is happy where it is, that's why McCain got millions of votes despite having damn near the same views as Bush, such as sending more troops to die, making people unequal (pregnant women, gays, etc), making government bigger, and spending money we don't have.
Libertarian is the new black. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. In other words, stop wasting money, and make everybody equal.
- roho76, on 11/24/2008, -12/+13I struggle between working from the inside to revamp the Repugs or trying to get more of a name for the Libertarians. Remember these Repugs are not representative of true Republicans. We were taken over after Bush 1 was elected. That was the real downfall of the Republicans. Most Republicans were like Ron Paul. These Repugs of now are actually from the Liberal side believe it or not.
- jraymilton, on 11/24/2008, -25/+13This is the problem with 'news' from sources like Fox "News" or the Huffypo. I find ***** wrong with it in the very beginning of the article, and that stuff reflects the media's pervasive antilibertarian, pro-big-government bias. Bush has MASSIVELY increased spending. Fiscal conservatives -- those of us on "the right," IOW -- don't think MASSIVELY increased spending "pursues an agenda far to the right of American public opinion." Fiscal conservatives (as distinguished from Republicans -- see the immature way they treated Ron Paul's campaign) want less spending, and we tend to actually practice what we preach.
- FairDinkumMate, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9It's easy to say the right prefers lower spending, but MASSIVELY increased spending on an unwanted & illegal foreign invasion & tax cuts for the wealthiest in the country are certainly agenda items "far to the right of American public opinion."
- jraymilton, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1I say the right PRETENDS to prefer lower spending at election-time, but IN REALITY wants higher spending. Examples run from Reagan (the media whined about "cuts" as spending went UP every year) right on to this particular Bush, but in all cases the spending has ALWAYS gone UP despite the libertarian promises to make it go down. Libertarians resent that theft, OK? And this is also why the Ron Paul campaign was treated with such whining hysteria NOT just by the left-wing media, but by the Republican establishment.
People can digg me down all they want. I'm still right, nothing's changed in fact-land. Less spending would have forced MY agenda, which is fiscally more-conservative than 99.9% of Republicans can even IMAGINE.
- jraymilton, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1I say the right PRETENDS to prefer lower spending at election-time, but IN REALITY wants higher spending. Examples run from Reagan (the media whined about "cuts" as spending went UP every year) right on to this particular Bush, but in all cases the spending has ALWAYS gone UP despite the libertarian promises to make it go down. Libertarians resent that theft, OK? And this is also why the Ron Paul campaign was treated with such whining hysteria NOT just by the left-wing media, but by the Republican establishment.
- Mujokan, on 11/25/2008, -1/+1It's what he spent it ON that is right-wing. Or just theft, which isn't right or left.
- jraymilton, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1I'm with "theft." The right overall isn't that stupid, despite all the lefties on Digg who wish it were so. They voted for libertarian domestic spending policies (ie "less") and "a humble foreign policy." They got theft, but to get it Republicans first stole libertarian rhetoric about spending. Theft is wrong, and I don't care how many people digg me down above because I told the truth they don't want to hear, I'm still right.
- FairDinkumMate, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9It's easy to say the right prefers lower spending, but MASSIVELY increased spending on an unwanted & illegal foreign invasion & tax cuts for the wealthiest in the country are certainly agenda items "far to the right of American public opinion."
- greendalek, on 11/24/2008, -27/+42I could conceivably take HuffPo articles a wee bit more seriously if they weren't so regularly being written by people who clearly haven't the faintest understanding of what an apostrophe is or when NOT to use it. Dear LORD these people need a refresher in second-grade grammar!
- Delphium226, on 11/24/2008, -6/+15At least USING caps in RANDOM places in ONES sentences isn't ANNOYING.
- apackofmonkeys, on 11/24/2008, -4/+6It's NOT random.
- Delphium226, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1IS so!
- catbeller, on 11/24/2008, -3/+11Lemme help.
original:
-
the faintest understanding of what an apostrophe is or when NOT to use it.
-
fixed:
-
the faintest understanding of what an apostrophe is, or when NOT to use it.
-
Comma inserted for readability. B+- ricker2005, on 11/24/2008, -4/+5A comma is not a "pause mark", regardless of how people view it. His sentence was grammatically correct.
- josephbloseph, on 11/24/2008, -4/+2@ricker
Wouldn't this be a nonessential dependent clause, where a comma is more appropriate than not? - dieboldcracy, on 11/24/2008, -2/+4SNAP
- cubicledrone, on 11/24/2008, -6/+2Considering the contempt most commenters have for people who actually become literate through higher education, I think criticism of apostrophe use on another site qualifies as hypocrisy.
- smashblu, on 11/24/2008, -10/+5I could them more seriously if they weren't biased as *****.
- josephbloseph, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3I think you just accidentally the whole thing there.
- darkism, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3Truth has a liberal bias.
- spellingwitch, on 11/24/2008, -5/+4Yes, the *apostrophe* was the biggest thing wrong with this article. Right.
- Delphium226, on 11/24/2008, -6/+15At least USING caps in RANDOM places in ONES sentences isn't ANNOYING.
- ucccft, on 11/24/2008, -39/+5Why America Feels Like it's Been Ruled by a Foreign Occupier, because IT IS. Wake up America:
Please note that just about all American movies are NOT filmed in Hollywood or anywhere in the USA!
Please note that just about all American movies now always have some Very Crude British scumbags replacing an American actor.
Please note that just about all American TV sitcoms now have the Very Crude British scumbags replacing an American actors.
Please note that just about all American TV Ads. now have the Very Crude British scumbags replacing an American actor.
The Anglophile have taken over Hollywood and bent on everything non-American, strange thing is that the British and Australians HATE the Americans more then anyone on Earth and yet they love our $$ Green.
In every industry all Americans are losing their jobs and are being replaced by scumbags from all over the world.
SO, when will you wake up and stop this invasion. It's just a matter of time before USA is totally run by Euro-trash and Asian Indians.
Please write to your congressman and demand to Abolish H-1B/L1 and all Visas which are being used to replace American workers and it even gets worst, as most American workers are forced to train the Scumbag SCAB replacement. Your Job is next unless you do something to stop this global takeover.- Hetman, on 11/24/2008, -5/+16Wow that was interesting. Why to you hate the rest of the world so much? Did you think America was going to be the only country not to be affected by globilization. And are you really worried if actors have a european accent? It is easy to stop that just do not watch T.V. that has European actors, even though I really have no idea what you are talking about when you are listing T.V. sitcoms and ads.
- dawkin5, on 11/24/2008, -5/+15Steady on old boy. Bit strong. Have a cheesedog or a hotburger and calm down a teensy bit.
Or are you possibly practicing a little acting part? Little tipsy-poo; if you write it down, it's not acting.
mwah, mwah. you wanker. - illDecree, on 11/24/2008, -1/+8g'day.
- illDecree, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8I take it you don't like James Bond movies, huh?
- kareemachan, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8Didn't get the part, huh? And I can guess who did...
- DonJuanAussi, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5Since all the movies are made outside USA these days... many are, but you claim that all of them are... why would foreign actors need H1B Visas? There is no work for them in USA.
Oh, and many "English Accents" you will find are not English. You have obviously not experienced enough of the world. Many are Australian, New Zealand, South African, Irish and probably French accents. It is not just the English who can pronounce words correctly. - JPOnion, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Better than American scumbags.
- Mujokan, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Forget Bush, Nicole Kidman is what is wrong with the USA! Eric Bana lied about WMDs! Daniel Radcliffe ran over my dog!
- Sleepfist, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Probably just feeding the troll here, but...
I work in the science and engineering industry, and if it weren't for H1-B workers from India, we wouldn't be able to fill all of our hi-tech employment needs in this country. The fact is, there are huge amounts of baby boomers retiring from the workforce, and not nearly enough new engineers to fill the void. And this problem will only get worse, as fewer and fewer students pick Electrical, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering as a major.
So yes, if you want American companies to lose their technical edge, then by all means - abolish H1-B visas.
Also...
"Very Crude British Scumbags"? Crude??? I don't understand this insult. Who are you, Francis E. Dec? - GrigoriSom, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2Did you forget your meds again?
- junkneo, on 11/24/2008, -6/+56America's No. 1 export - Debt.
Foreign occupier - Money.
Why so surprised?
America owes money to the entire World.
Hope it does not come to the stage where you see - "Alaska for Sale. Foreclosed by China".- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8thats why we have the biggest military budget
- OUberLord, on 11/24/2008, -0/+11And yet all the smart bombs and advanced jets in the world can't stop us from royally screwing ourselves over.
- squelched, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2buying so many smart bombs and killing devices we can't even pay to support our own people. billions of dollars to kill people. stop with all the spin terminology relating to war.. tell the people what you really want.. innocent people to die for you and you're partners to gain. (tell that to the men and women of the military who work so damn hard for you) smooth tactics mr. corporate ***** do you feel richer yet? ***** you corporate America.
- cle2105, on 11/24/2008, -9/+5Our debt still carries the lowest interest rate on the market, so it obviously isn't worse than anyone elses. Digg me down if you don't understand global finance
- dieboldcracy, on 11/24/2008, -5/+2Our Dollar will no longer be the reserve currency. China has stopped buying our Treasuries. The world has figured out that we can never pay our debt back. The other currencies of the world will bounce back after shedding the securities they bought up from us. Translation: Dollar collapse, hyper-inflation.
Digg me down if you think you understand global finance - cle2105, on 11/24/2008, -1/+2Interest rates go up when inflation risks loom, so your analysis doesn't hold water. If countries were selling treasuries to buy Euros, Yen, or whatever, then our rates would skyrocket, but they are at their lowest in years. Also, if the Chinese lacked as much confidence as you say, then they wouldn't keep the Yuan pegged to the Dollar, which it still is. Sorry to be the bearer of good news when the this year's fad is to ***** on America
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1@cle2105
"then they wouldn't keep the Yuan pegged to the Dollar, which it still is."
actually, no its not. it hasnt been since 2005
http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english//detail.asp?col=6400 ...
http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english//detail.asp?col=6400 ...
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/10/china-let ...
way to show them your global financial knowledge.
- dieboldcracy, on 11/24/2008, -5/+2Our Dollar will no longer be the reserve currency. China has stopped buying our Treasuries. The world has figured out that we can never pay our debt back. The other currencies of the world will bounce back after shedding the securities they bought up from us. Translation: Dollar collapse, hyper-inflation.
- spacedog800, on 11/24/2008, -2/+2Let alaska succeed from the nation and Palin be president of Alaska, with the condition they buy up all our debt
- KSUdesigner, on 11/24/2008, -0/+7secede
- wunksta, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8thats why we have the biggest military budget
- cyrusuncc, on 11/24/2008, -8/+11Interesting title. I wasn't really able to put my thoughts into those words, but it is how I feel.
- northwatuppa, on 11/24/2008, -11/+58Yes, but, you forget, 46% of American's voted for McCain/Palin and if it hadn't been for the bad economy, McCain/Palin might very well have won (perish the thought). Remember Pogo's famous pronoiuncement: We have met the enemy and he is us.
- Waiting2awake, on 11/24/2008, -6/+4Truer words were never spoken....
- Meocross, on 11/24/2008, -5/+2Truer words have never been spoken man.
- wonderbriefs, on 11/24/2008, -2/+3Truer words weren't yet ever.... This combo is lame.
- rald84, on 11/24/2008, -4/+1c-c-c-c-o-m-
- Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -2/+4Well...... the Diebold machines say 46% voted for McP. We'll probably never know what the real numbers were.
Next step: get back to verifiable paper ballots before 2010.- Dauntless1, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3Make government corruption a constitutionally treasonous offense punishable by death, and maybe we'd see some politicians stop lying to us. Corruption to be defined as "Lying to the public, for any reason."
- getter1, on 11/24/2008, -30/+47huffpo is just the polar opposite of fox news, its still crap.
Doesn't matter who gets in to be president, democrat or or republican, its still going to be a guy who was paid for by big corporations and banks- richmomz, on 11/24/2008, -6/+22Word - our election system is just theatre. The only real choice we have is which sock puppet gets to dictate the will of the corporate/banking elite of this country.
- Weatherwaxx, on 11/24/2008, -1/+7Obama's average contribution was $86. There are hundreds of thous
