Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Thank you Chris Dodd

thankyoudodd.com — Thank you for standing up to the telcom companies and demanding they be held accountable for helping facilitate illegal spying on American citizens. In short, thank you for being a leader.

Bury

timgeek 276 days ago, made popular 276 days ago

1163 diggs
digg it

cashman57, on 10/26/2007, -40/+18He finally did something right.
Still wouldn't vote for him because he's a big government big spending never-met-a-tax-he-didn't-like Democrat
- jfowler27, on 10/25/2007, -6/+21Indeed. I wouldn't vote for him, but I can add him to the very short list of politicians that have some of my respect.
- swrostmore, on 10/26/2007, -7/+47Ditto except for the "big government big spending Democrat" statement, which is a cliche that has lost all credibility over the past 7 years of huge government huge spending Republican government. Good for you, Dodd, but I'm still not voting for you.
- deadbaby, on 10/25/2007, -11/+34What's worse? A big spending Democrat who wants to redistribute the wealth to the masses or a big spending Republican who wants to redistribute the wealth to Daddy Warbucks?
  - whataboutdave, on 10/25/2007, -16/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    - grakker, on 10/25/2007, -6/+11Not appropriate here, as that was a valid question.
    - Bamborzled, on 10/25/2007, -5/+7He asked "What's worse", not "What would you choose" or "You only have two choices".
    - buckrogers1965, on 10/25/2007, -2/+7Sadly it's not a false choice when you really only have two choices and both of them suck.
      
      We are a two party government, and that is a fact. The other parties can barely get even a single representative in congress in either side.
    - whataboutdave, on 10/25/2007, -8/+4He put forth only two options. This isn't rocket science folks.
      - didiman, on 10/26/2007, -9/+2You forget most Diggers lack common sense let alone basic reasoning skills. 90% of them are spoon-fed, kool-aid drinkers.
      - libertao, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3You forgot to call them 'sheeple', didiman
        
        @whataboutdave
        It's not really a false dilemma when one of those two parties WILL win the next election.
  - heartcoldfusion, on 10/26/2007, -8/+4That's a stupid question, they're both unacceptable.
    - republicker, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Yes they are. dugg up.
  - republicker, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3By you mean "redistribute" you mean give to deadbeats who don't work.
    - libertao, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4What percentage of our tax money do you think goes towards welfare for the unemployed. Judging from your comment, I bet you haven't a clue.
      - republicker, on 10/25/2007, -4/+2I dont care what percentage goes where because they are lying to us anyway. The point is if I work for my money, it is mine, in a free society. Your the one without a clue. And fyi the only reason the democrats are known for taxing and welfare is because they can get votes from stupid people by promising them free money.
OBKenobi, on 10/26/2007, -4/+29I'm not hearing enough about this in the mainstream media. All they've been talking about is the California fires. That's obviously important too, but should something like that preempt ALL the news?
- MutatedNantuko, on 10/26/2007, -2/+13Sorry, all the sound bytes were eaten up when Britney lost her brats. Now they're on reserve: natural disaster, and nuclear war.
- thebellmaster1x, on 10/26/2007, -1/+14Well, of course. You don't want the public to KNOW what's happening in D.C., do you?
- PATSCRU, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5totally, i thought they would start covering it especially after obama offered to support dodd in the filibuster, but i guess even that's not enough.
  - TheCosmicFool, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Off topic, but I've only recently heard the word "filibuster" enough to realize its actually a word and not some made up jargon
    What the hell? Thats the most ridiculous name for a legal process of all things..
    - Bobski, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3Good god what a tool. You just now figured out a word that's been in use for over a hundred years? Typical Digg kid.
Richandler, on 10/25/2007, -5/+7It truly is a little late for Dodd I'm afraid.
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Desperation is kicking in but like you said, it's probably too late.
atheinostic, on 10/26/2007, -2/+18Anyone who stands up for the Constitution has my support. Hopefully one of them (Dodd, Paul, potentially Gore, whoever else grows a pair) will make it to the general election.
- ryanarchy, on 10/25/2007, -1/+11I think you meant Kucinich. He has a lot in common with RP and Dodd. I think the biggest thing though is that he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
  - atheinostic, on 10/25/2007, -5/+6Yes, Kucinich and Gravel are good - but I think they have about as good a chance of winning as a hamburger in a fight with Michael Moore.
    - yojiffyskippy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Dugg for the MM slam... not because Kucinich or Gravel are any good.
    - bratpack8, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Do you people vote on who you think is going to win or do you vote your conscious? Time to think and vote for yourselves, and stop believing this phony polls.
      - ryanarchy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0I know this is an old story, but I voted Badnarik in the 2004 elections if that means anything to you.
thedavidmartin, on 10/25/2007, -1/+16A Digg for Dodd
thebellmaster1x, on 10/25/2007, -1/+10You know, if you push your chair back and squint, Dodd looks a little like Sam Waterston. Always a plus.
cmpshotty, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3Oh, that guy.
caferrell, on 10/25/2007, -1/+7Hey, the important thing is that politicians are catching on to the fact that responsible Constitutional government is a platform that will get you noticed and will get you votes, and above and beyond that it can give you an immediate and effective grassroots organization. Mr. Dodd has recognized this fact and the dying embers of his campaign are back in flame.
Thank you Senator Dodd. We expect to see your polling numbers on the rise!
ZenFountain, on 10/25/2007, -4/+4He's only doing it to get publicity for his presidential campaign. If that is what it takes to get one of the spineless Democratic senators to take a stand for what is right, I'll take it though.
- rcook18, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Either that or he believes in the constitution
NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/25/2007, -10/+2I wonder why he doesn't care about my privacy when it comes to my wages and what color I am on my college applications.
- Iconoclast25, on 10/25/2007, -6/+2The answer to the first one is that he and the rest of the drooling idiots think they know better how to spend your money than you do. The second answer is that to lefties, the color of a person's skin (or whatever the cause de jour may be) is more important than the quality of their mind.
  
  While this is purely a PR ploy / sound bite / photo op for this fifth rate opportunist, in this instance, Sen. dodo puts the votes of the kool-aid suckers ahead of the national security interests of our Republic. He should take a tour of the Chappaquiddick night life - with teddy the Hutt at the wheel.
spider-man, on 11/04/2007, -9/+6I love it how on Digg everything from the Democrats is wonderful and from the Republican is evil. It's also very convenient how Digg completely ignored the fact that the Democrats recently blocked a vote on a permanent Internet Tax ban. Something one would think Digg users would in favor of (the ban) and surely if this had come from Republicans it would have been triple posted with abundant griping about them.
- domc, on 11/04/2007, -2/+6The usual comment. Getting tired of it.
  - Bobski, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1The usual ignorant response, getting tired of it.
- vade79, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4Not everything is even and perfect. Republicans, as a group, simply do more ***** things these days.
  
  ..and no one says democrats are wonderful, not these days.
- Seannaz453, on 11/04/2007, -3/+1Both parties aren't representing my opinions, so screw them both.
republicker, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2I have an idea. Instead of acting like this is a democracy and voting like it makes a difference in this world of voting fraud and corruption, why dont we line all the presidential candidates up at the gallows w/ ropes around their necks. Then hook them up to lie detectors. A lie is detected, 1 less canidate.
- MadKennyP, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1I like it. I doubt any of the current candidates would make it past Round 1. Maybe Ron Paul or Obama could survive??
  
  Who would end up as President?
  - republicker, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Who would end of as president? That would be the only draw back because the bastards probably own the company who manufactures the lie detectors. lol *Diebolt*
jvnane, on 10/26/2007, -5/+2Lets see who's still saying thank you the next time there's a terrorist attack that could have been stopped from a little bit of invasion of privacy.
- republicker, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4hahahahahahahalolololol You are indirectly stripping me of my rights you ***** fascist.
- sn8ke01, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Yea, because they didn't have all the information to stop 9/11 that we now get as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act, NSA Wiretapping, etc, etc....
Roger_Ramjet, on 10/25/2007, -5/+0And yet, we have heard story after story of how terrorist attacks have been FOILED directly because of the programs. Congress gets informed. There is oversight. The program works.
- atheinostic, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2This program works better when there is full Congressional oversight as well as full judicial oversight (read: requirement for individualized warrants, no exceptions for those who willfully violate the process). Oversight makes the program more efficient by making sure the processes are studied, examined and scrutinized. Additionally, oversight greatly minimizes the potential for abuses of power that can harm citizens, our political process, and deflect resources from actual criminals.
  
  Simply "briefing" half a dozen or so of the 535 congresspersons by mentioning simply that the President is conducting surveillance is NOT oversight. Oversight requires a fully informed Congress - or at the very least fully informed party leaders and Intelligence Committees. Congress can't take appropriate legislative changes when it doesn't know anything about the program it is changing.
  
  Keep in mind, the FISA procedure allows for authorities to do on-the-spot wiretaps without going through any warrant-related paperwork at all. After the wiretap is conducted, the authorities have up to 72 hours to go to the court. The court never says "no" to warrant requests, and the entire process is classified so the targets don't discover the surveillance.
  
  We know for a fact that without rigorous oversight this power WILL BE ABUSED. We know this because it has been used before. Nixon's administration spied on his political adversaries at the Watergate Hotel. LBJ had the FBI spy on people who spoke out against the war in Vietnam, including spying on Martin Luther King, Jr.
  
  The FBI tried to discredit Dr. King by recording conversations he had with women and distorting them to make it look like he was having extramarital affairs.
  
  Do you really want Bush/Giuliani/Hillary/whoever to have the power to spy on us? It is a safe bet that they are or will also abuse their power, given that pretty much all of the Presidents from FDR on until FISA was passed did the same.
sn8ke01, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2OK...so he seeeems to have an idea of what the 4th Amendment is all about, but if you take a look at his voting record w/respect to the 2nd...well.

Want the Constitution restored? Vote for Ron Paul.
- atheinostic, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1I agree with you about the 2nd amendment. However, no candidate is going to be perfect. For instance, I like Ron Paul too but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the 1st Amendment's establishment clause.
  
  Plus, Ron Paul is TERRIBLE at building coalitions - so none of the laws he sponsors ever get anywhere. We need a President who can build bipartisan coalitions, because restoring the constitution is going to be a politically challenging, long-term uphill battle and it is going to require a mandate from a supermajority of citizens.
  
  You could say he can't build coalitions because he is too committed to libertarian principles and won't compromise, and I'd probably agree with you, but the inconvenient fact remains that Presidents have to be able to build support for their initiatives or they don't happen.
  - sn8ke01, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0Maybe I have missed his "[not] too keen on the 1st Amendment's establishment clause" bills? Could you point me in the direction of some instances where this statement can be borne out concerning PR?
    
    And I understand that no candidates are going to line up 100% with my views on the world, but it is his "original intent" view of the Constitution that I most appreciate.
    - atheinostic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand or care for the original intent of the separation of church and state:
      
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
      
      Ron Paul - " 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."
      
      Thomas Jefferson - "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
      
      James Madison - "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
      James Madison - "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
      James Madison - "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
AARTARTHUR, on 11/04/2007, -3/+2Good Job that was mighty Paul of you ! Way to go I wish more of these guys would do their jobs. Exactly why i am voting for Ron Paul
Mavtek, on 11/04/2007, -2/+2Ron Paul's AFA bill is a better solution, we should get behind it!
MIDO997, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1Oh, that guy.
http://forex7.110mb.com/
digger4, on 11/04/2007, -3/+2Screw Dodd- isn't he the same SOB that helped write the Amnesty Bill with McCain which would have approved Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (you remember- the one that would have sold out the US to Mexico and Canada AND given up to 20 million ILLEGAL immigrants Amnesty)? If this is the same Dodd then no Thanks but Go to Hell!
pinkofreeptard, on 11/04/2007, -1/+2Chris Dodd is right on target. Maybe here is a democrat that stands on ideals and principals and not on focus groups and poll results. We need more elected people with principals, not career politicians.
jimski1961, on 11/04/2007, -2/+2Thank you Dodd for making it easier for terrorist to plot and plan missions that will endanger out military personal and quite possibly our homeland. What a ***** idiot.
amightywind, on 11/04/2007, -1/+1I laud the useful role that the major telecom companies have taken on to fight muslim terror. What side are all of you on? You ought to be shot for treason.
- atheinostic, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Are you still beating your wife?
PHiZ187, on 12/17/2007, -0/+2Chris Dodd is my senator and I am proud of him, unlike that turncoat Joe Lieberman.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Thank you Chris Dodd

Login or register to add a comment