What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
250 Comments
- loculi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+169Yeah, I guess gutting 900 years of common law tradition is just not a big deal to some people.
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -34/+189The only reporter that has a chance of being written about in history, this man is worthy of being a hero.
- Powder, on 10/27/2007, -7/+146To think that we attempted to impeach Clinton for getting a blow job and we are not at least attempting to impeach Bush for this ***** makes me sick.
- Powder, on 10/27/2007, -20/+138It's way past time to get the ball rolling on impeachment of president G W Bush.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -12/+109Well, Edward R Murrow did take on Senator McCarthy and go down in history, but you know, we need another hero, so I'm all for him.
- itistoday, on 10/27/2007, -14/+95@Itazura:
While I agree with you and most everyone here that what Olbermann is doing is a great thing, I'm rather unhappy that his actions are unique at the moment. It just seems like it's odd that he's in a position to be called a 'hero'. What I mean is that I don't understand why it's *just* Olbermann that's currently taking a hard line against the president, I think the President's actions should have been deplored a long time ago by just about every 'respectable' television personality (read: not John Stewart or Colbert; both are considered comedians).
Why aren't more stations/personalities doing their part to bash Bush 24/7 for this?? People will get too complacent if they aren't constantly being reminded that their rights are being taken away, either through example (as in the Soviet Union, when your neighbors would disappear in the middle of the night), or through political activism. - WiFiSPY, on 10/12/2007, -27/+103Olbermann is a true Patriot.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+78I know this will probably get dugg down for fear mongering or for being overly paranoid, but I can't help but notice some parallels here between what is currently going on in our government and the movie V for Vendetta. Now, please don't take me too literally here. I'm not in the camp that believes our government orchestrated 9/11 as a means to control the people. I do believe it was Osama Bin ***** and his fellow retarded idiots that took down the WTCs, but doesn't it seem frightfully odd the parallels between what has happened since then and V? I mean, here we are, a nation that has been told we should be afraid of terrorists. we are slowly losing some of our most fundamental liberties in the name of those fears.
If I sneaked into my roommates room and stole a quarter from his change jar, he probably wouldn't notice. If I then stole a few more, he might notice but think he was just being silly and didn't remember taking them himself. It's only when I've stolen all of his money that he realizes something is wrong. But at that point, I've already got his money and I've moved out, so there is nothing he can do about it.
We have headed down a slippery slope here with this Military Commissions Act. The conservative right will probably say we are all over-reacting, that this only applies to terrorists. But when you let your government define what a terrorist is, then who is to say we aren't all terrorists?! We haven't required any oversight to what they do (habeas corpus has always been the final step of oversight).
And I understand that sometimes you have to trust your government as there are some things they can't tell the people. There are some things we must take at face value. The problem I have now is that nothing in the last 6 years of Bush's reign as president has convinced me that he deserves a single ounce of my trust or faith. - itistoday, on 10/27/2007, -13/+74The blatant ignorance displayed by various digg users such as 23r17i05o42n is the reason why this government needs to spend more money and energy on education. These fools need a history lesson--badly.
That's OK though, as those of us 'in the know' know, this thing goes in cycles. If a history book doesn't teach them, people like George W. Bush will. You can learn it by reading a book on a nice Sunday afternoon by the fireplace, sipping on ice tea, or you can have it beaten into you with a stick until you're knocked senseless. I prefer my teachers to be non-violent. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+63Unfortunately, the term "patriot" has been 1984'd.
The populace has been brain washed into believing that patriotism is loyalty to the country and the defense thereof. That is nationalism.
Patriotism is loyalty to the ideals of justice, freedom, and liberty and the defense thereof.
I am a patriot of ideals that protect people, not nations. - The_Wallbanger, on 10/27/2007, -5/+51I love how this is filed in "Educational Videos".
- sdoorex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47How is he a traitor and not a patriot? A patriot is someone who cares for his/her country and the actions they take. A true patriot will help keep the people informed about what the government is doing because they care and not by following blindly like a sheep.
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+56I think the perfect irony of all of this would be that the successor to Bush would use this act just a single time. The day after they would be sworn into office, they openly (publicly) declare Bush as a threat and place him in jail under this act. They then begin to work to remove this act as should be done, but Bush gets a good taste of his own medicine, if only for a short time.
- salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -24/+66...and considering he could now be thrown indefinitely in a military prison and tortured with no right of appeal for the things he just said, this guy has some balls.
He deserves a medal man. He is a true Patriot. I just hope people listen. - unitethenations, on 10/27/2007, -9/+50@gonephishin, @23r17i05o42n
All I have to say is....READ THE TITLE!
Do you really need a script that tells you that the article entitled "Olbermann does X, Colbert does Y and Stewart does Z" will be about Olbermann, Colbert, and Stewart? Stop being lazy and read the title, and once you've figured out that it doesn't apply to you or the message is potentially disagreeable, STOP. No, don't even click. Resist the temptation to troll.
*Sigh* Honestly. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38As a Canadian (born and raised) with something like 12% Arabic roots, I will not be visiting the USA for a long time coming. If you think my fear is without reason than read this.
2 of my cousins (on the Arabic side but also born + raised in Canada) lived in Provo, UT working at a car dealership and a gas station. One was married with a baby, the other lived with him in his house. After 9/11 the feds came looking for my single cousin, and threatened my other cousin's wife saying that if she didn't say where he was they would take her baby. They arrested him, took their computers, and did not give him any rights at all. They kept him for "questioning" for months before letting him go. He never had any rights to call a lawyer or anyone else, and he's definitely not a terrorist.
If that could happen to a Canadian citizen because he has an Arabic sounding name, I'm staying the hell away from the USA for a while now that I could be arrested and tortured into a false confession for something ridiculous. That was 5 years ago that happened.
Say what you want, but when foreigners hear this stuff they're not going to be like "oh we should immigrate to (or send our kids to university in) the US, what a nice country!" Those people will be going to the Europe, or Canada.
This does not just affect terrorists and the "bad guys", things like this affect the whole country in a lot of ways. I'll stay as far away from the USA now as I would from Cambodia under Pol Pot's rule.
If anyone wants to rent a time-share villa in Orlando for a week let me know, I won't be going this Christmas... - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35@Spamhater
"He's a traitor who should be locked up with the terrorists he so loves."
Obermann's point exactly... - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37This is terrifying. Without Habeus Corpus, you have NO rights.
Shame on everybody here who is not alarmed and upset over this. You are willingly giving up your freedom. - Sartori, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32@LubbertDas:
Every single person in Guantanamo Bay is currently innocent, since none of them have been tried in a court of law. - loculi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I've yet to see any rebellions or invasions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30For those of you saying "the Sky is Falling!" and trying to make this seem like it is a trivial issue, I say the following:
Chicken Little says "the sky is falling", becasue he imagined it to be real, without proof, only that something fell on his head, and he deduced that the sky was falling from that one incident.
Here is the difference, and why this analogy is innacurate:
1- This is a law was signed by the president, that is a fact, not imaginary.
2- The law states that the president or his assignees can state what is torture regardless of what the Geneva convention says, that is fact, not imaginary.
3- The law states that hearsay evidence is acceptable, that is fact, not imaginary.
4- The law states that evidence gathered under any circumstances including torture is acceptable, that is fact, not imaginary.
5- The law states that the president or an assignee can state any person is a enemy combatant regardless of evidence, that is a fact, not imaginary.
6- The law states that the enemy combatant has no right to habeas corpus and can be detained without trial indefinitly, that is a fact, not imaginary.
This effectively takes away power from the third branch of goverment, the Judicial branch, because of the fact that an enemy combatant can never go to trial, and be held indefinitly, this will never go to court or can be ruled by the supreme court as unconsitutional.
This allows the executive branch to be Judge, Jury, and executioner... since the executive branch now has control of the definition of torture, and can detain anyone indefinitly without legal remedy or protections, including US citizens.
That is a fact, not imaginary. - TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29The conservative right opposes this act as well! The conservatives are for small spending, states rights, and less government. The title "conservative" has been hijacked by the "neocons" who are all about imperialism, big spending, large federal government, and lots of spending.
- aposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Yes. To ones country, not government. Big difference.
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I think it is a shame that some people are so narrow-minded to realize the true extent of what is happening in history right now. True, some of you have points on why Olbermann shouldn't be called a hero. You're right, he shouldn't. He should be called a true American, one who realizes that the foundation of this country was built on the idea of freedoms, liberties, and unalienable rights. Sadly, some people don't understand the difference between freedoms and safety and the consequence of going too far in one direction. This military commission act that people are praising is not the animal you think it is. Bush says it will bring these unlawful combatants to trial and get the justice they deserve for 9/11. And yes, somewhere in the bill, that is what it does. You're right.
But you're wrong too. Bush lies about the bill also. He says it doesn't promote torture and that torture is un-American and against our morals. What he doesn't tell you is what is in the Military Commissions Act. For the intellectuals out here, we read the bill. I personally have read all 98 pages. Only by fully reading the text can one understand the true nature of the bill. Once you read it, you see that Habeas Corpus is stripped, Geneva Convention Guidelines can not be used as a defense, you don't have to have evidence shown to you, and yes, you can be tortured up to severe physical/mental damage or death. The easiest one, is of course, waterboarding, which is shown to severly affect people in the long run mentally. Furthermore, the language the law uses is so loose in wanting to define "unlawful combatant" that if you think about it enough (and if again you are intelligent enough to read this) you will realize there is nothing in there preventing the president from using these same methods against American citizens. As Olbermann says, I truly believe that many of the Americans who believe this bill is all devine and good will be slapped in the face when American citizens (heck, maybe even themselves) are captured, thrown in jail, tortured, and when they ask for a trial or lawyer, get laughed at because hey, there isn't anymore habeas corpus to protect you.
This bill is like so many events and things before it. For some reason, in the face of fear dressed as security, one does not realize the true extent of the situation they are in until the very worst happens. Think of 9/11. There were numerous reports that there was going to be an attack. People thought, "They attack us? We are the USA, no one attacks us." "The Japanese? They'll never attack us" and so on and so on. People become in denail of the truth that just sits out there in front of them. And yet, they refuse to grasp it. Only when the worst happens will the rest of the country finally realize what some of us have been saying all along.
By then, it might be too late - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@aliengoods
I know a lot of people hate the ACLU because they see stories about the ACLU defending a guy who looks like total scum. However, the ACLU is there to protect everybody's rights. If someone, anyone, looks like their rights are being infringed upon, it's the ACLU that steps up and defends that persons rights. So for that reason alone, I'm willing to support them. Yes, they may occasionally defend the rights of the most dispicable person out there, but even the most dispicable person has rights and those rights can not be infringed upon. Our laws provide that every man is innocent until proven guilty but the opinions of the people are not under the same restrictions. I am not required to assume that the Foley is innocent until proven guilty, but the law is. Regardless of whether he is or not, his basic and most fundamental rights can not be taken away.
These basic rights are what this country was founded out. Our forefathers fought and died to make sure that everyone had these basic rights. the ACLU is there to protect what this country was founded on. You may not like the men they defend, but you have to like the cause they are righting for.
For every scumbag the ACLU represents in court there are 20 good people they also represent. - EllisAshbrook, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Have I waited long enough since 9/11 to say this? It's not worth it! A terrorist attack is not the same as an invasion.
- itistoday, on 10/27/2007, -6/+26@Danin:
(sorry Digg for the offtopicness)
I'm very familiar with your point of view, and it is in fact one of the main reasons why I'm liberal and not libertarian. The question is, what is the best way to implement education? Through the government or through companies? I say the government is in the best position to do it better than companies because if correctly implemented:
* Education can be regulated, and kept from becoming biased against the truth. In public schools, it is not what the government says is the truth, it is what *is* the truth. Textbooks are based on *fact*, and this fact is established by the scholarly/scientific community, not the government. The second something is proven to be false it's taken off the curriculum. This guarantee does not exist with companies.
* Nationwide standards can be established. If you privatize education the same thing will happen to it as what has happened with food. Poor people will be forced to send their kids to "McDonald's" schools whose quality is inferior. This is segregation based on income. Kids deserve the same chance regardless of their family background.
* Ideals such as separation of church and state can be upheld. Educational institutions are places where fact and art are taught as such. You will not see the Bible being taught as truth in a public school, but this will be done if you privatize education.
Etc. - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@skyshock
Under the new law, he COULD be thrown in jail. The original poster never specified a desire or intent on the part of the administration to do so. So what is your point? - chivas3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20It's funny that conservatives are calling this "fear mongering" while blissfully unselfconsciously failing to see how they jump up and down about their fear of being killed by a Muslim terrorist. Well, dear friends- the odds of any single one of us being killed by a jihadist is nearly infinitesimal. The removal of our freedom is universal.
That's not fear-mongering, it is real. When some of us have no liberty, none of us do.
We can weather the storm of terrorism, what will be left to survive this onslaught against our freedoms? Isn't that what we were trying to protect? - jkavvy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21@Powder
Agreed.
Clinton: 8 year witchhunt that costed many millions yielded a frickin' blowjob.
Bush: refused to take the oath at the 9/11 commission and hid behind other ridiculous conditions. No serious pre-Iraq inquiry.
That's balanced! - ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28your dupe comment is a dupe of a dupe comment above
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
Even he agrees with you: when one of us has lost, we all lose. - Mitchl, on 10/27/2007, -11/+28Oh, my head is about to explode.
Time to feel better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNF_P281Uu4 - forgetfulca, on 10/27/2007, -2/+18"if he was in Iran, north Korea, Venezuela, maybe"
Show me, in this new bill, where the folks who _can_ be thrown in jail is limited to that set you have mentioned?
The whole point is that it CAN be anyone. It COULD be merely anti-bush folks. Anti-war, anti-homeland defense. Anti oil company. It's not even limited to people currently inside the states. I know you are just trolling because people responding to you makes you feel important, but this is real grown up stuff. So go play quietly please while the adults are talking. - ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22more chance of getting hit by a bus.
Intern all the bus drivers!!!! - gamer82987, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20@skyshock
yes, and Gandhi was a little man wearing a loin cloth that no one took seriously. look at how he inspired and liberated a nation.
Olbermann is speaking about what is being taken away as known American rights and liberties. all throughout the world democracies form following our shining example, and being taught everyday about how justice for all isn't just a theoretical rhetoric, but as a working and functioning principle.
And now we have this, a government taking away our rights and liberties in the guise of protection. Olbermann has become the voice of a silent and voiceless. Olbermann is trying to restore all that we have lost, people may discount him, and label him as less than credible, but discounting his reasons for being outspoken just truly typifies how Americans have degenerated from the moral shell that we have once stood for.
Olbermann is using his soapbox to try to wake up the real America. olbermann is doing what he can do to for change. An earlier comment labeled him as an armchair general, i see no evidence of this as i have not seen him ever try to strategies a military operation on his own freaking show. but he does justifiably openly states what the generals on the ground are saying, and how our current administration has deteriorated the situation. everything that a reporter should do, and tell the people on how a democratic government fighting in their name, is conducting a war on their behalf.
We should all take this very seriously, our lives, our rights, and our freedoms are in peril. to discount these words exemplifies how unamerican we have all become. - VicHislop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15If the Bush Administration truly believed that its prior actions have been within the law, then why does the bill conclude with a section on retroactive application?
"This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any
person detained at any time since September 11, 2001, and to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act." - 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19C-3PO said it best... "we're doomed"
- scifi007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16... they forgot to mention the Civil War. good ol' Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for the entire state of Maryland... by the end of the war, the US government had shut down (by the use of military force) more then a dozen major newspapers in the north and more then 18,000 citizens had been imprisoned with no charges or trial , often times drug from their house by the military in the dead of night... and I'm a pro-Union guy ; )
Compared to that, we're still not doing bad, but we've gone that way before, so the government could do it again... - hlampert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Gonefishin,
The whole point of Digg is to show what people are thinking an talking about. If you don't like a certain link, don't click on it. If it's not obvious that a link refers to something you don't like, use the back button. If you're looking for filters, try the more obviously biased (either conservative or liberal) "news" sites like the Huffington Post or Newsbusters.org. - MinorLemming, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Here is a bet... I bet that if a Democrat takes over the government, this law will not be repealed. I bet that the ONLY chance this law has of being repealed is if the Supreme Court strike it down.
I'll go so far as to put £500 on this... If the democrats strike this down within 3 years of getting into power, someone let me know and I will donate £500 to an animal related charity. - SmokeN-DC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@23r17i05o42n
HOW can you wish another persons family death and yes I remember a great American patriot who said "Give me liberty or give me death" we live in what used to be a Free society no longer The US government wants to monitor what you do on the Internet they do monitor who you call on the phone we have abandoned the US Constitution for the illusion of safety we are not safe we will not be safe as long as we support corrupt governments as long as the give us cheap oil. How about an inelegant come back, No you wish death on another well all I have to say is if many people think that way you do I will meet you on the field of battle as I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM against your Tyranny "those who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve nether"
To ARMS I say throw off the shackles of pretend security - RedZeppelin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Funny you should mention V. I watched that movie for the first time last weekend, and as soon as it was over I went to my computer and joined the ACLU. Seriuosly.
/Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself - luther70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Whats wrong with having Bush tried as a war criminal?
- punmeister, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@LubbertDas
Maher Arar, for one - aposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12There are terrorist EVERYWHERE. Of course we've been invaded. Can't you see all the terrorists? The government said they just arrested some of them here in the states. We're under seige! Americas rights stop where my safety starts! Or something like that. Maybe I should go take my medecine now.
- Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14A declaration of war existed then. The "times of national emergency" standard for habeas corpus was pretty well defined.
The problem with the current war is that its undeclared and there wont be a peace treaty at the end of it. - hcl40u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You forgot those suspected of giving aid to terrorists like say donating money to a charity that happens to go to terrorists. You don't have to carry a bomb or kill anyone for this law to apply.
- drywaller79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10People talk about impeaching the president, but even if we do impeach the president, his office members will still be in office. Dick Cheney will run the country. As the true power of this nation, we people, are going to take more serious action to get rid of this corrupt government that is in office, Senators in both Republicans and Democrats are lacking the wisdom and intellegence needed to run the United States of America. The main problem I see here is that even if we do impeach the president, we still have a very corrupt and very scary government left. We the people need to take charge and set our country right again as our fathers before us did in 1776. They had the courage and will to do what was right, do we?
- jsls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Does it really matter that Oberman was a sportscaster that worked for ESPN? George W Bush was a damn cheerleader in college...most of you are missing the point with your ignorant rantings...does anyone not care that Habeas Corpus is no more? Keith Oberman does...and respectfully so....shut up, stand up, get out and vote!!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 252 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is