What is Digg?62 Comments
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44Clinton has sex with a woman and almost gets empeached. Bush kills America's freedom and gets re-elected. Makes sense.
- jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Forgot to tell the commission they ignored strong warnings of the attack? These people are supposed to be grownups, why don't they understand that covering up their mistakes not only makes them look guilty, but feeds the conspiracy theories? They could've just come clean from the beginning: "Here are the mistakes we made, we're sorry but let's try to learn from this and move on." Simple and honest. Instead they act like it's the biggest secret on earth, and then wave their dicks around whenever terrorists are mentioned. It's like an inferiority complex on an institutional scale.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Hey, she's a busy person, she can't be expected to remember stuff like "'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." or the ravings of the CIA guy :p
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15You can't even read all of the patriot act, because some of it is secret. Comparing the response to Clinton's "crimes" and Bush's simply proves that there is no god in heaven.
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13How about this Canadian guy who was tortured (uh.. vigorously interrogated) in Syria for 10 months. Or the German guy who was rendered by mistake.
Funny thing about civil rights. If yours are violated, mine are too. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"There has to be a reason that he can't come back in. Maybe he has spread dissent outside the US against our government. In that case, I would not let him back in either."
I must have missed the memo that speaking out against the government is now illegal. Last I checked that was a right guaranteed by the 1st amendment. With that opinion, I now understand why you think Bush is A-OK. - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Actually, Clinton *did* get impeached. Just not successfully. Unfortunately, sanity & respect in the nation's capital for the rule of law stopped at about that point & it's been downhill ever since.
- StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I can show you about three thousand examples of when Bush's policies failed to protect the right to live back in 2001.
And about three thousand more in Iraq since then. - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Maybe Disney could make a movie about this. After all, Bush says that history will judge his actions, and that he doesn't worry about what is in the papers, or what the polls say. Historians can just say that he was a treasonous incompetent dilettante frat boy alcoholic coke-head.
And his breath stinks, too. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9palendrome... you are 12 or something? that was such a childish and lame response. you don't seem to understand what "drinking the kool-aid" really means. you are blinding taking the word of those in authority. thus it is you who is practicing in deep droughts.
- blindem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8American citizens' rights violated? I'll bite.
How about "two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey" who were threatened with 15 years of prison. Our court system rejected these threats thereby ruling a portion of the Patriot Act unconstitutional despite the protestations of Bush's justice department.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/index.html - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@palindrome12:
If you read the patriot act, you would also know, that bush can make it illegal to even know about the person being imprisioned. So the only cases we hear about are the the ones the courts actualy get involved in and protect your rights. So, since the administration can dissapear people, how many do you think we havent heard about?
Speaking of rights violations tho, there is a professor who has been forced to stay in canada for the past couple of months because the administration decided to cancel his passport. Now he is an american citizen, but is being denied entry into the country because he is of arabic descent... He has tried to find out why he is not being let in, but they are denying him the basic right to find out why he is being prevented from entering the country. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Clinton was impeached successfully, but wasn't removed from office. Big difference.
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Citizenship-Schmitizenship- the US Constitution protects all PERSONS in the US, not only citizens. The Constitution is quite clear on this.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - trcook01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Civil rights in this country have become a joke. Name you one instance where civil rights have been violated -- consider that every american potentially has their calls monitored by federal agencies under a program that is in clear violation of a person's freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (the same right that used to protect us from undue surveilence).
Here are two more cases of americans who have had their rights violated: Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi. Both men have been held in detention for several years and are only now beginning to see the light of an arraignment hearing courtroom after their plight sparked a political ***** storm.
It is the contention of the bill of rights that an american citizen is entitled to due process as well as a swift and speedy trial. The nature of these men's alleged crimes has been well known public knowledge for some time now and it is unreasonable to assume that it has taken 5 years for the government to collect sufficient evidence to prove their case, so it would seem as though each person has been denied their constitutional rights to due process (at a reasonable pace) since they have been unreasonably detained without being charged with a crime and, for much of the time, without the councel of an attorney (6th ammendment). All of this leaves unaccounted for, the potential violations of these men's 8th ammendment rights to live free from cruel and unusual punishment which may have occured in the course of their detention and interrogation up to this point.
beyond that, why do we need to make the big destinction about 'american' people whose civil rights have been violated. It is a poor argument to suggest that only american's are/should be privy to the basic civil liberties that we as a country have come to cherrish. To sugguest that just because someone is not an american that he/she is not entitled to such rights but is yet vulnerable to the invasive capture detention and punishment at the hands of american forces is a line of thought that implies borderline supremicist/bigioted delusions on behalf of its author. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Covering up their mistakes makes us unsafer too, it makes those in the rest of the world think badly of us. Good people admit when they are wrong and try to correct it. When you never admit to making any mistakes, you sure aren't doing anything to try and make a correction.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@palindrome12
Read "patriot" act 1, read the DSE of '03 (most of "patriot" act 2 in disguise), read the recent legislation that passed the rest of "patriot" act 2. Have a copy of The Bill of Rights next to you, you'll need it. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Or that we have a constitution to uphold and a reputation, err . . former reputation to worry about.
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Liberal-
favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
And what is wrong with a liberal viewpoint? Its way better than an ignorant, uninformed viewpoint, such as the one espoused by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. - infopro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Per palindrome: "Actually he lied under oath about having sex with a woman... And when did Bush take away our freedoms? Step away from the Kool-Aid man."
If you're claiming what it sounds like you are, it would seem there's not any kool-aid left. }:)
Per PopcornD: Technically, we're both correct. The vote to impeach was successful. However removal from office as a result of the House's impeachment vote to send to the Senate for trial was not. The difference isn't really all that big, unless one is a lawyer whose strategy is to win cases on technicality instead of merit. :) - jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Oh yes, damn you Bill Clinton! Bin Laden attacked us soon after you assumed power, but throughout your entire presidency you were unable to capture/kill him! For shame, Clinton, for shame! If only we could get a president who would have the balls to kill Bin Laden... and save our christian babies!
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. [...] I am truly not that concerned about him."
-Clinton^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBush - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Think Progress is slanted only in the sense of what topics it covers. The facts reported there are facts, and sources are cited.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Gimme a break. That's like committing murder, and then telling the judge, "Hey, my next door neighbor killed *two* people! So why are you giving me a hard time? I only killed one person."
Just because Clinton may be guilty of something, that doesn't make Bush any less guilty. That doesn't make the current administration any less disgusting. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@NoahVail:
Exactly! It doesnt matter if you were born here, became a citizen, or are just visiting. You have equal rights and protection under our laws as long as you are within the US territory. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, by now if you haven't figured out that this administration needed a reason to attack Iraq they you my friend are living with your hands over your eyes. I mean if you can send your own countrymen into a war based on a lie you can obviously look the other way when someone is about to attack you.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@OswaldKenobi 1 The american constitution doesn't differ from US citizen or not on these clauses they mention any human!
- ibgarrett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A civil rights violation? How about the Denver 3? They were removed from a publicly open meeting because of their bumper sticker on their car (no war for oil - btw). I'm pretty sure there's something in there about being able to gather in a public meeting. Of course Bush "claims" he doesn't know anything about it and it was purely the action of a secret service agent. I find it very interesting that secret service agents taken matters into their own hands.
- Nok1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"There has to be a reason that he can't come back in. Maybe he has spread dissent outside the US against our government"
You have GOT to be kidding me. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Did you have any education about the philosophy of the founding fathers about this country? You're telling me that if he "spread dissent outside the US against our government" that he shouldn't be let in because he doesn't like the way our country is run?
Picture this you thickskulled moron - imagine that the Democrats had as much power as the Rep.'s right now, and you would obviously disagree with the majority of their actions. yet, you would you not want the power to change that? To change the regime in power to have it suit your needs and beliefs?
Funny you should mention that...
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Is_Dissent_Treason_That_s_the_legal_climate_Bush_wants - vietvet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Wow, a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." on August 6, 2001... And yet Bill Clinton recieved a memo on February 26, 1993 in the form of a 1,500-lb urea nitrate-fuel oil bomb that killed six and injured 1,042 people, straight from Bin Laden himself."
The CIA and FBI only identified Bin Laden & the gang in December 2000, after Bush was elected; and the Republicans and their chorus of corporate MSM-whores were all "wag the dog" about Clinton's attacks on al-Quida. They didn't care about terrorism, only corporate tax rates.
Clinton attacked Bin Laden, tried to kill him, despite RepukeliKKKan opposition. The chickenhawks couldn't be bothered, until 9/11 forced them to, because they only care about $$$. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"This is so ridiculous. It is 2006. MOVE ON. Nothing you do or say here makes one bit of difference, not to Rice, not to Bush, nobody. Move On."
There you have it folks. The reason why people like Bush and his cronies can get away with anything. Keep the truth hidden long enough, and morons with short attention spans will eventually get tired of hearing about important events, and will "move on".
If anyone was wondering what's wrong with America, look no further than Bridgetown's comment. - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@palindrome12
Your attitude is rather shocking to me. You won't be convinced that your rights are in jeopardy until you need them and they are no longer there. If you had any sense of history, you would realize that it's to late to care once your rights are gone, you need to care when they are threatened. Asking for specific evidence misses the point completely. Also, you only seemed concerned with "innocent" people's rights. Well again, you miss the point. Maybe you are familiar with the story: "First, they came for the jews...," it's appropiate to keep in mind (http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html). Of course, you will probably continue to attack those who are standing up for your rights. Enjoy them, I will continue to defend them even if I disagree with you. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i agree, MOVEON.org and not repeat the mistakes of 2000 and 2004. look forward to 2008.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder if all those who are so upset about the behavior of the republicans in DC will be as upset when the democrats regain power.
It has been my experience that when your side breaks the rules/laws it isn't nearly as bad as when the other side does the same thing. - reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Today Condi is denying that she was warned from Tenant and Black during this meeting.
So, let's see...
So far, according to Condi Rice:
Richard Clarke is lying
George Tenant is lying
Cofer Black is lying
Bill Clinton is lying
All of these people say they left strategies, issued warnings, sounded alarm bells.
Condi Rice says they're all lying.
All of them: Ronald Reagan's hand picked counter terrorism chief (Clarke), the former head of the CIA (Tenant), the former head of counter-terrorism for the CIA (Black), and a former President of the United States of America (Clinton).
All lying.
Why does Condi get such a "pass" from everyone? Is it because she's black and the MSM doesn't want to "go there"? Is it because she's a woman (GOP has no problem issuing the most hateful attacks on US Senator HR Clinton)? What!? Why?!
This woman, Rice, was asleep at the switch on 9/11, is a chief architect of the bungle in Iraq, and is now accusing top former gov't officials of lying just to cover her ass.
This woman is sick. Her mind: Condi first, America second. That's sick. - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And who gets to decide who the "terrorists" are? Do you not get it at all? Don't you see why this a concern? What if you were accused of being a terrorist? Would you want the ability to defend yourself? Nah, you're a terrorist, you don't deserve that right!
Idiot. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course I could defend myself, you "idiot".
- BruceDeuce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's the difference. Tomorrow's headline could be "Bush burns down orphanage and eats children" and the Republican controlled legislature and coward democrats would still do nothing. They'll let this guy get away with murder.(in fact they already have.)
- Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No, headzoo, you are wrong.
There are plenty of things that were kept concealed by the 9-11 commission. The point is...none of it matters now. We are in a different place now. It is 2006. Come into the Now and realize the threat is from WITHOUT, not from within. And be a part of the solution. not the problem. A bunch of whining about this is pointless. - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"...look guilty?"
- escheriv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree completely about the source. It looks bad, and many people will see the URL and not bother with the story. Why link to an obviously slanted site when you can get the same facts reported elsewhere without the appearance of bias?
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Not for having a woman under his desk.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm still pissed at LBJ. And I wasn't even alive! I actually believe he staged the attack of the US Liberty and I blame him for not pulling out of Vietnam.
On the other hand, he had the balls to resign without being impeached or going to election. I can admire that. If Bush had simply walked away once his approval ratings hit the 20's, I would have applauded him. - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Well, kid- its mainly because the people who run "Think Progress" are trying to make you smarter, and Michael Savage is trying to make you stupid, biggoted and fearful.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's a dog eat dog world out there, kid.
- Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think if you attack this country, you should lose your rights. We are talking about human lives here. I don't care about Terrorists rights.
- NecoDivad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Why was I dugg down to a -5 for saying that it discredits whatever truth might be in the story to use a source like Think Progress? I'm seriously quite interested. No one posted a reply to me addressing it, but apparently 6 people didn't like what I said.
- palindrome12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Because this where all the dailykos kiddies come when they get bored of that website.
- Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This is so ridiculous. It is 2006. MOVE ON. Nothing you do or say here makes one bit of difference, not to Rice, not to Bush, nobody. Move On.
- DAaaMan64, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1And why do you think that is? Probably because most of the population are the accused sheep, the another portion of the people are the sheep that are the accusers(the ones that totally hump this kind news' leg). Then there are the pigs pumping this material out to get the sheep accusers accusing the accused of being sheep. All while the dogs commit actions then post most likely sketchy information for the pigs to pass back out.
ANIMALS all of you. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Someone paste in the text of the whole book or no digg!
Too bad with a book like this he's probably preaching to the choir - if he had sprung this in a FOX news interview or something it probably would have crossed more partisan barriers. Still, always good to hear stuff like this. -
Show 51 - 62 of 62 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