What is Digg?604 Comments
- anybeing, on 10/23/2007, -53/+314Is there no end to what this administration is willing to trample on? And to make matters worse, why aren't any of our representatives standing up for us in congress?
"after the enactment of this new law there has been no protest by any of the other political leaders in the United States, with the exception of the only Muslim member of the United States Congress, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison" - QWE2323, on 10/10/2007, -33/+210how is this accurate at all?
- tomboy501, on 10/11/2007, -40/+189How far the government will take this against U.S. citizens is the scary thought.
Specifically, the Executive Order as written states that the U.S. gov't will block (seize) 'property and interests in property' from persons - (quoting from Bush's EO) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
"(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people..."
Actually, just on those first two items alone, I think Bush (Iraq's greatest de-stabilizer/underminer) should be seizing his own property....immediately. - implied, on 10/10/2007, -13/+106And why are we trusting Russian legal experts?
- SeaMowse, on 10/10/2007, -46/+131What a DICKtator. Honest to God... what's next? Our civil liberties have been violated under this administration. Our freedom is being raped by this tyrant.
- Zarokima, on 10/10/2007, -12/+89I think the real question is how long are Americans willing to let the administration trample on us.
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/10/2007, -6/+71I don't think there is a breaking point, be be quite honest. If we haven't hit it now, I doubt it even exist.
- Kurisuku, on 10/10/2007, -6/+71There is no breaking point, because the american public is too lazy, passive, and complacent. People get made fun of for being anti-establishment, conformism is totally "in", and anything else is "gay hippie *****." The government has molded america into exactly what they wanted: Fashionable consumers who genuinely think it's uncool to question authorities. I even see it on digg, the attitudes of many of the users here are very surprising. Digg really has disassociated from it's geeky rebellious roots.
- QWE2323, on 10/10/2007, -42/+99"According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war."
lol wut?
This executive order applies to Iraq, not the US. This story (and all the others likes it) are BS. It's not a good thing, but the sky isn't falling. - tjdoom, on 10/10/2007, -7/+60This is the tenth time it's made it to the front page.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -21/+68Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky -- Global Research, July 20, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377
“The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.” - Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -42/+81This is NOT accurate. Not only that, it's a FOREIGN news source. This executive order acts on people who are ACTIVELY DISRUPTING war efforts. I.E. staging acts of domestic terrorism, violence or otherwise. This does NOT BAN PROTESTING.
***BURY THIS FOR INACCURACY*** - maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -4/+42I don't think Congress members actually read legislation anymore. I'm pretty sure they just take their payoff and vote for it, meanwhile saying screw my constituants.
- juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -26/+63There is no one less patriotic than our president.
- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35That is true, but this is not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, as outlined by the Constitution. This is an imperial decree.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -34/+64Bury as inaccurate please, there are enough legitimate grievances against the Bush regime that its not necessary to invent new ones.
- Mullinator, on 10/10/2007, -12/+40I love it when such innacurate articles get dugg up like this. Good way to see who actually reads or understands what is actually going on in the world. I also hate them of course since it also lets me see something I would rather not know. That so many people are so out of touch with reality.
Bush may be bad, but don't make the legitimate fights against him look bad by promoting this crap. - miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28Luckily, I can still protest here in Canada. Anyone wanna join me?
- Trickybunny, on 10/10/2007, -19/+43What scares me most about this is that so many diggers are taking this seriously? I would like to think that we are more educated lot, able to read, understand and sort out the rabble of the rabbles from what actually is. READ THE DOCUMENT!!!! It's talking about terrorism and Iraq.
Secondly, I am tired of seeing this on the front page - isnt this like 4th day in a row? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -23/+47Get ready...these guys are about to move against the American people.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Seriously... Canada (or America for that matter.. given that it's an American issue) doesn't have good enough legal scholars that it needs to report on Russian opinion?
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Sorry, it is now illegal to express our voices.
- r0b1, on 10/10/2007, -37/+59Um, no. It's not what you think it means. Buried as inaccurate.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24Seems to me that Bush is just paving the way for the next guy rather then doing it for himself, I wounder if America will get another member of the Skull & Bones society, probably one that pretends to be liberal to lessen the effect of the Bush backlash. Enjoy the shadow government everyone :)
- CharlesMay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24I couldn't agree more. It even trickles all the way down to people being afraid to question the police because of being slapped with some obscure violation.
- r2rma, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30...and in other related news, speed limits have outlawed the rights of all car owners to drive cars on public roads!! This crap is getting really really OLD!
If you want to inform people of something, try something that's true, we're not stupid, we do know the difference! - ckhw2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Read the link that tomboy501 posted above -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
It's not as bad as usual law jargon. You should be able to spot the loopholes that allows a person to be charged with disrupting the government's version of "efforts" in Iraq...
For instance -
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
...
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq... - ckhw2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22"against U.S. citizens" ?
Not counting the troops, I think the US citizens are the least trampled upon... You have to understand that today, every citizen of world worries about what the Americans are going to do next. Thats the reality of unipolar world politics. - ziffel, on 10/10/2007, -16/+34People, stop digging this, you're making digg look retarded. Read the subject line again. When we start seeing people arrested for protesting the war, THEN we can have a story with this subject line.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -39/+55Yeah right. This is total *****. Even the evil Cheney couldn't do something like this. Inaccurate as all hell. Shouldn't be on the digg main page.
http://www.dpodgor.net - jakkyl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Yeah sure.....Russian legal experts would of course be better versed in American Law policies and interpretations.....(Here's your sign.....)
- Pixelpaws, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23It's not, but it makes for a lovely scare. Even if you take the Executive Order as written, it only says that those who are a direct threat to the stability in Iraq are at risk of having their possessions seized. Protest is not going to threaten stability; I dare say that the soldiers and various terrorist groups are the biggest threat.
- pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Every American should swarm the streets of the town they live in and protest. The constitution gives us the RIGHT TO REVOLT. So long as it is due to loss of freedom given by the Constitution.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Well, at least I know that, as a Minnesotan, we voted correctly with Ellison... shame that I don't have much else to feel glad for with this...
- swizzcheez, on 10/10/2007, -12/+26How many dupes must a man digg down before you can call it said and done?
- Sephrra, on 10/10/2007, -18/+32I just gets worse EVERY TIME I READ IT.
- apeweek, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25Read the order for yourself:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
It refers to United States citizens, not iraqis. - bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -21/+35Yet again, the same ***** story appears on Digg.
Knock it off, wingnuts. - BaoUnit, on 10/10/2007, -34/+48Bush, you suck!
- mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17theres also alot of neocon TROLLS
- gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13If they can scare you into inaction so easily you don't deserve your stuff.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Can't someone organize something to express our voices? I really think we need to go to the White House to demonstrate because this IS getting too far
- nwoantibody, on 10/10/2007, -10/+22It should make the front page until the traitor is in jail.
- palantir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Since when does our court system work in a couple of weeks?
- archiesteel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Protesting on behalf of Al-Qaida (though asinine) is protected by the fifth amendment.
The wording of the order is dangerously vague. People are right to be concerned - unless they're tools, that is. - chipper202, on 10/10/2007, -20/+31Oh, come on *****... we all hate Bush - but really - get a life, dude... the EO you're speaking of does not outlaw protests... UGH... the only thing worse that G.W. Bush are freaks that thrive on misinformation.
- bentman78, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Buried as hyperbole. Our 1st Amendment rights are under more threat from the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.
Plus, Indymedia isn't known for it's accuracy. - GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11What exactly do you suggest people do?
- apeweek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15The problem is that the order is too broad - no definitions are given. And no due process is in place. This is something which has been designed to be abused. Read it for yourself.
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11What you say is so true. But there is another problem. I come across articles and blogs everyday with people writing "enough is enough! I am outraged" but never come out from under their computers to actually do anything. I realize the pen is mightier than the sword, but this pussyfooting around is just not enough during these insane times when your very rights and freedoms are being taken away. It is important to voice your opinion, but it certainly not enough.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 588 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is