What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
248 Comments
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -18/+178he got it backwards, we are the occupying force this time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+158I can totally see how us bombing them, executing their leader, shipping them off to concentration camps, and giving their oil to private companies owned by the Bush administration is somehow "protecting our freedom". Honestly, for the sake of America and for the sake of the free world, that man needs to be ***** shot.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -17/+142Yeah, for his analogy to hold the US troops should be wearing red coats.
- rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+99WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - maize, on 10/12/2007, -11/+89This is an insult to the War of Independence. G. Washington must be turning in his grave.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+90Bush is completely insane. His administration has done more to limit our liberties than any foreign power could ever dream of doing. He also seems to forget that our FF despised a standing army and were completely against getting involved in overseas conflicts.
He's just following the Joseph Goebbels playbook. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
What amazes me most is how many people believe his garbage. - kooft, on 10/12/2007, -13/+79"...we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone," Bush said.
By linking the 'War on Terror' with American independence and the exportation of freedom, Bush is clearly highlighting the hyprocisy of his foreign policy. Sure, I would support America freeing oppressed peoples throughout the world, but I believe there should be a proper order to things. Take the people in Darfur, they desperately need freeing from oppression. If Bush waits any longer there won't be anyone left to free.
The people of Iraq needed freeing when Saddam was gassing them in '88, instead America chose to ignore these horrendous acts. The people of Iraq needed liberation after the first Gulf War when Saddam was brutally putting down a Shia rebellion in the south, instead America sat by and watched. Sure, America was being run by different administrations during these events, but Darfur is happening _right_now_ and what is the Bush administration doing to stop the genocide? Threatening to invade Iran? Bravo. - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+71What a ***** idiot
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+61i don't know who this franklin fellow is, but he sounds like one of those america-hating liberals.
- sula21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+53"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Franklin - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+56Bush is running out of war analogies. Vietnam War..nope, World War 2...nope, Mexican-American War...nope. American Civil War...hmmmm
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Quite ironic that Bush would essentially make the argument that the U.S. Constitution is a universal document, when his entire homeland security policy is built around the systematic denial of constitutional rights to non-Americans. There are arguments to be made in support of the latter position, and no doubt someone below will make one, but a position in favor of denying habeas corpus rights to arbitrary enemy combatants is not compatible with the position that the U.S. Constitution embodies universal rights.
- melvs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Anyone else not think that the Iraq war is really 'defending our way of life' or 'preserving our liberties'? I personally have seen my liberties decrease directly due to this war, as well as my way of life becoming worse, again, directly due to this war. Why the hell is this admin allowed to so blatantly ***** us all over without anyone really doing anything about it?
- orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@Tkstock - if someone decides you are troublesome, they can name you as an Enemy Combatant and throw you in the clink without so much as a single criminal charge. The Administration decided to change the definition used in the Geneva Conventions under "enemy combatant" and use their own definition in defiance of the international law body that created the Conventions in the first place.
They also have suspended the right to your writ of haebeus corpus in these instances - that means citizens and non-citizens can be tried in secret courts, have evidence brought against them without ever seeing it, and all the other advances of the legal system that we have developed since the Romans. You cannot challenge your combatant status in a court, you cannot get a lawyer if they say no, and you can be held indefinitely. Is that enough for you?
But wait, there's more. They've also decided that these laws cannot be challenged by the usual groups in our system of checks and balances. You know - Congress and the Supreme Court? Bush decided that the Executive's powers be expanded until he says so. So who oversees that? He decided to remove FISA oversight on wiretapping, so if something happened to you, nobody would ever know that a tap was placed on your line other than the people abusing it. No judge or panel would see the reason why someone decided to tap you.
In 1984 terms, this is the equivalent of Parson's children calling Winston a thought criminal, and him going to prison just on the basis of the accusation, without a whiff of proof or evidence.
Is that enough for you? Probably not. - eriksanerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I don't understand this argument. Basically the "People have died in war to give you the freedom to speak against this war, so you shouldn't speak against this war" defense.
Part of the reason these people died is so WE CAN speak out when the government does something wrong, such as the blatant corruption within the war in Iraq. It is an insult to those who have died to preserve freedom in wars such as WW1 and 2, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary war to say we shouldn't speak out against something we believe (and we're not alone, considering Bush's approval rating falls around 30%) to be wrong.
Indeed, the best way to thank them for the freedom they have given us is to not allow corruption such as this to go unchecked. - haggie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+36We invaded the West and slaughtered the natives in the name of peace and democracy but really to promote U.S. business interests. We invaded Iraq and slaughter the natives in the name of peace and democracy, but really to promote U.S. business interests.
If we're being accurate, Iraq is more like the U.S. expansion in the West than the Revolutionary War. - marillion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I want a bumper sticker that says, "George Washington was an Insurgent"
- technogenius, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27bush doubleunsad about nonpeace in eurasia
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@mier
That's probably why I said IRAN and not IRAQ. I know, those crazy brown people and their stick huts and dirt homes are all the same to you, but you might want to learn basic reading comprehension. I'm well aware of the fact that Saddam wasn't democratically elected, the ***** US installed, armed, and funded him too. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Me personally? You mean beyond airport security measures that would have done NOTHING to stop the 9/11 attacks? I can't say I've experienced too many myself, but then again, I haven't tried to attend a political event and been interrogated for my bumper sticker:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/29/103234/490
Worn an anti-war t-shirt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2824075.stm
Or had my baby put on a "no-fly" list:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10360258
These are just a few examples of what's going on in this country now. Of course, the many other things that the government considers itself free to do (read my e-mail, tap my phones, subpoena what books I check out of a library) could have happened to me, but thanks to gag laws, nobody could tell me this information was gathered without facing trial. - mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Wasn't the Revolution when the most powerful military in the world was defeated by a band of rebellious militia?
Nice analogy there, Georgy boy. - mchlnesbit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30I'm just waiting for Bush to start calling Democrats "Copperheads"...
- eriksanerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@tkstock
"You habeas corpus has been stripped from you? You've been illegally imprisoned? How are you writing this if this is the case?"
By your logic, since you haven't been killed by a terrorist, terrorism MUST not be a threat. After all, unless something has affected you, it can not do so.
The fact is, removing these rights allows for unprecedented power for a president. Take for example, my father. He is not a US citizen, yet has been a resident for over 20 years. He has no right to Habeas Corpus now. So, basically, if any sort of terrorist (or potential terrorist) is found in any way related to him (say, a friend of a person he worked with), they could just lock him up in Guantanamo with no charges indefinetly, just by slapping the label "enemy combatant" on him (a term with no real definition given).
And that's assuming they WERE to look for motivation. They could just as easily lock him up and anyone else up for the hell of it. The first step towards corrupt leadership is ALLOWING for corruption, which this does to an unprecedented extent. - oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34Actually, he's hit a lot closer to the mark than you give him credit for:
The american revolution was caused by a bunch of crazy paranoid colonists who thought the "tyrannical personal rule" of George III was trying to steal away their liberty, that there was an anti-liberty conspiracy out to get them even though George the III was basically a whig (liberal) who had no desire for personal rule beyond what was constitutionally given him; England was a constitutional monarchy and was the most liberal european state.
The war on terror is being fought by a bunch of crazy paranoid colonists who think there is a muslim conspiracy to steal away our liberty. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I want to personally thank every ***** in America who voted to re-elect this clown.
/sarcasm - WickedDrag0oN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21I am tired of trying to "advance the cause of freedom around the world." I want to advance the cause of freedom around my country now.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If you haven't read 1984.. which is frightening in it's own 1984-esque way, you really, really should. Here's one of many online editions: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
don't like that one just google another.
If you haven't read it since high school I definitely recommend re-reading it. I thought I would be unimpressed when I re-read it, but instead found that it was much more frighteningly brilliant than I gave it credit it for when I was younger.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." - OUberLord, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21You mean other than public transportation issues due to more strict and wholly worthless security checkpoints? Living in a world where most sane countries are starting to alienate us if not wholly hate us? Utterly destroying the values of democracy and personal freedoms via the president giving himself the ability to create his own laws at will and giving law enforcement the ability to tap communications without a warrant nor just cause? The attack on habeas corpus? The arresting of citizens under terrorist pretenses when their actions we're obviously not? The ability to send both US citizens and foreigners to secret holding facilities both here and abroad for no reason, no limit, and regardless of either innocence or guilt? A foreign policy that more resembles that of Genghis Khan than the leader of a powerful democratic nation? The utter and complete lack of support for Hurricane Katrina victims even though they knew the storm was going to make landfall days in advance?
And those are only the reasons off the top of my head. Until we get an administration that has a clue on what exactly it is they are in charge of doing and pulls this country out of the hellhole Bush and Co. put it in, I refuse to fly or wave a flag. Somber display maybe, but I take no pride whatsoever in the direction this country has been hijacked toward. - terrrrrible, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Yeah, because Iraq's intentions for this war are to take over the US... oh wait.
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@tkstock
"Ok, everyone is digging me down without answering my question - how have your liberties decreased?"
err how about... My rights to habeas corpus have been stripped from me... for one.
I hope your curiosity has been satiated - what are you going to do now? - MixMastaKooz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Actually, Spanish-American War: fostered by crappy, Yellow Journalism and taking over vast swaths of land (Cuba and Philippines) all for a shoddy "triggering event:" remember the Maine!!
(But as someone with a master's in history, I hate these comparisons...but they're fun. But seriously, the S-A War is fascinating when viewed from times like ours). - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Das, sorry if you are tired of the quoting. It is appropriate to quote Franklin and Orwell, as they were the free-thinkers who helped give conscious thought and a body of work that supports humanism and common sense thinking. The times that we live in constantly call on our resources to defend humanism and exhibit common sense in the face of fear, hatred, and blind faith.
- Coven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@pintomp
it must have been all that time he spent over in France... - razor150, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I guess he figured that comparing himself to Roosevelt and Lincoln wasn't working so why not try Washington now? The only problem is Washington believed that the Congress should run the country, not the President. Washington would never support Bush and his lust for presidential power. I think in general Washington would be disappointed in the state of our country.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The Patriot Act is a HUGE answer to your question. Capps and it's successors. Any of the other gov't DB mining projects that have ZERO chance of ever finding a terrorist, but can catalogue what American citizens are doing. Warrantless tapping of phone lines.
- Destroytoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16This is more like the Battle of the Bulge. Hundreds of thousands needlessly killed, and nobody wins when it's all over.
- OUberLord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13""Utterly destroying the values of democracy and personal freedoms via the president giving himself the ability to create his own laws at will and giving law enforcement the ability to tap communications without a warrant nor just cause?" What laws has the president created that are in place that violate our liberties? Examples please. He may be tapping phones without warrants, but if you think it's without cause, you're naive."
Its a roundabout path, but the fact that "previously" the President couldn't just make his own laws was one of the big separations between a democracy and a dictatorship. It's a direct blow to democracy and the liberties and freedoms granted by such. He hasn't yet made extreme use of this new ability, but it has been used.
I may be naive, sure, but if you agree with letting the government tap communications at will and without cause while asking us how our liberties are being violated frankly you're an idiot as the two are mutually exclusive.
""The attack on habeas corpus?" Not sure about this one - need more specifics please. Who's attacking habeas corpus? How? More examples needed."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
""The arresting of citizens under terrorist pretenses when their actions we're obviously not?" What examples do you have of this? Are they just arbitrarily arresting people without reason?"
No, but look at the latest news in Boston about the "terrorist". Two college students helped out in a viral marketing campaign promoting a cartoon using electronic displays set up in various big cities. Most people saw it for what it was worth, and there were a few calls of strange devices in Boston by concerned residents. Given that it wasn't trespassing as the devices were set up in public places, rather than receive a fine for defacing public property or something fitting the crime (albeit a relatively small one) both were arrested as terrorists and detained.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/
"you think they'd spend money to hide someone away without reason?"
Ok this is one I don't have a link for, but there was recently two stories that I read on this. One was the story of a US man who was boarding an international flight leaving the US and was detained, then sent to and held in a facility in Saudi Arabia for over 9 months. During this he was not allowed to contact the outside world, his lawyer, his family, etc. In the other story it was more or less the same except the person in question died in custody. These people ended up both being innocent, and at no point were either of them told why they were being held.
As for the rest of my points, you're right about them not being about liberty, so that's on me. I do however hold our liberties and our nations pride close together in my mind and when you violate the first you violate the latter. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@tkstock
"You habeas corpus has been stripped from you? You've been illegally imprisoned? How are you writing this if this is the case?"
When you asked for an example - I made the mistake of thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. I see that I was wrong and you are just a troll.
For many years I have had the right to habeas corpus, several months ago this right was stripped from me (and all other legal immigrants).
Oh, what, now I hear your little tiny brain say - "but you're just a legal immigrant, you doen't count" - Calann, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17In other words, we are fighting for our right to oppress other countries. We are fighting for the liberty to decide what form of government other countries have.
Saddam is dead, there were no WMD, there was no link to 9/11, the aluminum tubes and yellow-cake and mobile weapons labs all turned out to be lies.
The only similarity this has to the Revolutionary war is that Iraqis are fighting for their independence and we are trying to occupy their country. - Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Bush is becoming increasingly desparate and ridiculous. It warms my heart that so many people see through his cynical manipulations now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@ks11bravo
I guess it was "spreading democracy" when we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed a dictator right? The world sure looks back on that day as the day that America made the world a better place by making that country a "leader" in that "*****". It's not a democracy if you're telling them they have the right to either choose what you want or choose concentration camps. That's called Fascism. - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@tkstock - those are the IngSoc slogans from the book 1984 by George Orwell. Go home and read pretty much anything he ever wrote for an accurate set of predictions of what totalitarian and other like-minded societies would bring about.
- Kob9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Please revisit high school history for the actual causes of the revolutionary war...Anyone else disgusted at what the term "freedom" has turned into?
- techweenie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Nothing like actively giving away the rights countless Americans died to preserve while claiming our troops are 'fighting for our freedom.'
Sad that anyone still believes that guy. - roprot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15What about this for a theory: George W. Bush and his gang are actually The Invaders whose determination to destroy America is matched only in scope and depth by America's ignorance of the fact that it is, in fact, being destroyed, willingly and definitively, from the inside.
Fact is, they're doing it. These people are not patriots, they are not working for the greater good for the American nation, and they are definitely not pro-America. Or else they wouldn't be screwing things up for this once-great nation as much as they have ..
I mean, a nation as great militarily as the U.S. once was can only be brought to its knees effectively through one mechanism: infiltration. - Clerg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@janne1
George W. Bush has never captured more than 49% of the electorate in either election. The first one was decided by the Supreme Court which is stacked with Regan appointees. The second was controlled in Ohio where his campaign manager was also president of the company that made the voting machines used in the election. then they staked republican precincts with tons of these "voting" machines and put so few in blue collar working class precincts that people waited 8+ hours to vote.
If you go by approval ratings I guess he had a majority of Americans supporting him at the beginning of the Iraq war but as his rationale for the war changed and changed again, people began to see through the web of lies that he was putting forth and his approval rating sank like a stone. He now sits in the low to mid thirties which is very disturbing when you realize that there are that many people in America who are blind to the reality of the malfeasance, lies and corruption of the Bush administration.
Bush has never represented the majority of Americans just the deluded ones with the most money and power. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Pretty simple to see how Bush tries to tie an event most Americans stand united behind and value highly in order to gain support for his own looney acts.
It's so transparent that it becomes kind of embarrasing to watch. - bigjoeportagee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13its depressing to know that in the end his regime was the most powerful in the world for about a 1/3 of my life. I wonder how many people were born and died in iraq during his time as president, there entire lives and death were in the hands of Bush. What a *****.
Even the most ardent bush supporter, how could you possibly defend him? Seriously I am interested, defend him without using the cliches, 911, country at war, support are troops, and patriotism, we all know those are all hollow sentiments, just someone for once please give an intelligent reason why this man should not be impeached, i would actually feel better about this whole thing if there was one example of good that came out during this time in our lives, it would make it seem less senseless, - spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@tkstock go look it up for yourself and quit being a *****, and always claiming ignorance.
and oh wow, like it wasnt totally obvious that you were a government employee already. - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Erik, what sucks even more is that NOW you can be labeled a combatant as well! Even as a citizen, the new law passed specifically removed that protection being labeled. If you can stomach the legislative-speak, it is clearly defined in there. The big stink (which wasn't so crazy) was the changing of the Geneva definition as America saw & interpreted it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is