What is Digg?81 Comments
- CkMaverick, on 01/19/2008, -2/+25Do you really think it will be behind us? Regardless of who wins, do you think that they will give us all the freedoms that were taken from us during the Bush regime? All but 2 of the candidates of both Democrat and Republican want to stay in Iraq and be more aggressive with Iran. Even if someone like Ron Paul won, getting things passed in Congress to return back to our Constitution will be very unlikely. The presidency is only all powerful as long as Congress wills it (which they almost always do to save face) but when someone like Paul or Kucinich who is deemed radicals by many of their fellow political colleagues start imposing radical change in the opposite direction they will just stop it.
I mean there is no difference between parties when it comes to the war... One side is telling us to stay as long as needed, the other side is telling us that we should come home eventually. The both mean the same damned thing, the Democrats will never set an exact date. Seriously. Does anyone really believe all torture will cease and stop when a new President is elected? It will just move underground more, but the government will keep on chugging just the same as it always has. The currency will stay in decline, the recession is still imminent, the country will stay entangled in war over resources, social security will give out, health care will still decline.
Do you think anything ANY of the candidates have said is new and unheard of? Do you think their health care plans and stances are representative of change? All of these stances have been supported before and run on before. Why are we so shortsighted that we keep feeding on the term 'change' and wind up with the same old ***** everytime? People need to get off the popularity, beauty pageant, word flipping bandwagon and think for themselves, not what the media wants them to and also seriously analyze what these people are truly saying. And do so outside the debates, but their histories, etc... I mean most of the morons in this country watch a candidate speak in 1 minute pieces for like 10 minutes total at some of these debates and instantly throw themselves on a bandwagon knowing ***** nothing. Anyone can say "hey I want everyone to have free health care and to try and bring our troops home as soon as possible" and then throw a bill out there that doesn't really give free health care but does pay for minimal checkups etc, watch it get rejected, and say "hey I tried... and I will still support it in the future" and just go on their merry way; or ride out the war throughout their term and just say "Yeah I regretted not bringing home our troops, but the conflict there really didn't allow it" and thats that.
College or some serious economic/constitution/government test should be required to vote because most people have no clue about our economy, government, or constitution when they show up to these polls and vote for whoever's 60 second soundbyte sounded best to them to run our country. Congress is chalk full of the same idiots that allowed Bush to do everything he has done and most Presidents of our future will be continuously picked from the SAME POOL OF MORONS that are up for their turn at bat. If people truly wanted change, they would get a new batch of people in the seats below the White House because thats where the people in the White House come from in the first place. - dinostabOMG, on 01/19/2008, -5/+20FTA: The United States has lost so much of its credibility and prestige on the world stage because of its heavy-handed interrogation tactics that President Bush's insistence that US interrogators don't torture holds as much water as "Iran denying it has a nuclear weapons program," a retired Navy lawyer says.
What! Even US intelligence admits Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. That's right, we're less credible than Iran, hooray for us. - pehpsi, on 01/19/2008, -2/+16That guy hit the nail on the head. Well spoken.
And yes, Catherine Bell can also spank the ***** out of me.. - neilschelly, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12I haven't moved passed it. I'll move past it when we stop torturing and apologize for it. I'm optimistic I guess.
It's not like RawStory put the story here. They put it on their site and enough people Dugg it to bring it here. That means that other Digg users are also not over it. Why would you bother posting to a site when you clearly have no idea how this site even works?
-N - Talena, on 01/19/2008, -0/+10Canada just lacks the balls to say what is really going on, the whole world knows America tortures, and i'm not talking about forced nudity
- evilpoptart, on 01/19/2008, -2/+11i just cant wait for this era to be behind us this november.
- Manchowder, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8Charles Swift is a patriot of the highest order. He makes me want to join JAG.
- ukgbnott, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8The thing I get out of this article, being a British ex-pat in the US, is that everything has to be politically correct here - seems to be no straight talkers in politics. I think US politicians should grow some balls and take a lesson from the Polish government who last year voted to dissolve itself when they couldn't operate properly because of wiretapping allegations... *cough* *cough*
- dianebl, on 01/19/2008, -1/+9Seeing as how the military and Bush keep having to deny that torture takes place, and that Congress keeps looking into it, I doubt Americans have "moved on".
And they really shouldn't either - it's funny how other countries are evil for torturing prisoners, but once the US does it, it's OK for them to do it. - EvilDr.X, on 01/19/2008, -0/+7Good post, it's what I've been preaching to my friends and family for a while now, to no avail. Kind of depressing, really.
By the way, it's "chock full". - EvilDr.X, on 01/19/2008, -0/+7OK, so Benjamin Harrison's blood was more royal than Grover Cleveland's in 1889, but not in 1893? What happened there?
- nullcodes, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6Many people who claim their country doesn't torture are the ones who actually believe that it is OK to torture. So basically, their argument is "we don't torture, stop accusing. But torture is OK anyway and we should". Also, these people are quick to condemn other countries who torture, right after saying that it is ok for possibly innocent (ie, pre-trial or review) citizens of that country to get tortured and/or killed "for the greater good" without any proof of guilt.
- rehwaldt, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6Hear, Hear, We need a radical change to turn this country around. I'm not sure what it will take because most Americans have not yet really suffered. Perhaps that will initiate the next major political change, suffering.
The Great Depression is not that far behind us historically, but most Americans are not aware of how bad things can be. If we have a total collapse of our monetary system and another depression occurs, then maybe the American people will wake up and realize that they have been played for fools. - DontGiveADamn, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6I have lost faith in democracy. What good is having the people elect their leaders if the people are idiots. The average American is an idiot and is not qualified to select the dog catcher.
- inactive, on 01/19/2008, -1/+6I find it ironic that your name means prehistoric creature on the internet and then you make that comment.
- Talena, on 01/19/2008, -1/+6Every one who has "moved on" is blind, and should be send back to Germany 1935
- zerobackup, on 01/19/2008, -1/+6Cute, but also horrible.
- gernblansted, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5Iran: supporter of torture. Syria: supporter of torture. Egypt: supporter of torture. China: supporter of torture. You: supporter of torture.
Nice company you keep there. - gernblansted, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5You move on past being a nation of torture like you move on past a ball and chain attached to your leg. You may not see it, but it will drag behind you and hinder you and it will never ever go away, no matter what you choose to believe. This is not over, it has just started.
- SzaszMan, on 01/19/2008, -1/+6Maybe we should torture diplomats, huh?
- buckrogers1965, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3We have an international agreement as to what constitutes torture. It has been agree to for decades and has been used to hang people from the neck until they were dead after having been found guilty of the tortures prescribed by the agreement, it is called "the Geneva Convention."
This is what society has agreed is torture. Nearly every country on earth, with every major country included, has signed this document, making it the law of the land in their countries.
Every society on earth agrees what torture is.
# (Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
# (Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
# (Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
# (Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
# (Article 72): "Prisoners of war shall be allowed to receive ... books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities."
# (Article 88): "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank."
You are not even allowed insult or to make a prisoner of war uncomfortable and they are expected to be allowed to pursue their own sports and culture.
Violation of the Geneva Convention is punishable by death. Don't expect to see any of the current administration doing much travel in europe for the next few decades because all Geneva Convention signers have also agreed to prosecute violators if they come inside their territory. - rehwaldt, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5Steve,
I agree with you somewhat. Obviously what constitutes torture in one society is child's play in another. There are several issues in my mind. One: Torture is wrong and not acceptable to our way of life in our society in any shape or form. The problem with comparing water-boarding with cattle prods up the rectum is that it is a slippery slope that individuals cannot control.
I was a member of the U.S. Army and without disparaging anyone too much. I will just say that when you have a lot of young, uneducated or undereducated soldiers with a command structure waving the red, white and blue, sometimes decisions are made by individuals that exceed the Army Training Manual. That is why we as a society need to follow the Geneva conventions against torture, because soldiers throughout the world need to have clear guidelines what is allowed and not allowed in the treatment of enemy prisoners.
I believe that Americans want to take the high road regarding the issue of torture. What bothers me and other patriotic Americans that have served their country is that these policies are being promoted by individuals that either deferred serving our country- Cheney, or utilized their political connections to fly around as a hobby - George Bush. I would like them to experience the hardships that they have approved for others and then tell me that is not torture.
Of course men like these have no honor and the decisions they have made have been for their own political and business interests. I think that if you look to men with honor that have served, such as Colin Powell, for guidance on the issue of torture you will see that torture in any capacity is still torture. If we resort to those techniques then we are no better than others that torture. - Polymathic, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4Yes. "HOLY *****!" is a most apt response. Most of the time, people who hear that FACT will just run away scared - or here, they hit the Digg down button without even bothering to check to see if this "ridiculous" claim is the truth. They do this because they know deep down there is NO VIABLE counter-argument to this statistic, and if it is correct (which it most assuredly is), then it is absolute, verifiable, statistical PROOF - as blatant as black and white - that America is NOT what you think it is, or what you want to think it is. Again, there is a stark difference between skeptical challenges and total denial in the face of the truth. Those Digging down are simply proof of that sad human trait running rampant here.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Well, to be fair the founding fathers only wanted land owners to be voters. That would probably narrow the field a bit.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2All the media selected "front runners" are 100% planning to continue all of bushes policies. That goes for all the neocon candidates in both the republicans and democratic parties.
- inactive, on 01/19/2008, -8/+10"The United States has lost so much of its credibility and prestige on the world stage because of its heavy-handed interrogation tactics"
That's the funniest thing I've read today. The United States lost its credibility about 50-60 years ago. - AubieTurtle, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3I wonder how long before Lt.Commander Swift gets swift boated.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Torture is wrong.
Torture also doesn't work.
By saying that torture is OK, you are saying that it is OK to torture our own soldiers.
People that support torture may as well be torturing our own soldiers personally. - Archer007, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2We just need politicians who will do the right thing.
- loki440, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Here's an excerpt from one of the articles you linked to:
British researchers are predicting that Kerry will oust Bush because he has MORE royal blood than the president! Sixteen years later according to Mr. Brooks-Baker, "Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president." It states, Kerry is "related to all the royal houses of Europe and can claim kinship with Tsar Ivan "The Terrible", a previous Emperor of Byzantium and the Shahs of Persia."
"Because of the fact that every presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has always won the November presidential election, the coming election - based on 42 previous presidents - will go to John Kerry."
Gosh Polymathic, your own citations don't back up your argument. Some truth. Now can I go ahead and digg you down? - keloyd, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3Do a GIS on "physical persuasion" that has been standard operating procedure in Israel for decades, then tell me only the US parses torture.
We always have and always will torture, at least in narrow and discrete circumstances, because it works. Most civilizations cover it in some thin sheen of respecatability with euphamisms. Dozens of empires, every civilization has committed torture. You can disapprove all you like; you can wish it weren't so; but please be honest about the big picture.
Otherwise, you are like that little dirty Frenchman in Casa Blanca who is shocked, SHOCKED to discover that there is gambling in Clark Gable's establishment. - linuxpenguin, on 01/20/2008, -1/+2You really should turn your brain on before you write a comment. What ElAssoWipo is referring to is the fact that you used failed logic to come up with your argument. Come on, he even gave you a link to an explanation of your fallacy.
- linuxpenguin, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1The only question is. . . who looks up the candidates' lineage before choosing them as a candidate?
You may be right but you proved nothing. That's an analysis that was made after-the-fact - as in it's not how the President is chosen. - AaronSaund, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Gravel wants out of Iraq too...that's three, not two candidates.
- keloyd, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1Do not pretend to be offended. This article is one of many that exploit and spin certain eternal truths. If every president since FDR has countenanced limited torture, and then reporters only get all agitated when administrations they don't like are in power, then ignore the issue at other times, you should be offended at being played for a chump.
My point addressed the selective choice of facts rather than torture itself.
We do not get to choose the extent to which our government agents take the gloves off in rough parts of the world any more than the ant you step on by accident wishes you hadn't left the house.
You show me a country that doesn't get its hands dirty, and I will show you a country who is under the protection, or under the thumb, of a country that does, whether we like it or not. - purag66, on 05/13/2009, -0/+1I think the last American president with a pair of balls was Teddy.
- AvangionQ, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1"The United States has lost so much of its credibility and prestige on the world stage because of its heavy-handed interrogation tactics that President Bush's insistence that US interrogators don't torture holds as much water as "Iran denying it has a nuclear weapons program," a retired Navy lawyer says." // ""In the world community, it's ... like Iran denying they have a nuclear weapons program," he said. "The question always is, 'Well let us inspect it. Let us take a look at it.' The country replies, 'No no, that's national security; we're not going to do that.' And people become suspect."" ... if we're not torturing people, let some unbiased United Nations diplomats or journalists go there and talk with the prisoners ...
- inactive, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1You should've read the link.
- Polymathic, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Fantastic points. Clearly, you lack an understanding of how Kinship (KINGship) rankings can evolve instantaneously - but I do not fault you for your ignorance, because genealogy is complicated. Go and research how Bush's (or Grover Cleveland's) ancestoral bloodline evolved during the period leading up to the election, and remember that a SINGLE MARRIAGE somewhere in the family's living bloodline - if that individual married the right person - would alter the kinship-ranking in an instant! It is the bloodline-ranking at the very time of election that is important here.
Also note how the Brooks-Baker quote you chose above CLEARLY states he is referring to MATERNAL BLOODLINE only, and when taken into account with the fact that he is speaking well BEFORE the election so the true kinship-rankings for the coming November were not finalized - well, you see how those points fall apart.
This is how the game of deception is played on you all folks! Part of the reason that it is remained secret so long is because you need to have at the very least a cursory understanding of how bloodline evolution and genealogy-ranking works. BTW, Brooks-Baker has since confirmed after the 2000 election (in 2002 i think, i will try to dig up the reference) that at the time of that election in November2000, G.W. Bush indeed had edged out Kerry in the kinship rankings. - purag66, on 05/13/2009, -0/+1If you haven't figured it out already, it's not just about stopping CO2 emissions, or debating whether Global Warming is natural or artificial. We have to act now, we have to begin planning on how we'll deal with so many displaced people whose homes have been flooded. We'll have to deal with changing agricultural climates that will make Russia a primary crop producer and American farmlands a dusky waste.
And what's up with your constant and derogatory reference to a "goddess." You probably hold the word "pagan" equivalent to devil-wroship. Oh wait, your avatar has the word "God" in it... Wow, I just wasted so much time writing this reply, thinking you'd read it. But I don't wanna delete everything now, so please, take a little time off from reading the Bible and read this reply. - abbadon2007, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1but keloyd, torture does NOT work. torture never has worked and never will. i thought that was common knowledge, but it's in the research too. here, read this piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A230 ...
- dood, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Did any of them deny they slept 8 hours a night, or speak out against those that did, as monsters?
- LemurDaddy, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Waterboarding is only "questionable" for people who have drunk the Kool Aid. It was a favored technique of the Inquisition and the Khmer Rouge. We prosecuted Japanese officers who used it on our own soldiers, calling it a war crime. Simulated drowning is torture, plain and simple. Anybody unwilling to admit that is either lost in a haze of partisan tribal identity or severely ignorant.
- dood, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Brevity.
- Spoomeister, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Way to whizz in people's rice krispies. If your point is that change won't happen until the next couple rounds of congressional elections, your exact argument applies to those guys too. Remember that this is the congress where, even with a democratic majority in both houses, they say "waa, waa, we don't have 60% to overturn presidential vetoes, so we can't get anything done".
What you're complaining about is the fundamental workings and flaws of the republic we have now. In other words, get off the couch, put down the doritos and pick up a pitchfork, or GTFO. Because while the rest of us will work for incremental change, and fight within the system to try to change things, you're content to throw up your hands and do nothing. I'll take the hope and the possibility of improvement, over typical internet cynicism from yet another parent's basement. - Archer007, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1"They're doing it, so we can do it too!". Have you heard of higher standards?
- linuxpenguin, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1How do you explain that there are two main groups - each fighting for their own side against the other? Not long ago one had near-dominance over the other, yet now tides have turned. Did they all just have a sudden change of heart and decide that they didn't want to be Republicans anymore?
If government officials choose their own successors as you are trying to suggest, then why don't they choose the one that they agree with - that does what they want, agrees with their viewpoints, etc.?
And actually, I have almost zero trust in our government. They pulled the cloth over your head, not mine.
If you really think the wealthy/powerful people of this country want (or need) to sit and worry about who comes from whose loins to the point that they're going to use it as the basis for choosing the next leader, fine. But please - explain to me how they all come to agreement. As much as they all want power, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Mr. Jobs, Mr. Allen, Mr. Wozniak, and Mr. Gates might have trouble agreeing on a presidential candidate - they all have different opinions. Same with Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. Hell, look at Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, or Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee - both from the same party, yet with different opinions and levels of support. I doubt Mike Huckabee would team up with John Edwards, no matter who his father is - and I also doubt this would strengthen support for either one of them, even if they were both from royal families. We'll see though. - Archer007, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Use the built-in replies. Buried.
- Archer007, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1That doesn't make it right or good, and it sure as hell doesn't ever make it acceptable.
- grumpyrain, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1> I think the USA has lost so much credibility because the Democratic propaganda engine cares
> more about defeating Bush than about the credibility of the country, or human rights, etc.
The Democratic propaganda machine may well be going after Bush without concern to the country (or may not, this is not a point I can argue), but this is irrelevant to the international opinion. Most of the international criticism today is about Gitmo and the continuance of this administration to play semantec word games to try and have their cake and eat it. They try to claim both the moral high ground but still allow torture (as per the definition of pretty much everyone outside the current US administration). -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 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