digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War

nytimes.com — "Given how intent Bush is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution ’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the U.S. was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential power."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jtingley, on 10/24/2007, -22/+393Founding Fathers... We are truly sorry, We have failed you and ourselves. We have let our leaders utterly destroy everything you held dear and all you're hopes and dreams for us. We, our fathers and our fathers before them have allowed Tyranny to take root and oppression to grow. You're revolutionary fight has now become almost entirely in vain and it is we who have allowed it to happen. Were sorry... our bad...
    • TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -122/+19"We have failed you and ourselves. We have let our leaders utterly destroy everything you held dear"
      ...You know, like that wonderful thing called "slavery" that you believed in so much. And we are truly sorry for giving women the right to vote. Our leaders utterly destroyed the ideology that you held that said only rich white men could have anything to do with government....
      • DieEierVonSatan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Slavery wasn't thought to be okay, it was allowed because the alternate was the Constitution not being signed...
      • devoss, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Working for Haliburton is just slavery by a different name.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3BTW, Cheney became President for a Day over the weekend.

          Funny, the way Diggers were talking about it, you would have thought that tanks would have been rolling in the streets, but I didn't even notice it until just now when I got my daily email from Rush.
          • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The tanks may not be rolling, yet but they're filling up the concentration camps.
            http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=431
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1From the Operation FALCON homepage ( http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/ ):

            "Operation FALCON is a nationwide fugitive apprehension operation coordinated by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The resources of federal, state, city and county law enforcement agencies are combined to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of violence."

            You're COMPLAINING because law enforcement is catching violent criminals?

            Grab a wrench, 'cuz I think you got a screw loose...
          • RJGONZO, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Cheesehead, you do realize that in only 13-1/2 months we will have a new President elect and Bush will be gone in just under 17 months.....right? Exactly how quickly are we all going to be put in jail, all 300 million of us, so we can't vote and he can declare himself emperor? Get a clue man.
      • OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Our Founding fathers are spinning in their graves. They are spinning so fast that you could generate enough energy off of the revolutions to power this country for the next 300 years.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Oh, there's definitely some spinning going on here...

          It has nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, though.
          • JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Please take your Rush Limbaugh kool-aid elsewhere. You might want to look under your bed tonight. There might be a terrorist hiding there.
      • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You are now slaves to a corrupt and facist government controlled and guided by money. Yes, your founding fathers are SO proud.
    • Zeonix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33@ Sabre: Or the amazing ability to amend the constitution, in order to keep that wonderful piece of parchment relevant in today's world.
      • TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -23/+5I'm glad we made those changes. But that doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers believed in those things dearly and modeled the country to include them. A pet peeve of mine is when people say that they wish Jefferson and Washington were back in charge, because things weren't always hunky-dory with them around either. They had their own share of problems. How many women and African Americans are there on Digg? Every single one of them would be disenfranchised if the founding fathers were still in charge. Is that really the life we hope for?
        • bneises, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Many of the founding fathers didn't agree with slavery. They allowed it because they needed to unite to remove the british tyranny. It was a touchy subject even before we declared independence. Many spoke against it.
          • Coded1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Just a bit of history, Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) had slaves of his own. At the time of the civil war the south was very powerfull and extremely rich. One major contribution to that wealth was the cotton industry, the reason for this is because of slave labour. Once Lincoln abolished slavery the south had to pay for labour and it hurt their income greatly beause now freed slaves did not want to work for their former 'owners'. This was arguably one of Lincolns greatest decisions to end the division of the United States but the end of slavery was not the objective.
          • JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Very good bneises. History isn't always so black and white as the government school textbooks will make it out to be.
          • JDenigma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@bneises

            Of course all of this is not to say that slavery was justified back then. It was immoral and a contradiction of the founding fathers, but sometimes when you use hindsight to morally judge history, it's not always so simple and you have to look at what they had to work with in the world at the time.

            There was a dichotomy amongst the founding fathers with this inconsistency of theirs and some of them were pro-slavery whereas others weren't. Though this may have been a pock-mark on the history of the founding fathers, by no means does it discredit the rest of their ideas that they set forth at the time. It was the very seeds of liberty that they were sowing at that time in the world that would serve as the well-spring from which slavery would end in the world. Of course in reality we're all slaves to the government today. We're all on the modern day plantation as we're all governments bitch. Many people will try to use that moral inconsistency of the founding fathers as an ad-hominem attack to discredit their ideas of liberty as if one has anything to do with the other.

            "It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South." -Walter Williams

            “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
            -George Washington

            I just wish the founding fathers had been more principled about it back then.
        • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Given their ideals (which are easily researched as many of them were prolific writers), it seems likely that the founding fathers would indeed be on board with modern notions of human rights. They were a product of their time (cliched but true), but they were relatively forward thinking. If they were around in the 1920s and 1960s I have little doubt that they would have been at the forefront of both the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement.
        • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15you really have to take into consideration the cultural context of the past. I firmly believe that if Jefferson and Washington were around today, it would be impossible for them to either support, since we are so far removed from that being an acceptable practice. Slavery was perfectly acceptable in Western culture in that day, and the wisdom of the founding fathers gave room in the mechanics of democracy to strip away cultural institutions like slavery as they are revealed to be unjust, and create new institutions as they are deemed necessary and become culturally acceptable (like woman's suffrage and social security).

          To bring down the hammer and attempt to create a perfect utopia overnight would result in a failure of our civilization, since too many people would be upset at these changes. Even today we cannot do something as simple as legalize gay marriage without upsetting the balance of society- -imagine what would happen if you tried to topple slavery, which, agree with it or not, was the basis for the entire southern plantation economy.
    • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -16/+17Or the amazing ability to elect a dumb bastard like Bush, the person that calls the Constitution of the United States, "It's only a goddamned piece of paper."
    • miketrin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+43Our founding fathers didn't have E! and cnn, fox, abc entertainment news making head lines instead of politics. So as long as Americans care more about entertainment news than politics expect the situation to only get worse.
      • Chyeld, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Please don't fool yourself; they had just as many 'distractions' and muckrakers then as they do now. The difference now is the scale. One obsession for the nation as opposed to one for each local Podunk town. But back then, as now, too many were too busy watching the glitter to care about the rest. And back then, as now, a smiling face with an insincere promise garners more support than a sour face with hard truths.

        Read up on the history of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton's brawls over which way the nation should grow (during Washington's term) and you'll realize that while the actors may have changed, the props updated, and the McGuffins altered, the scripts are still from the same playbook our Founding Fathers wrote themselves.

        Bush and Co aren't evil; they truly believe they are doing what is 'righteous'. They believe they are doing what they have to, to ensure the security and prosperity of our nation. That is the scary part of it all, the fact that even at this point in time they won't admit to themselves that what they are doing is just making everything worse. If they were some handlebar mustached group of villains, holding midnight cabals and plotting to take over the world, it would be so much easier to solve all this. They could be uncloaked, revealed for what they are, and ousted.

        Instead, because they are sincere about at least their one actual goal, regardless of whatever else they do, people still believe in them, still listen to their fabrications. And as such, even now it'll be a fight to overturn what they've set up regardless of the outcome of 2008.
        • dodus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No idea why people are digging you down; that was a great post.
    • rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+40"We are truly sorry"

      Speak for yourself, buddy.

      I voted for Gore.
      • stauken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I second that *****.
      • crispee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29So did a MAJORITY of this country.
      • spawnfree, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i hope you are voting 'diebold' next time.
        • vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You say that as if he will have a choice next time.
      • TheSpore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"So did a MAJORITY of this country."

        I agree. I think it's the founding father's fault though that they made up this "Electoral College" BS. It didn't really work how they planned and now it just makes people's votes worthless if they live in a heavily Republican or heavily Democratic state.
        • psygnisfive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually it worked perfectly back in the days of no telephone, computers, etc; back when it took weeks or months to tally votes, etc. It's now, in a day where 150 million votes are tallied in under 12 hours and the results distributed across the world instantly, that the system doesn't work.
      • Cwo655321, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1GORE LOST, YOU ALL FAIL!!10101010!01!!
    • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -28/+7Anyone who says "my bad" is a retard.
    • Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23The United States, as a free union of largely independent states, lasted nearly 100 years - which is a reasonably impressive accomplishment. After that, it took more than 50 years for our system of governance to transform into a centralized federal bureaucracy with a massive budget. Today, our country barely resembles what the founders tried to build - but my guess is that they would be quite pleased to know how long their creation managed to last.
      • xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Starting November 5th, want to work on a new one free union?
        / V
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4We can still reverse this through democratic/political means.
      • Bossman1086, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem is people like Bush thinking that they're doing good in the name of the country and the Founding Fathers.
      • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
        The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
        wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
        they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
        it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
        And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
        warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
        resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
        to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
        in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
        time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
        It is its natural manure."
        -Thomas Jefferson
    • jugger74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Don't be sorry you coward get off your ass and do something about it .The revolution isn't over it is just about to begin.
      • justok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18What channel will it be on? I think I'll TiVo it and watch it later.
        • TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The revolution will NOT be televised!
        • SkullPizza, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7oh... so how are Americans going to learn about it then? READ? pfft
        • TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's from a Jazz song...Gil Scott Heron? Anyone?
        • Lobsterkins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The revolution will not be televised; it will be webcast ;)
    • smartass007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15american corporate capitalism and the military-industrial complex destroyed the america the founders created
      • CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1No, tryng to spread absolutely equal rights to all people clogged the entire governance system with far more overload than any legal system has ever been able to endure.

        Corporations were here before the United States; they FOUNDED the white European movement to north america. The military industrial complex is being used as an arm of economy management by burning up people and materials, but they don't run the government. Lawyers do. If you get out of line, be taken ''to the law''.

        That's the rules that freed white people and established all this ''absolute equality of rights'' for ''everyone'' including your illegal aliens who are criminals by virtue of being here.

        Its far more subtle and far more damning to the equal rights movements of this nation than to any ***** corporation. You're just lying to yourself along with all other moonbats.

        You're not lying to the people that understand governance.

        Making anybody and everybody sueable for anything under the sun has drawbacks moonbat. Welcome to absolute equality for everyone.

        Notice everyone's freedoms went with it? Goes with the game. stfu; buck up; act like you like it.
        • Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If I understand your post correctly -- and I'm not sure I do, because you write incoherent drivel -- you seem to be arguing that everything would be right with our country if only women couldn't vote and black people still had to sit in the back of the bus.

          We will spend $700 billion on defense in 2007. Are you suggesting that the recipients of that money somehow have less influence over our government than the plaintiffs in civil suits?
        • dodus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Started to read your comment...started laughing...started skimming...saw the word "moonbats", dugg you down and now I'm writing this comment. Pat yourself on the back man, you are an idiot.
      • thefaithful, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For however much good came out of the US founding it basically started with rich guys not wanting the British government interfering with their business and private property. Then they got the masses to go along with certain ideals and managed to revolt.
        We would never be able to have the same kind of revolution today because the rich guys with the businesses and property are in league with the government.
    • Zackypooh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5no probs, man.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6People often say, "The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the issues we have today"... That is completely the wrong way to look at it.
      The founding fathers KNEW how government's deal with political issues and they did their best to setup laws and restrictions to keep the power with the people and to keep the people with all the rights and freedoms possible.
      Sadly these days people who want more control, and people who want to restrict other people's personal lives and freedoms, often purposely claim the founding fathers didn't know everything, and claim to interpret the constitution the wrong way... I'll say one thing, the founding father's saw these people coming, and gave the people the ability to fight back... We've just been too dam lazy to fight back all these years... -_-
    • jbob2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You Americans have the right to bear arms for a reason... to rebel against your government if they have too much power and begin to use it in unorthodox and unethical ways. It's too bad people just don't give a damn about freedom, and just want the iPhone and other novelties.
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You spelled your wrong twice. But it's odd because you spelled it wrong the hard way.
    • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't sit and whine son. Its all yours. Go and change it.
    • ChileanGoD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You guys have failed against this -->"$$$"... Is what has caused so much human suffering and also will destroy our planet.
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you're saying the world would be better off without money? Even Communists need money, comrade.
    • sugerat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In my 'hood we barter. I'm giving my neighbor a goat, a basket case '69 Triumph T120, and a shotgun, and he's giving me 10 lbs. of Maine lobster and his teenaged daughter.

      America, ***** Yeah!
  • readthis, on 10/10/2007, -14/+88As Bush continues to give himself more authority, he's betting that government employees, police, military and citizens will enforce them.

    Are you going to help arrest your neighbor? Are you going to help steal their property if their views differ from the president's?
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
    • cnowacek, on 10/10/2007, -37/+8Do you even read the linked crap that you post before submitting? The release CLEARLY states...

      "(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..."

      This is common sense and the way societies have worked for ages. If you pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence, you're gonna get taken down. That's the way the law has worked for hundreds of years. Get over yourself.
      • readthis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Yup, I always read the articles I comment on. The act is "broadly defined" which is what the founding fathers tried to protect us against--a government that can turn against the people.

        Destabilizing Iraq, Broadly Defined
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072201141.html
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Define "significant risk of committing." No, the Bush administration will do that for you. And they won't need to present any evidence to any defendants or jurists. You know, national security.
      • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"This is common sense and the way societies have worked for ages. If you pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence, you're gonna get taken down. That's the way the law has worked for hundreds of years"
        Umm, no it hasn't. Maybe in another country but not in the US. That's why police have to wait until a crime has been committed before they can arrest someone. You can't be arrested because some one thinks your going to commit a crime or an act of violence. You must be caught IN the act. Until now anyways...
        • icono1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting to note that on one of the 24-hr news channels some talking head was talking about how the dept of homeland security wants me, you or us to keep an eye out for suspicious activities that may be going on within eyesight that could be linked to terrorist activities. My question is; how would I know what a terrorist activity was if I have not been trained to identify such activity. Besides, I would think that a smart terrorist would do very little as observable behavior to give him/her self away. So I was wondering if the govt now wants me to spy on my neighbor and etc for suspicious activity. Sounds like shades of communism and other 'isms' being promoted under the guise of homeland security.
      • phmfthacim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1whenever I read dumbass posts like this, it makes me hate digg, youtube, and the all stupid ass libertarians/democrats/conservatives with no ***** sense in their heads
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3bury me
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7***** hell, not again.
    • Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21"Are you going to help steal their property if their views differ from the president's?"

      If they have a bigger plasma than I do then yes.
      • 16777216, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Exactaly! Bow to Lord Tube!

        Moron.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Screw plasma. LCD is the way to go, they can keep their stinking plasma with burn in and color degradation thank you!
        • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You keep both your overpriced LCD and Plasma. I'll stick with CRT, which can display true blacks and display lower-resolution materials (such as DVDs), just as good as HDTV sources, without looking like crap.
        • EarlofSlander, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2That is not a hair question
        • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Have fun with your 25'' CRT Screen
        • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2digging you all down for taking a joke too far
      • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1my neighbor has a really hot wife. dibs.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Are you going to help arrest your neighbor? Are you going to help steal their property if their views differ from the president's?"

      The problem is that there are already hordes of armed young men, trained not to think or question their orders, in the 'military' that is already controlled by the president...and they will do whatever they are told to do. These young men will do as they are told, as long as they can have their i-pods, their loud aggressive music, and can let their hormones run wild in acts of killing and brutality.

      You don't need to worry about your neighbor so much, but about these already trained and armed automatons (including the police), at every location.
      • airforceteacher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Someone should remind WaterDragon that traditionally, military members have been mostly true conservatives - state's rights and people's rights conservatives, and would most likely refuse such orders on a grand scale.
      • ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2@WaterDragon

        ...and every one of those young men would die to protect you and your right to say whatever the hell you want. Although you clearly do not deserve that right.
        • iluvgossip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh, he deserves the right to be an ignorant bigot who snarls at the rough hard men that protect him from the truly evil people who wish to do him harm. Of course, that doesn't keep him from being an ignorant bigot.
        • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1everyone deserves that right.
        • icono1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Damn right they will.
    • ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0This decree is for confiscating the property of terrorists threatening stability in Iraq. Ever heard of RICO? Same thing. Seriously, did you even read the press release? Or are you going to tell me this is a conspiracy?
    • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Are you going to help steal their property if their views differ from the president's?"

      No, I am going to be busy teaching them how to load, operate, and clean their new 12-gauge. They might just need it soon.
    • TheGrunt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, yes they will. Case in point, Nazi Germany. Ask a Jew who got turned in by their neighbor and/or "best" friends. It can and will happen if we continue down this road.
      • iluvgossip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Note that the Jews were disarmed first. Stop that step and you stop all that follows.
  • cnowacek, on 10/10/2007, -63/+10You can also thank the democratic majority that has control over congress.
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Thank them for how the President is acting? I don't know if you knew this, but Congress and the President belong to seperate branches of Government.
      • CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yea, thank them for how the president is acting. It was Democrats with their wonder ideas like a federal reserve, social security, and an income tax; pot laws etc that got the democrats where they are: MUD ON THEIR FACES.

        They pandered to bizarre radicals trying to get power, and are now splintered and utterly spineless at running anything, and the people know it; and have zero faith in them, because they pander to homos, lesbians, and various other wackos for their idea stream.

        if they'd have kept their heads the past 30 years the republicans would be in check. HOW MANY southern democrats and, northern democrats have defected permanently against the Democrats' party? *****.

        Everybody knows the mega rich and elite are assholes. The democrats have made it a point to support all kinds of ludicrously inefficient government *****, and the people want LESS. Not more. But when the republicans go to war there's no party to turn to because it's know how ludicrous democrat principles for governance are: they want what George wants: they just want to make war on the straight & rich people.
        • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wow, someone forgot to take their meds this morning
        • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Pandering to "bizarre homos and lesbians"? I didn't know Congress listened to Richard Simmons or Rosie O'Donnel.
      • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Meds or no meds, you're right. How many are willing to participate in the next election after seeing the Dems WASTE their opportunity (and responsibility) to keep a president in check. Yes, we can blame them too, because they have the perfect tool to bring him back in line with our constitutional values... but no. They'd rather risk our republic and see mud on the face of GW. They think the war will make GW and the Repubs look so bad that it will be worth it. Spineless, unprincipled cowards.
    • maximusrex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28What!?! I think you mean the Republican congress that preceded it. The democratic majority has been trying to clip Bush's wings and the republican minority is still blocking it.
    • Exhaust, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20cnowacek: Damn lib'rals news papers writing well thought out articles 'bout my retarded president. I'd better say something stupid in defense...
      • iluvgossip, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Well, you certainly did say something stupid. Got that part right at least.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The senate has 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, and 2 Independents....explain how this is a majority for the Democrats.
  • davidkeithjones, on 10/10/2007, -80/+9LOL! The "founding fathers" were more tyranical than Bush will ever be.
    • FactaNonVerba7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16how do you figure?
      • davidkeithjones, on 10/10/2007, -31/+3Um, lets see, they had SLAVES, they were WARLORDS...I dont need to go any further.
        • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Yeah, dude, you went into great detail there. You should submit it for publication.
        • 16777216, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Wanted: George "Warlord" Washington, Terrorist against the King.
          Reward: Servertude to the monarchy.

          Yep, that was a bad move, I am glad they got him. /sarcasm
        • bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9you're either stupid, a troll, or both. your choice.
        • dodus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"It doesn't matter how much FOOD you SEND, it all just goes into the hands of...*chomp*...*chomp*...WARLORDS!"
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3To convince people educated in critical thought, yes you will have to go a bit farther to prove that George Washington was a tyrant. For people satisfied with any scapegoat that will absolve them of responsibility for the current situation we are in, yes I suppose what you've provided will do nicely.
    • Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Obviously a Republican operative.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Could you say what you mean? Any examples? What do you mean by tyranny?
    • dodus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14How long before talking ***** about the founders is a plank in the Republican party platform i wonder?

      "Them foundin' fathers were a buncha slave-owning commie moonbats! Who cares what they said about this or that?! Ronnie Reagan FTW!"
      • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Even way back in the 80's there was a poll taken (I wish I could remember who did it) where select pieces from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were shown to ordinary members of the public. Something like 70% of them thought it was "too liberal" to be American.
        • iluvgossip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2These are probably the same people who think Marx's, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is in the Constitution. I wish we had the system described by the Founders -- Federalism wherein power was held by the States and the Feds only had a few circumscribed powers -- but unfortunately that has long since passed away. Now we just need to lose the Bill of Rights and the whole experiment is over. It is too bad that the people on the Left are working on destroying half the rights while the people on the right are working to destroy what is left. Libertarians -- ideology of maximizing freedom and personal responsibility -- FTW!

          But it would still be better to go back to the Founder's system where some states could be nanny oppressive while others were total freedom. That way people could decide where they live and States could see the results of policies in other States before they adopted them. That kind of political Darwinism would be ever so much more effective for evolving a system of policies that could intelligently balance freedom with security. Instead we have an every stronger central government with no where to run.
        • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@iluvgossip - awesome post - well put
    • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Radical, Yes. Tyrannical? Get some sleep!
  • cassholio, on 10/10/2007, -58/+9Hmmm. Another anti-Bush article. I can honestly say that I miss all the though provoking articles about Paris Hilton.
    • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I bet you do. They didn't make you think at all, huh?
    • PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3try reading the article for a change instead of passing judgement and hoping for hilton.
    • blogspinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fact is, you are more likely to get screwed by Bush than Hilton
  • SaltedCashews, on 10/10/2007, -8/+54the problem here is, they neglected to sharply limit VICE-PRESIDENTIAL power.
    • rhysmd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It was never an issue in their time, a powerful Vice-President didn't even exist 10 years ago, why blame the Founding Fathers for that?
    • vertigoacid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What power?
      The Constitution gives the Vice President two duties: Preside over the Senate, and replace the President if he is killed or removed from office
      If it's not there, he doesn't have the power.
    • Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uh, it frankly doesn't make a damn what the Constitution says about the Veep.

      You think Bush and Dick consulted the Constitution when figuring out how they were going to run their boat? rofl

      Let's see. No oversight, No respect for the Constitution. THEY AREN'T FOLLOWING IT. It's just a piece of paper.

      I think the biggest problem with this country is that everyone somehow sees the Constitution as an Immortal God that oversees everything. It's just paper, people. It really is. And when you have a President that sees it for that...
  • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -34/+12Impeach Bush Elect Ron Paul !
  • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -27/+18Mmm, Love the taste of a fresh PEACH ?

    Try our new IM PEACHes.

    IM PEACHes are fresh and juicy!

    Delicious IM PEACHes make a great gift to give to your favorite President and Vice President.
  • JD52, on 10/10/2007, -3/+96At what point do things stop being treason and start being a revolution?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No such point exists those are two separate points of view and, personally, I am having a very hard time deciding which to take.
    • abenage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13In any case its a revolution, but you will be tried and most probably convicted of treason if the revolt should fail to remove those in power.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The Declaration of Independance has something to say about that. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" I think we are close to passing that point.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You rely too much in a persons compliance with words on a piece of paper. Bush was right when he said 'the constitution is just a piece of paper' the words are useless without the sentiment behind them. It is plain enough to see that any attack on our government would be considered treason.

        However the constitution does provide a peaceful route for revolution use the system to replace the incumbents, the senators and representatives who have failed us time and time again. Remove them and never allow them another opportunity to 'lead' this country. Next election organise a grassroots campaign for a local leader who has demonstrated their loyalty to their people.
        • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree with you wholeheartedly. As I told a friend earlier today, we still have legal means of toppling the government called "elections." So long as those are still in place and still potentially effective, any other means of revolution is truly treasonous.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. I doubt the elections are rigged. They might be in the future, but I don't think the '08 elections will be rigged.
          • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if Ron Paul wins, we'll know the election was DEFINITELY rigged... by Diggers no less ;)
    • Proneguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28The difference between treason and revolution is the victor.
      • Kypt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly, history is written by the side that wins. If England had won vs American in the American Revolution, it would've been "The American Rebellion" instead of Revolution
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well it wouldn't exactly have been a Revolution if we lost, now would it
    • shableep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6when you get up and start doing something about it.

      i'm not. i'm probably just going to sit here and complain, working my comfortable 9-5 job, then go to my comfortable livingroom, in my comfortable home and watch some comforting television. then i'm going to eat food and fall asleep and repeat this mind weakening, diluting, numbing process i call "comfort". i wont do anything about it until a soldier comes to my door and tells me that i am now US property and they steal my comfort away. but by then it'll be too late, and my need for comfort will have already lulled my freedom to sleep.
    • elmuerte17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and in anticipation of that day, keep a box of grenades in the closet.
  • Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -16/+27I for one welcome our Congressional Overlords.
    • wolfmann, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4don't you mean Executive Overlords?
      • Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would if i welcomed them... but I dont. I'm not a fan of Congress but atleast they're supposed to be in charge of the war type stuffs.
    • tomboy501, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Unfortunately, Our Congressional Overlords are currently failing in their duties. They need to step it up.
  • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -24/+16The NY Times using the Constitution when it doesn't relate to freedom of the press? All I can say is Wow!

    While Bush is horrible, maybe even beyond horrible, this isn't a new thing he is doing. Clinton expanded the powers of the president, as did the Bush before him, Reagan before him and all the way back to at least Lincoln.

    There is one guy who can help reverse this trend and his name is Ron Paul.
    • bleutuna, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Uh...because someone else did something wrong isn't justification to allow it.

      I can't murder someone and say, "Well...so and so did it...so yeah, i can too!"

      Sorry, doesn't work that way. Wrong is wrong.
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Bush expanded Executive powers more than any other President.
    • bneises, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He's not justifying it. hes saying its wrong, and should be reversed.
  • kroni, on 10/10/2007, -29/+15As a citizen of a "3rd world" country, I can only point and laugh at the USA... I have much more freedom and democracy in my country... USA now is very similar to Nazi Germany... maybe the Red Army will have to come and rescue fat-ass americans?

    I write this in english because everybody knows americans are too lazy to learn any foreign language...
    • Smurph0404, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5I'm going to laugh when your kids have to move to the "nazi" US to go to college and get jobs
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Which country and which foreign language... you may be surprised if you'd stop being an ass for a second.
    • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5And we fat Americans laugh at you because we are rich and your "3rd world" country is poor. Haha.
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -30/+19Wow, lot of ignorant folks here. Did we forget the support of Congress and 40 other nations? Oh no, we don't remember that, the flies started dropping out support and suddenly this was alllllll Bush and nothing but Bush. People walked away from this war and now it's become "Bush's war". He's the only one that hasn't QUIT like all the other nations (and Democrats).

    So what is it, did you erase that from your memories or did you just conveniently forget? It's easier to just forget, isn't it?
    • bleutuna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17No, *****, we didn't "forget" anything. The truth is, we've seen the error of our ways, and that Bush's arguments for war were specious at best and deliberately manipulative at worst.

      Because people at ONE TIME, over 4 years ago, supported the war under certain terms does not mean we have to continue down that path. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of lunacy.

      • Tranced0nline, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3@ bleutuna

        word up.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7But it doesn't relieve you of your responsibility either. You can't light fire to a house then sit on the sidelines and say my bad thinking no one will hold you accountable for your actions. This is part of the problem with the US congress at the moment. Rather than help fix their mistakes both parties are pointing fingers.
        • RJGONZO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Amen.
        • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually Congress is reaching for Enlightenment these days, turning the issues into fodder for mind-bending metaphyisical philosophical questions--they're debating how to debate, voting on how to vote... and so it goes.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Clinton hasn't admitted her mistake, yet (rightly) blames Bush for his. It was a real copout for Congress to push the option of declaring war onto Bush.
    • StringyLow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Yes, let's remember who LIED to Congress about the non-existant WMD's in Iraq and the non-existant ties between Al-queda and Iraq.

      Trying to say that Congress was complicit is to totally ignore the facts of the situation which is that the Bush administration LIED, so therefore this IS Bush's war.
      • zelig, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Bush didn't lie about WMD's, that intelligence came from the FBI and CIA. In the late 90's, remember, president Clinton had the very same intel and said at the time he was concerned about WMD's in Iraq and Hussein's willingness to use them.
        • jerbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Every mess we've gotten ourselves into over the last twenty years is to clean up some mess created by Ronald Reagan's bizarre foreign policy, but no one brings that up.
        • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought the intelligence on WMDs came from the UK originally.
      • cassholio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Zelig: Even if you posted the youtube video of Clinton, Albright, etc., saying we need to disarm Saddam-it won't sink in. These guys are so blinded by their hatred of Bush and the evvvvvullllll Repugnikkkans that they would deny the very nose on their face.
        • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because Bush is an idiot and can't cover his own ass with a tarp. Clinton and his administration at least had their ***** together in that respect, and didn't sound mildly retarded* when doing so.

          *for all you mozzies (borrowing an Aussie term to refer to LGFs and their ilk), I'm implying that Bush does in fact sound mildly retarded when he speaks. This is just an observation and not a judgment.
      • Exhaust, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah the same intel that Bush twisted to make the case for war. You Bushies can bring up the intel all you want... You all know the Bush Administration ignored facts that didn't help their case for war. They twisted every single piece of intel to make their case. You people are sick. If you love this war so much why don't you ***** go to die for nothing. For people that hate us and always will. You won't because your arm chair generals that would never sacrifice your own blood and family for Iraq.
      • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Clinton being wrong and "evil" doesn't undermined the fact at all that Bush and the current Republican-controlled administration is also evil. This "he did it so I should, too" mentality is what's ruining the country.
    • bdhughes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4wait a second. you mean bush only has to be the 'decider' for things that go his way? he has kicked ass, taken no prisoners and done whatever necessary to forward his agenda in grandstanding style. now it's clinton's fault and all the other morons who didn't have the balls to stand up and be counted? he lied and manipulated, preyed on our fears and did a great job of it. but lies can't sustain support or change reality. but that doesn't mean they won't keep lying. there is nothing wrong with your memory when you remember the truth. it's the liars that have a hard time remembering.
    • heebeejeebie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Agree with you Vicu. If the war were going better all we would hear would be choruses from Congress on how they supported it.
      • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No, you wouldn't.
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1of course they would. But when was the last time a pre-emptive war went well? Napoleon failed to defeat Russia and what happened when Hitler tried it? Didn't work out too well, and crazy or not, he was a lot more intelligent in military matters than GWB.
    • notman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I supported a war in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. We didn't finish the original goal in Afghanistan, and now we are stuck in a country that we should never have entered. Just because you were gullible enough to believe in WMDs, don't group in the rest of us as 'supporters'.
  • kroni, on 10/10/2007, -32/+7As a citizen of a "3rd world" country, I can only point and laugh at the USA... I have much more freedom and democracy in my country... USA now is very similar to Nazi Germany... maybe the Red Army will have to come and rescue fat-ass americans?

    I write this in english because everybody knows americans are too lazy to learn any foreign language...
    • jtbndy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7You have internet, you're not in a 3rd world country. Unless you stole a laptop from a tourist and your box is a hotspot. If thats the case, kudos to you.
      • killiansman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, a lot of countries that are considered 3rd world countries by the US have widespread internet access. I know this is the case in most South American countries.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sout American countries are 3rd-world? I thought they were 2nd-world.
    • cassholio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Strange that you didn't say what country you are from.
    • rthakidn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7You're abviously embarassed of your own country or you would have named it. But I appreciate your opinion. By the way Uncle Sam's aid check is in the mail. GTF off digg.
    • jarrubes, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4i dunno where you are from, but thats stereotypical *****, 1 in 4 americans is fluent in a second language and the reason it isnt more is because english is the buissness language and the most important lanuguge to know. and also, we live in the best country in the world why would we ever need to leave and learn another language? and wtf, you have more freedom? being able to go outside and ***** off your front steps because nobody cares is hardly freedom.
    • plhearn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Quit repeating yourself repeating yourself.
    • stormofswords, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Du bist ein bescheuerter Dreckssack, der nur mit Vorurteilen denkt und spricht, weil die Mutti dich als Kind hat fallen lassen. Darüber hinaus kannst du mich mal ganz langsam mit der Zunge durch meine schweißbedeckte Arschritze und dann langsam an AIDS sterben.

      Hows that for an American speaking a foreign language you *****?
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously a German in disguise
    • FiveGallonDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This guy's clearly afraid to name his country because it would provide us the opportunity to demonstrate hypocrisy inherent in all national agendas. I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but I also live in a "3rd world" country, and the hands are not historically that clean here either. BTW, I'm guessing Costa Rica. They have a lot of these type of asshats here.
  • hansk, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5is it just me or does this title sound like a bad episode of Deep Space 9?
    • bnl771, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8There's a good one, too?
      • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Sure, try "In the Pale Moonlight."
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Any episode with Vic Fontaine is a good one in my book.
    • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Don't digg hansk down, it actually does have a DS9 ring to it. DS9 was the first ST series where we saw that there were definite bad, corrupt sides to the Federation. Previously it had been romanticised in a similar fashion to our founding fathers in real life. I think it's an apt comparison.
      • hansk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank you, I think you articuated what pretty much what I was trying to say. Though to properly compare the DS9 series to the Bush Administration is too much like work. Mostly though I was referring to calling the Founding Fathers 'the founders' (changelings), plus the comparision with their bungled war with the Federation to that of Bush's failed war in the Middle East. Will the USA suffer the same results as the DS9 villians? Probably not, if the States can survive Vietnam they can handle Iraq.
  • empirefalling, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9US Imperialism

    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynQH63IF0U
  • LordSlashstab, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
    • dotlizard, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.
      ~~John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987
  • Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -10/+66Where was the NY Times when we needed them most, i.e., at the first premonition this bastard wanted to go to war? Where were YOU?!!!

    You all advocated war with Iraq!!!

    NY Times, you are not buying yourselves out of this one. You are equally culpable!!!

    NY Times= hyprocrits!!!
    • Aslan72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just because they are hypocrit*e*s doesn't mean that it's not a bad opinion; it's a well written article and it's times like these we need to burn party lines and choose what's best for the country. We need balance.
    • jimrt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If everyone and every organization that originally supported the war was considered invaluable once they change their view then we would never build the consensus needed to stop the damn thing! Many of us initially supported the war because of the information we were given by our government. The important thing is that we are not so stubborn that we plod down the same murderous path once we know the truth.
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It is not hypocritical to change one's opinion based on new evidence or the exposure of bad evidence. Hypocrisy would be yelling, "Stop the war!" while selling bullets. Sticking by your opinions despite any contrary evidence that might arise is stupidity, not hypocrisy.
    • xgkx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 The NY TImes help promote the war before it started. They ran articles that were full of blatant lies by Judith Miller & Michael R Gordon. They claimed that Iraq had WMD's.
    • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They didn't exactly advocate war.

      http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6071FFC355B0C7A8CDDAA0894DB404482&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials
    • tk121, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget that this is just an Op Ed article. These are always tucked tightly on the last page in the print edition and are usually buried just as deeply on the website. You're always bound to find these gems hidden in any major media broadcast or newspaper, but they're far from being "mainstream".

      The corporate media is largely propagandist at this point, but that doesn't mean that the few *honest* articles that leak out constitute a hipocritical organization. I think this should be front page news, because you'll be hard pressed to find a single american that doesn't agree with it. Liberal or not.
    • darkspym7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0As did many Democrats.
  • chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4So just because John Edwards' rich doesn't mean he can help the poor. It's better than a rich candidate wanting to help the big corporations.
  • AlexWills, on 10/10/2007, -18/+16Oh shut up with the dictatorship claims. He will be out in less than 2 years.
    • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6There won't be an election in 2008. Bush will declare martial law before then, render the Constitution null and void, and declare himself King of the North American Union.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly two minutes before a sniper picks him off.
  • Diffy, on 10/10/2007, -23/+12An anti-Bush story? On Digg????
    • drmobutu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14No. An anti-Bush story in the New York Times.
    • darkspym7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0He's referring to the fact that Digg seems to be liberal.
      • Rojahon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OH! Is that what he meant! Cuz I totally wouldn't have dugg him down had I known that.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2digg isn't liberal, but a majority of it's vast userbase is. This is a good thing, as most of the population is beginning to come to their senses.
  • Smurph0404, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16Now I didn't read the whole thing, but it looks like they are upset over Bush going to war in Iraq. No offense guys but you're a few years too late to do anything about it. If this article had come out in the fall of 2002, it may have meant something, but now it's just more 20/20 hindsight.
  • rthakidn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19RTFA. Its a commentary, an opinion piece, namely on the inability of congress to fulfill it's role in the checks and balance structure of this nation. The FF/constitution gave them the role of collecting and appropriating funds for war, in that way they can declare and end wars, especially unpopular ones. You jokers read the title and assume its a bash Bush article and jump right in. How about reading the piece?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Never suggest reading to most diggers... their arguments and hatred they build their lives upon rely on illiteracy as a key support.
  • bnl771, on 10/10/2007, -17/+12Jesus - And people bitched about all the iPhone stories. At least those were useful and every now and then had accurate and relevant information.
    • Tanishh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 Unlike the iPhone stories, at least these stories are actually important in the grand scheme of things. But hey, if you want to learn about a phone while the country goes to the dumps, go ahead.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26Congress, which is the only authority that can declare war, gave Bush permission to go to war if he felt like it. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what happened. Clinton still won't admit voting for the war was a mistake. Congress still has the option of of rescinding their earlier grant, but haven't.
    • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Where in the Constitution is the authority to delegate Congressional power to the President?

      Would you still be so complacent if they delegated the authority to wage war to a General, perhaps a state governor, or even Paris Hilton? If not, why not? Skip the arguments about whether or not those choices would be intelligent (at least one isn't), instead argue from the Constitution.

      Good luck.

      • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Captain Crunch could run this country better than the bloody monkey we have there now.
    • hlcno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yep ur right, they gave him the authority to go to war and they gave him the budget
  • 3leggedHorse, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Morons.
    • darkspym7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I couldn't agree with you more. You people are overreacting. If Congress wanted to stop the war, they would, but enough Representatives still support it.
  • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Impeach Bush Elect Ron Paul !
    • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4ok, seriously, I think Ron Paul is funnelling money to sweatshops and call centers in Asia. For every two-sentence, Pro-Paul message submitted by a third world wage donkey during their 5 minute lunch break, they get a shiny quarter.
    • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Ron Paul. . Bush II
  • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Ron Paul a new American Revolution.
  • scottdaddy22, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Are you dumb enough to believe that the president can actually do all this without talking to Congress and the Senate, please don't tell me that you are. Another thing, about the Iraqi war, one question,do you want the stupid radicals here in the US or over there, long live Mr Bush. I know that there is nobody perfect out there and Bush is not either, but if you can do a better job than prove it.

    Bryan
    http://www.racinsite.com
    • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3My four ferrets could do a better job than this brainless wonder called Bush.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow... those are some stupid ferrets. It'll take four???
      • darkspym7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you would elect your ferrets, then I can't respect your opinion at all.
    • Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1That is a very interesting thought, one I've not pondered before, if not for Iraq, these terrorists might have already struck us here. Hrmms... an interesting hypothesis.
    • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It doesn't matter if any of us could do a better job. If you can't fit the pants he shouldn't wear em!
  • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8You guys realize that dark lord and imperial commander Bush is finished in a year and a half, right? I seem to recall another President who, after serving his two terms, thought a third should be allowed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2946802.stm
    And, strangely enough he's running again. Who is it? I'll give you a hint : he perjured himself to something that rhymes with "a jederal frand fury"
    Sorry to "Clinton did it" again, but he did famously call for a constitutional amendment to allow third terms. [relevant]
    I wonder how the Times felt about that then... or now.
    • Haapi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The GOP floated the idea of a third *consecutive* term for REAGAN.
      • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Calm down everyone. Term limits are a fairly new rule anyway. Remember FDR's four *consecutive* terms?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Strange how you are being buried for stating fact and actually providing evidence, though I'm not sure he is running again. Very interesting either way especially when you count the deliberate ignorance on the side of democratic reporters who commonly cite republicans supporters for the same ignorance.
    • JE255J, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Posed simply as an interesting question to consider.... Hypothetically.... Had Clinton managed to get that amendment to pass, the real question is, would he have been elected a third time? And, could Bush manage to get elected a third time? I don't know what would've happened if Clinton ran again - I really don't - but I think I can predict with some certainty what would happen if Bush did. I mean, if you're going to be pondering anyway, ponder about that.
      • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Personally, I think Clinton would have beaten Bush in 2000 (especially considering how close it was with Gore).
        Bush wouldn't stand a chance in hell at a 3rd term. Of course, if Clinton got his third in 2000, Bush's term may never have happened.
        Maybe it is unfair to call this a 3rd run for BILL Clinton, but I do recall Hillary attempting to fill posts that no one elected her to, and I'm sure Bill would at least have a hand in things.
  • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The Founders recruited their greatest general as the first president.
    • kevcowiffle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5But the title of General should not imply that Washington supported war in any way. Not only did he sign the Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793, but in his Farewell Address he stressed that while we should keep friendly working relationships with all other nations, we should not become so involved with them that we go to war. In that General's eyes, neutrality was the best course of action. He also stressed in the very same speech how highly we must value and respect the Constitution, and that partisanship can only bring about bad things. Man, we could sure use another Washington.
      • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why is it that military generals seem to understand the role of the presidency better than this freak we have now? My example would be Dwight D. Eisenhower.
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2because they've seen the cost of war? Just a guess.
  • projectinfamy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I'm not a republican but damn, every halfway-republican comment is immediately buried.
    I have to admit, though, I saw that one story with the title changed get on the front page several times.. Consistently digging the same thing and smashing down everything else that slightly contradicts is going to change nothing...
    How can anyone even have a decent debate the way this comment system is set up, anyway?
    • jtbndy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Its the way digg works. If you bash Linux, Apple, or Nintendo, you get dugg down. Bash Microsoft ( add the $ in MS for additional diggs ), Sony, or Windows, you get dugg up. l2digg~
      • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You hit the nail on the head. Those (along with Bush) are the main ingredients. Then sprinkle in Ron Paul, recycled Youtube videos, and anti-weed "propaganda" spread by the government, and you've got the whole enchilada. And no, Digg doesn't really work well for debate. I get buried and told to "eat poop" all the time... sometimes I'm not even askin' for it.
      • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Eat poop.
    • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12These articles aren't posted to stir debate. They are posted to promote an agenda. The comments are dugg up and down based on whether they promote the agenda correctly. It has become quite asinine over the last two months or so.
      • xgkx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1 Don't like it - go hang out with ignorant right wing nut jobs.
    • SpasticWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Buried for whining
      • projectinfamy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I didn't know constructive criticism was 'whining' o0
    • iamlutheran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8This comment system sucks farts out of dead seagulls.
      • yohnstoppable, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, that painted quite the picture.
    • RJGONZO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Oh noes, don't go throwing your logic around Mister!
  • Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -19/+13Buried as New York Times.
  • HPCELarry, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9I know I'll be digged down for this but, he is our commander in chief. He has been given constitutional authority over the troops. Congress has not. Even if I don't support the war, I still support the presidents right to carry it out.
    • JE255J, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Damn straight you'll be dugg down, but not so much for your opinion as for your apparently complete failure to read the article or comprehend the words within. "Commander in Chief" is more of a name than it is a position. The seventh paragraph, in particular, describes this distinction. But try not to focus so much on that section that you miss the rest of the article, or worse, the point it's trying to make.
    • Billistic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5What are you? Retarded?
    • killiansman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Let's not forget that our commander in chief WORKS FOR US. This is supposed to be a government for the people by the people, and anyone holding public office is a servant to the people. Therefore, the President has no right to carry this war out if Congress(which consists of our elected representatives) opposes it.

      oh yeah, and to quote the great Billistic... "What are you? Retarded?"
      • golfguy2788, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree killiansman but an important part of the argument that you missed is that the president takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Something our fearless leader has completely failed to do...
  • Billistic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Hey, how about you know, instead of sitting around talking about what the founders wanted you, you know, go out there and do something about it....
  • jasg, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Hail King George II

    /sarcasm
    • MaskedSlacker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know math is hard, but III + I = IV. King George III was the ruling monarch in 1776. Bush would therefore be King George IV.

      And the obligatory:

      I for one welcome back our Hanover overlords.

      I know, wasted on the ignorant. Ah well.
  • investr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Someone, please please please send a fax of this to God, that way we make sure that Bush will get it.

    *rolling my eyes*
  • mojoel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Maybe once the U.S. frees Iraq from all the tyranny Iraq might free the U.S. from all of THEIR own tyranny.
  • Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Bush never cared about American nor the soldier. He has always been playing us like some ***** chess.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wait, he's an evil genius? I thought you said he was an chimp like idiot? Would you please make up your mind.
    • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't be a douche.
    • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah, except that we allowed ourselves to be played
    • Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good comment- Ever read 'The Grand Chessboard'? Highly recommended. That is exactly what's happening!!!
  • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -15/+11Thank goodness....
    I was hoping for another "We hate Bush" article. Just doesn't seem to be enough of those these days. No siree....
    someone just needs to post:
    im in ur history slappin ur 4fathers

    then it would be complete.

    ooh ooh ooh or maybe someone could say "We should impeach Bush" or use the word neo-con. Maybe a 9/11 is a conspiracy or vote 4 Ron Paul.

    sweet. I love the entertainment...
    • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1dugg down for lack of originality. If you're going to make fun of digg, please do so in an creative, original way.
  • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I'm waiting for the moment Bush changes the law and says that he can stay as long as he wants. .
    • cassholio, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1you'll be waiting a very long time then.
      • nanboya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You think?
      • Trini2daBone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He could just write an executive privilege to make it happen.
    • phillydrifter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It'll happen, the laws are already in place. All we need is one more catastrophe, either natural or man-made, and there are new laws on the books that would allow the president to 'lead' (take charge) of the other two branches of government. I just hope it doesn't happen before I can get my gun. Not that one gun would really help, but at least I'd be able to defend myself to the death when the SS nazis agents kick in my door with no warrant and open fire.
  • aknappjr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Yet another reason to donate money to Dr. Ron Paul.
  • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29The founding fathers expected that a corrupt President would eventually take control, take a look:

    "If you look at the discussions in the Federalist Papers but also at the Constitutional Convention, when they spoke about impeachment, one of the things that Madison and George Mason spoke about was the notion that you needed the power to impeach particularly as regards to pardons and commutations because a president might try to take the burden of the law off members of his administration to prevent them from cooperating with Congress in order to expose wrongdoings by the president himself. And so Madison said that is why we must have the power to impeach. Because otherwise a president might be able to use his authority and pardons and such to prevent an investigation from getting to him."

    - John Nichols, Author of "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism "
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Shame they forgot to legislate balls for congress
      • pseudononymist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oh you didn't see that article of the Constitution? It reads, and I quote verbatim,

        "It is hereby stipulated that those justly chosen by the people for the people must need to be in possession of a purse hanging no less than three inches from thy shaft, and be of no less an equal breadth"

        It was later amended to include the size of women's labia, but ultimately thrown out in 1941, when all men with balls were drafted to fight against the Japanese Imperialists.
    • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In order to impeach the president, we must first impeach either mostly or wholly, our entire legislature. The whole organism is rotten to the core. Start over!
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Shame they forgot to legislate balls for congress"

      Its a shame we don't use balls as a criteria for electing our Congressional Representatives.
  • deleo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14How can any average U.S. citizen feel nothing but helpless in this situation? Bush and Cheney are so far removed from our democracy (or lack thereof) at this point, that apathy has set in for most of us. What can any person do between now and January 2009? Congress can't even assert its power against the President. All the Democratic leaders can do is whine like we do, which has no effect on reality. The Republicans will not admit to screwing up and enough of them will hang in there with Bush until the end to keep this train wreck going. I hope and believe that the Republican party will go into the dustbin of history for their blind and cowardly support of King George. The Republicans in Congress are the only ones that can save this situation, and save lives, and most of them are silent and look the other way. How do they sleep at night?

    I watched V for Vendetta last night thinking that we are not that far off from that comic book fantasy world. It's kind of surreal.

  • omega6, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What baffles me is why, 'we the people of the United States of America' have not banded together in opposition of this war and the fascism the government is moving towards. We are the building blocks of this nation and we together have the ability to control what our country does and who our countrymen fight. If all of us came together in support of bringing down this president as well as this war and showed up on the steps of the white house there would have to be a change. We came to this country for freedom and that freedom is being ripped apart right by right. Why can't we all just stand up?
    • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because the government is a demagogy, and the people of the united states are blinded by an illusion of comfort which gives to apathy - and fear which gives rise to hatred. We are sleepwalking into the future - and thusly failing to see the pit trap in front of us. Here's to hoping we'll find the vine with which to swing over it... but that would require a wakeup - a proverbial smack in the face. A singular event which would change the entire course of the future of our politics, policy, education, city planning and architecture.
    • biercenator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It costs in time and money for people to agree on things. The larger the group, the higher the costs. That's why small groups with a strong common interest are able to buy favourable legislation from Congress. James Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1986 for pointing this out (among other things).
    • moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ssh, Idol's on.
    • outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0someone on digg recently said in response to a comment like this "toss a frog in boiling water and he will immediately jump out, put him in the water and raise the temperature ever so slightly and he will sit complacently while you boil him" thought that was well said.
  • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I will aslo note foryou tha tthe founders never instered term limits in the Constitution - that only came about last centuty. Naturally, this begs the quesiton, if the foudners were concerned about an imperialist President, why not castrate his terms fromthe outset? The current version of hte role of the President is representative of the power the congress has given it and supported by an ever expanding government.

    “That government is best which governs least.” - Thomas Paine

    Furthermore, the founding fathers would be more upset that we have a department of education, welfare and are considering giving control of the healthcare industry to the goverhment, in addition to other governmental expansion - like the TVA ... these depatment represent are concepts of socialism that fiy in the face of individual and state liberty - the liberty Alexander Hamilton and John Jay spoke of in the Federalist papers, the liberties that Ben Franklin was vilified for support in London.

    • DrawingTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Giving Healthcare to the Government will not work in America, sorry but your Government is so screwed up it just won't work.
      Then again, its also a shame companies are allowed to get away with whatever they want, because you get the situation you have at the moment in America. Sicko Explains all.
  • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1..
  • Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You know what, when partisans on the left and right, both start realizing that they are destroying what made this country great, then I may care about whatever it is bush has done, as it is both sides are weak and knock kneed and scared to actually hold the president to account. Congress should just go home and save us the rest of their salaries for the year, nothing else is going to get done this term.
    • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you think this is the first time tis country has faced this kind of Constitutional (scarrrry words) CRISIS! then you are wrong. This may be the first time you ahve experienced it, but if we can get throught eh civil war, a little spat about money for Iraq should be nothing.
  • Smuikas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Is there any way a citizen can get the courts involved in prosecuting / censuring both congress and the president on misappropriating funds and violating the constitution?

    The only solution I know of is a public referandum, but even that requires someone at the higher authority to execute it on behalf of their constituents. Are the people so powerless against their government? Is waiting and trying to "vote them all out" the only option? Is there no way for the people to, short of rebellion, force the government's hand?
    • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No. we are a Federation - our abilities as citizens to find national representation is worthless. Case in point - the Presidential election is not a national election. You elect who your **State** will vote for at the electoral college. Your public referndum would be worthless. Bush is not beholden to the citizens of the state - only its electors.

      Diggerrs needs to take som Constitutional law classes.
      • biercenator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Constitution and the law are malleable. Things could be rearranged to provide a power of lawmaking by direct popular referendum. The experience with this in California suggests that it would be used most aggressively as a means of earmarking particular sources of tax revenue for specific projects -- in other words, as a vehicle for special interest legislation. So yes, you could do this. It wouldn't correct the nation's craving to be ruled by a strongman, but you could certainly do this.
    • punjester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
      Check here for information on how you can get the impeachment process going.

      http://www.givemeliberty.org/
      This group already has petitions for "Redress of Grievances" against the government. Although they served papers in November of 2002, they have yet to hear from the US Govt.
    • 00Duncan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe just realize that you're exaggerating and that things aren't nearly as bad as digg makes them sound. You really think the people should force the government's hand anyway?...look at digg
    • iluvgossip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There doesn't need to be a rebellion further than voting EVERY incumbent out. Unfortunately everyone thinks that their own respresentatives are doing a good job and it is just the idiotic politicians from other States that are messing everything up. Similarly most people have their own team they root for and that just means the other team is full of bad guys and if only your team won more seats that everything would be hunky dory.

      Meanwhile the reality is that these losers -- both Democrats and Republicans -- hold power for decades and think of themselves as our rulers instead of our employees. Screw em all and vote them all out. That, all by itself, would be such a shock that I guarantee it would be viewed as a rebellious revolution. It would take quite a while before the politicians would quit walking on eggshells.

      OPPOSE ALL INCUMBENTS!!
  • eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First, sorry about the typos above, the new digg systems blows at it logged me out in the middle of editing my comments. this bullcrap about my session expiring is ***** me off too - isn't the "remember me" checkbox supposed to count for something?

    Secondly, in contravention to the article cited, the founders were not all for a military system which would be totally overseen by the Congress. Point: the Continental Congress did not oversee the Revolutionary war - they gave total control to George Washington to fight the war. today's congress would not last past the fight at Lexington Green - they would have shivered at the sight of the British blockade.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.