What is Digg?398 Comments
- 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...
- JD52, on 10/10/2007, -3/+96At what point do things stop being treason and start being a revolution?
- inactive, 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 - 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!!! - SaltedCashews, on 10/10/2007, -8/+54the problem here is, they neglected to sharply limit VICE-PRESIDENTIAL power.
- 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.
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+40"We are truly sorry"
Speak for yourself, buddy.
I voted for Gore. - 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.
- Proneguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28The difference between treason and revolution is the victor.
- 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 " - crispee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29So did a MAJORITY of this country.
- 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...
- 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.
- 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.
- reed311, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Yeah, dude, you went into great detail there. You should submit it for publication.
- inactive, 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 - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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...
- justok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18What channel will it be on? I think I'll TiVo it and watch it later.
- 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. - 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 - FactaNonVerba7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16how do you figure?
- phunlee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17you said it.
- 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.
- 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? - devoss, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Working for Haliburton is just slavery by a different name.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15american corporate capitalism and the military-industrial complex destroyed the america the founders created
- 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. - Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The Founders recruited their greatest general as the first president.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- drmobutu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14No. An anti-Bush story in the New York Times.
- 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.
- stauken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I second that *****.
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -16/+27I for one welcome our Congressional Overlords.
- cassholio, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Optimus Prime is not a retard.
- 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!" - adc89, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Tell me, what punches have you thrown?
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I bet you do. They didn't make you think at all, huh?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Shame they forgot to legislate balls for congress
- bIuebonics, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9you're either stupid, a troll, or both. your choice.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 387 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