What is Digg?105 Comments
- Speciou5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22It's an erosion, not a sudden loss of rights. Though if you guys don't defend them, they might as well be lost.
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Our children lost the right to a good education thanks to No Child Left Behind, but you should already know that...you're living proof of its outcome!
- kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20it would seem that specific recommendations based on research to remedy the situation would be doing something
or did you mean something like punching Bush in the face? - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@1337Einstein: The lack of sources doesn't invalidate the facts. Look them up. They're public information. I don't need a source to say the sky is blue.
- damonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The writ of habeas corpus.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Does anyone else notice the irony of the left's complaints about Bush taking away their rights? When they are in power all they do is raise taxes, restrict freedoms, and interpret the Constitution into meaninglessness because they know how to run Americans' lives better than the Americans themselves do.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@SlvrEagle23: The problem with saying that education is a right because it leads to the pursuit of happiness is that everything that contributes to happiness would immediately become a right. A yacht would contribute to my happiness but the government hasn't used other people's money to buy me a yacht yet. Why not just let the people keep their money and use it on education? After all, people are more careful with their own money than with other people's money. That's why there's so much waste and bureaucracy in our Government as it is today.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@1337Einstein: Perhaps, but the article is full of lefty psycho babble and vague language. It just seems like general Bush bashing to me. A quick google about gun restrictions or something would reveal thousands of pieces of legislation, whereas a quick google about Bush's restrictions of civil rights would reveal a lot of nutty conspiracy theories and Bush bashing.
- deadlogic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i agree. both the democrats and republicans are destroying this country. they are both different means to the same end.
- alphaborie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How about the NSA wiretapping millions of Americans? - violation of privacy
Opinion: Regardless of this leftish article, it's important for us as citizens to examine our government closely. Our ability to criticize our own policy is a right that few have had in the history of the world. For me, its important to put aside any right-left prejudice that I have and ask myself: "Does this hold any merit?" when confronted with information. Our our rights being eroded? Im not sure. Am I going to pay close attention? Your damn right I am.
But hey, everyones got an opinion right? :) - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't disagree, but one could hardly argue that Republicans are any better. The real answer lies in a reasonable 3rd party candidate (or Ron Paul).
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@N3M3515: Care to enlighten me on how 911 relates to how "The Bush administration continues to use the courts and the judicial appointment process to narrow civil rights protections?" Thanks.
- legatus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@soulevent
This kind of rant is what get the left the loony tag - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We started losing our rights as soon as the put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It's just accelerating faster today.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Talk about fear mongering......
Liberals are more than willing to use scare tactics to convince idiots into believing they have imaginary rights that are being taken away by the evil boogie men on the other side of the aisle.
Cultural Marxism and the silencing of criticism toward leftist agendas and pet organizations enacted and empowered by the politically correct radical liberals has done more to suppress open discussion than any other influence in the past forty years. - SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@strabes: The point there is that the extremism involved is dangerous, not which side of the spectrum the idea happens to lie on. Has anyone even thought about a moderate, rational and level-headed solution to the issue of public education? I say this all the time, but it's still relevant: the only people proposing ***** for us to do are the ones who have the time and money to be extremist...the most rational among us have more important things to do than politics.
As for whether it's in the Constitution, those are about the only rights left that the president hasn't directly attempted to revoke. Something doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution for it to be a right. I would consider an education to lead to a happier life and thus classified under the "pursuit of happiness", but hey, that's just me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10This argument isn't about loss of rights. It's about the loss of power for neolibs and how they will lie, cheat, and steal to get more of it.
By the way, I work extra to send my kids to a private school so that we (as a family) control our own destiny rather than have the teacher's union dictate it to us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8They wont shut it down while they're collecting our names.
Wait.....what's that sound? It sounds like helicopters. And it sounds like black ones.
Maybe I'm just imagining things..................LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!!!!!111111ONEONEONEoneoneone.... - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7What a waste of cyberspace.
"knowing that your government can CALL you a terrorist, lock you up, throw away the key and you have no right to a trial should be a very good example"
This is a leftist's fantasy. It's nothing more than an imaginary example that has zero basis in reality. I'm not sure why you expect us all to buy into your raging personal paranoia and blatant fear mongering. - SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@keymanjim: The first time I read that comment, I read the "ONEONEONEoneoneone" part as if it was the actual sound of the helicopter. Pretty badass effect...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6But they're doing it "for the common good".
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While you do that I'll be in New Zealand..
- cajungator2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This article is bull. Our rights have been eroding a long long time ago before Bush. In fact Clitnon (Yes, thats how i'm spelling his name from now on) took away more rights and put us in more wars we shouldn't have been in. Yugoslavia anyone?
- etg1109, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More Wars. George W has made our US dollar be worth about 4 cents. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but at least he left us with a projected surplus of 5 trillion. Right now we have a negative 7 trillion. Thats a hell of a president. You are right about Bush isn't the only one that has rip our rights away from us. Clinton actually made the first patriot act after the Oklahoma city bombing. I can't think of the name that he called it sorry.
The fact is, the patriot act and military commissions act provide us with no rights as we speak. Our congress should repeal both. They only want to repeal parts that are affecting them. - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"I'm 24 and can't name a single right that I felt I've lost."
I remember when the Democrats were the party who 'felt' their answers. My how times have changed. Is it any wonder I no longer side with Republicans? - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9"The Bush administration continues to use the courts and the judicial appointment process to narrow civil rights protections and repeal remedies for legal redress while allowing the traditional tools of the executive branch for civil rights enforcement to wither and die."
Example please? Using big words doesn't make you correct. Somehow I doubt there's anything in this report about all the lefty restrictions on 2nd amendment gun ownership rights. Here are some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Some_U.S._statistics
I understand the lack of examples. It's hard to find them when you're wrong. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"tell me when you start actually doing something"
Without a consensus among the citizens, it is near impossible to take effective action. Therefore, this is exactly what we should be doing, which is try to build a consensus about this threat among the citizens. Once there is a consensus, the rest is a cake walk. - SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@leqatus
So worrying about Habeas Corpus is just some loony left idea...well, I guess that should make all the Americans whos imaginary rights have been violated throughout the years feel alot better.
Im not a leftist, I support going after all the evil dictators and mass murderers in this world...BUT NOT BY BECOMING ON YOURSELF...apparently, you dont have that problem.
I take it that you dont get the full news where your from? Have you EVER heard of the Patriot Act?
The PATRIOT ACT did remove the writ of Habeas Corpus...that is a fact, if you werent SO busy trying to be a piece of Bush Loving ***** you would have known it as fact...but instead, as is the case with most of YOUR kind, you call something a LIE knowing damn well its true...I bet that makes mommy and daddy real proud huh...less they are dead, then they are as disgusted with you as I am.
and @courtesy flush
This isnt fear mongering, learn a little something about your government *****, this president has ***** on the constitution and you can nonchalantly call it fear mongering to talk about it?
Pssh...what was lying about WMD and telling Americans if they didnt support invading Iraq we would all be ***** dead from Mustard Gas in a week? Was that fear mongering? or Sending Antrax in the mail to get everyone scared before Powell testifies how we know Iraq has stockpiles...was that fear mongering? Or how bout telling your WHOLE ***** COUNTRY that if they dont bow down to George Bush they help terrorists?
I support kicking ass all over the world...but not by LYING to my ***** country to do it
THOSE OF YOU STILL KISSING HIS ASS, I GOT THREE WORDS FOR YOU... "My Pet Goat" - jiggleflop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I... I am not a number.
I am a free man...
Remember that show? The Prisoner? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You could make an effort, learn something, and get a clue.
Then you wouldn't WANT to bury this stuff. You'd have your head out of your ass and you'd be as offended by it as the rest of us.
Or you can continue to be a jackass. Either way. - tled, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"for the common good" Joseph Stalin would be proud to see that slogan alive and well.
- pjhurst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Under current law, all the government has to do is declare you an enemy combatant, read terrorist, and you no longer have the writ of habeas corpus. This applies to all U.S. citizens. I'm sure our lawful government who is creating concentration camps with the military and refuses to obey congressional treaties and laws on torture would never do this to a U.S. citizen.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Liberals believe in group rights not individual rights. "
Who says? As a liberal I was just as angry as you about many of those things. So were other liberals I know. There is a conservative talk radio host named Roger Hedgecock that talks a bit like you. The other day I flipped over there to "hear what the other side was saying". He was talking about a girl in High School that was suspended for 3 days simply because she had an American flag sewn onto her back pocket. From that little fact, the talk show host started in on a rant on how "those moonbat liberals" were against the American flag and hypocrites when it came to freedom of speech. He continued to infer that she would never have been suspended if she were wearing a Mexican flag instead. He gave no evidence to back up his claims that liberals had anything to do with this, but He insisted that the suspension of this girl is "what liberals want". I was so angry simply because this girl would have instantly been defended by the (ultra-liberal as the conservatives like to think) ACLU had she asked. I would have supported her (and still do) and even donated to the ACLU for her cause. The only people on the other end of this argument I suspect would have been the person that suspended her and a couple of other fringe weirdos. I can't think of a single liberal that I know that would have wanted this girl suspended for using her constitutional right to express her patriotism. There is nothing wrong and everything right with that.
Moral of story, if you are going to go around spreading anger and hate for liberals, at least know what it is exactly that we stand for. - tled, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Right on strabes.... You are 100% correct.
- bilbus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I would be more worried about loosing my country via other sources.
The Mexican invasion. I don't want what has happened to California to happen to my state.
Muslim influences. We bend over backwards to make them feel comfortable ... and its just slowly eroding away our freedoms. Just wait till it's illegal to criticize Islam. Its started .. a German court just ruled the right for a Muslim man to beat/kill his wife ... Lucky a higher court later overruled.
Political correctness .... i am more worried about that then bush .... you lefties should love him .. he is just a liberal .... other then on the war on terror - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@SoulEvent,
It is Constitutionally consistent to treat non-citizens suspected of crimes as invaders. This has always been the case... such designations were at the discretion of the courts. It is also constitutionally consistent to take that discretion away from the courts and codify it in law. This is what the Patriot Act did. It is also perfectly reasonable to treat terrorists as "rebels".
Your problem is with the Constitution, not the patriot act. - stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cpuenvy: no, the constitution doesn't give you any rights at all... none... zero. What it does is prevent the government from taking away your natural "god-given" right to call him a ***** moron, but it doesn't give you one single solitary right at all. It merely limits the government's power to infringe upon the rights or CITIZENS of the United States.
- uRmyHartBstopR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I saw this coming when he wanted to go to war with Iraq. Not only that but the fact that the Vice president shot someone in the face and got the victim to say sorry.
The Right seems (to me at least, I can't speak for the rest of them) to bend their freedom when there's a carrot (greed) in front of them. When they're, done hopefully, we can get someone that have taken Econ 101 to help put this country back on her pretty leg because currently our country is a whore to China (debt), Russia (Putin), and Middle East (oil).
The only people I see often defending our freedoms is the ACLU. - Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the right to be wrong, apparently, as well. Read what the founding fathers wrote. The Bill of Rights didn't grant rights. The rights recognized in the BOR are natural rights that exist outside any document. They are rights we are all born with.
- Jagula, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ erikfm, thatsmyaibo
You want ONE FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL right that's been totally gang-raped by these ***** *****???
The Fourth Amendment, which GUARANTEES protection from search/seizure w/o warrant, has been ***** on. The National Security Agency has gathered a call database of roughly two trillion domestic and international calls. Clearly a violation of our Constitutional rights.
It's so incredibly ***** SAD to see people willingly give up their civil liberties for a feeling of security. Benjamin Franklin put it best, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The demicritters can't name ONE freaking right that's been lost. They're just a bunch of miserable asswads.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1spucky, the fact is, the constitution does NAME the rights that it is forbidding the government from interfering in. The words "the right to bear arms" and "right of the people peaceably to assemble" obviously are speaking of rights individual US citizens have. The same is true when the Constitution asserts our *freedoms*. Rights are freedoms, freedoms are rights. They are synonyms. The freedom of the press is the *right* of people to express themselves and it is stated explicitly in the constitution. Yes, the constitution does in fact grant rights. It then forbids the government from interfering in the,,, it does BOTH.
And contrary to the assumptions made by the article, no rights we have demand accommodation from fellow citizens. I have absolutely no grounds on which to demand another person treat me fairly or well. My only valid demand is that my fellows refrain from assaulting me or stealing from me. And that the *government* treat me fairly... that's equal treatment under the law. - Darksaber11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just you keep thinking that...
- sachmanb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1THIS ARTICLE HAS FULL REPORT PDF DOWNLOAD
Sorry for all the caps but for people like me that's a big deal -- it's not just second hand information like this "report says that...." I like to get the actual report. It's more useful, and that way can cite any facts contained within. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The resulting inequality of opportunity, deteriorating civil liberties, and rising religious and racial discrimination are sad commentaries on the priorities of the current administration."
This is a royally screwed up notion of civil rights. Equity of opportunity and freedom from discrimination ARE NOT RIGHTS. Indeed, it is actually a fundamental right to be able to discriminate any damn way you like. That's called freedom of associations. For example, laws which deny employers the right to discriminate against any kind of race or creed they like does in fact represent an significant loss of basic rights. What even worse, these laws are applied unequally. Allowing employees to quit for reasons of racial bigotry without fear of prosecution is a clear example of un-equal protection under the law.
The fact of the matter is that decades of irrational lawmaking where real rights have been stripped from us for the sake of phony, nonsensical "civil rights" that do nothing but force compliance to an arbitrary moral code has turned the federal government... as well as many state and local government... into morals and thought police. Notions such as enhanced sentencing for "hate crimes" and wrongful termination laws are the true cause of erosion of our rights. If the Bush administration is not enforcing these travesties as well of past administrations, I thank them. - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Constitution gives me many rights, such as the right to call you a ***** moron.
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@N3M3515:
"911 need I say more?"
No, you don't need to say more. It is now confirmed that you are a ***** moron. - consonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Whiskey Rebellion should have been put down.
1. If a government can't prevent its own citizens from revolting, then how can you expect it to protect the nation as a whole?
2. The Whiskey Rebellion was a violent uprising, not a peaceful one. Violent protest is not the answer, or have you forgotten the lessons that Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us?
3. Changing the law by force is not the proper process. Laws do not exist to be interpreted at your discretion. If you don't like the laws, change them by voting - which is exactly what residents of Pennsylvania did immediately after the rebellion in the next election by refusing to vote for the incumbent party.
4. If laws are unjust, you cannot reasonably suggest that you should be able to violently overthrow your government. Otherwise, the purpose of law is quite moot. While the idea of taking up arms when you feel wronged is popular, it's also a remarkably idealistic and dangerous one. - OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bill Clinton may have rented out the Lincoln bedroom but George Bush has sold out the entire country!
- Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What a partisan pile of garbage. And, of course, there's absolutely no mention of the status of the Second Amendment, or the ridiculous expansion of the power of the national government thanks to FDR and the rest of the Democrats which make the current, bloated administration possible. Here's an idea: let's kick both the Republicans and the Democrats out and start out with someone that cares more about the United States then their respective parties, and stop popularly electing the Senate to insulate the government against popular stupidity as was done originally.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is