What is Digg?127 Comments
- imgstacke, on 07/06/2008, -3/+87"We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us."
- kineticworm, on 07/06/2008, -2/+74"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."---Benjamin Franklin
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -6/+54Who would think that Congress would care about respecting the rights named in the Constitution. As for the Bill of Rights, the dems only care about the 1st and the Reps about the 2nd,
- mrcoderga, on 07/06/2008, -10/+44"The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel’s persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our “freedom and democracy” as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 ... - GinsuGuy585, on 07/06/2008, -1/+33Here is the problem we face: the government-industrial complex is serving it's interests, not the people's interests.
Do the people want this to become law? (probably not)
Why are the representatives of the people voting it into law? (.......) - ti22, on 07/05/2008, -0/+31scary
- Khast, on 07/07/2008, -2/+32Excuse my anger, but it is completely justified.
TRY EVERY LAST POLITICIAN WHO SIGNS AWAY OUR FREEDOM, FOR TREASON.
The government WORKS FOR US...WE ARE THEIR EMPLOYER. I don't need their damn false protection. What are we so scared of? A few fanatics? Gee, thanks...I think this administration has done enough damage to America... Any government head which decides to eliminate our constitution should be executed for treason, because that is what it is.
/rant - tehpwnerofn00bs, on 07/06/2008, -6/+25But the Reps go out of their way to violate and remove all the others, the Dems are just too lazy to try and stop them.
- tajitj, on 07/06/2008, -7/+25And to think your man Obama supportes that. Wrong kind of change.
Take a look at Bob Barr and Nader. They are not so scared of a few hundred man in a cave that they are willing to toss the 4th in the can.
Anyone else think the people in Washington are taking this WAY to far because of their own fears. - Ne007, on 07/07/2008, -0/+12I'm sure it's illegal to say that these people need to be lynched, even though that's what the constitutional right to bear arms is all about.
I'm sure there is some patriot act clause that makes me a terrorist for saying that. - nontoxyc, on 07/07/2008, -2/+14The people of the United States have to hold their leaders accountable, the criminals in Washington DC have committed crimes against man, God, and country.
Here is my list of grievances against the leaders in Washington:
1) They have lied to us about the dangers posed by Iraq and Afghanistan to start wars of aggression.
2) They have violated the Geneva Conventions in Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay
3) They have waged wars of aggression for profit
4) They have violated the Constitution of the United States of America
5) They have financially harmed the People of the United States of America.
6) They have worked tirelessly to prevent true democratic elections
7) They have imprisoned American citizens without charges or trial
Through these actions they have made a mockery of our Constitution, our Senate, and our Union. They have sacrificed the legitimacy of their claims to power.
If they are not held accountable by Americans then all Americans will be held accountable by God and the rest of the world. - jaymzdean, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11Oh stop trying to carry on the facade that these 2 parties are competing incompetents. The Dems aren't spineless or lazy. They're complicit.
- LeeSoong, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9Criminal Looters and their corporate stooges should be brought up on charges of violating human rights.
Nip it in the bud, defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Vote to remove these impostors from office - before they start down the path of smoking ovens burning night and day in prisoner death camps. - Dibou, on 07/07/2008, -10/+19Except for the fact that the Democrats only care about the 1st amendment when it is about people saying things they like to hear.
Democrats want to kill free speech (not in the left fantasy world killing free speech sort of way either) with the Fairness Doctrine, where the government tells radio show owners what they can and can not say.
The left of this country is also trying to push further to the left as far as Canada and Europe where they can charge people with 'hate crimes' if they don't like what you say, regardless of truth.
Add in 'speech codes' in the universities and you find the left doesn't care for free speech at all and it is 'just words' to them. - nugz85, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10dude, he makes a good point. stop having faith in the left in this country, they are no better than the right! they only want what is best for those in power, to hell with everyone else. this government is the enemy, thats why our founders (namely thomas jefferson) did what they could to limit the power of th government. go ahead, trust the government, until one day they are forcing you to trust them, and forcing you to do what they want. the people of germany trusted and gave their rights to their government in the 1920s and 30s... look where it got them
- netneutrality, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10The obvious difference is that if there's a God, we trust him (or have no choice). But mere men are always corrupted by power, so we're right to be suspicious.
- chrispr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10Perhaps you can set digg, the EFF, and the ACLU straight then?
- justz00t, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9nah, its not the Patriot act, see the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 for that clause.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9User500, just check out the links:
‘Fairness Doctrine’ Is A Code Name For “Censorship”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nancy+pelosi+ ... - hierophantus, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9OK, you're an obvious troll, but I'll play along anyway.
What fear-mongering has "the left" done?
What "hate" has come from "the left," and what damage did it do to "the American way of life?"
Please answer with specific, objectively verifiable examples, not generalized rhetoric.
(Note that I'll give you a pass on defining "the left" and "the American way of life," as manipulable as such generalities are.) - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8both sides
both labels, are *****
both sides, both labels, are doing everything they can to strip us of the whole bill of rights - Gryffydd, on 07/07/2008, -3/+10The Dems care about the 1st amendment, except when it involves Christmas trees in airports, or anything else that might offend anyone other than white christians.
- mrbeagle, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7They will "get away" with it. Relative to the voting population of the US, Digg readership is virtually insignificant. While we rant and rave about the injustices committed by the government, out in the real world, the general American population doesn't know or doesn't care.
The US will continue on its descent into fascism until:
a. it becomes an insufferable hellhole, or
b. an outside force intervenes and blows the ***** out of everything, a la WWII.
Realistically, we're *****. - hierophantus, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I suppose you can explain why that would be so without even reading the case?
Just admit it. You have no idea how the law works; you just repeat the conservative party line. - SpinningHead, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8What a traitorous statement. We need to call homeland security to arrest this Franklin guy.
- TremorX, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7The Patriot Act and the HTPA have made us all criminals. It's just a matter of when they want to 'catch' us.
- yakski, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7You are completely incorrect as in lying as in falsifying... here is the direct quote you ass..
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The first variant was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1755 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly. See Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin. [1]
The second variant was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) This book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts.[2] " - calantus, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6dems are just as bad don't fool yourself.
- Ramble, on 07/07/2008, -2/+8Now that you've just hit on the obvious truth, why are you not dead?
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Buried for not bothering to mention Obama's stated support of the bill:
"...Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/2 ...
You can safely assume McCain supports it as well, but you don't see many blind McCain supporters here claiming their man is a messiah, they seem reconciled to the fact that he sucks, so I'm not going to bother looking for his position, I'll simply say that McCain, Hillary, Obama, and Bush will probably all have the same position again. - Ne007, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5What are you going to do after you bear arms? Play tiddlywinks?
Why did you think I didn't know what the 2nd amendment was?
Anyways, for your education, a lynch is "an extrajudicial punishment meted out by a mob." Although lynching can involve racial groups, lynching is an act that can happen without racial motivation, duh.
Ugh...I would go on...why do I even try... - relic180, on 07/06/2008, -2/+7I should hope we, as a country, are not trying to be equal or above imaginary fairy tails.
I'm not even sure exactly how that would work. - PopcornDave, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6You mean it's not because they're a bunch of nut job religious ***** who want to rule the world under their thumb like so many that came before them?
- gzusfreak, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4bigsteve is a stalker!
But in all seriousness, bigsteve, stop while you are ahead before you make a complete and total fool of yourself. Thats what the youtube comments are for, go join the lot over there.
Also, you are saying that we are too busy throwing our "superior political viewpoint" around and not doing anything about our freedoms while you are doing the same thing! How convenient is that? Really, we are voicing our complaints about what they are trying to do over there in Washington. From what I have seen, all you have been doing is complaining about our complaining. - stealthc, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4How dare you speak blasphemy against the Messiah!
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOBAMA!!! - MelaiLama, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4So, by the corporations being immunized... we cant point a finger and say they were using unjust surveillance. We just have to take this?
I smell fascism. - chrispr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
Just so you can read it. - RedHerringHack, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Massive lead poisoning works just as well.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Yes, lets discuss Dr Judy Woods' "compelling questions" about 9/11. What does she believe brought down the WTC?
- Jebrooks, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5This is why we have judicial review, eventually this will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional. It's just sad that the spineless hacks in office really don't give a damn about their job, they only care about their paycheck.
- relic180, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5But the real twist is that since "God" is a creation of man, it falls to reason that he would be susceptible to the same "corruption". Or, in the more commonly verbalized term, "interpretation".
- Hetman, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4To be honest. I am done with this whole thing. America has already allowed the government to much power. "Patriot Bill" They are trying to give it more by not protesting this bill. To put it simple as George Carlin did. Nobody cares, Nobody seems to notice.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4"I thought he was a kook!"
And you were correct!
"Anyone with half a ***** brain can figure that out!"
You certainly qualify. Now tell us who has been giving the Palestinians the explosives they use to send suicide bombers in to Israel to specifically target women and children. - AlwaysAwake, on 07/07/2008, -4/+7They are not afraid of the men in the cave. They are afraid of David de Rothschild, and his band of greedy super-rich sociopath banker/investors calling themselves The One World Company, and who control all the Telecoms. They have killed many Presidents and a Pope, and they will kill anyone who gets in the way of their now nearly realized ambition to enslave all human life on the planet. Rothschild just had his man in London, Lord George, former UK Spy, and Governor of The Bank of England, "take care " of Alex Allen, naive Chairman of The British Intelligence Committee, who probably got too nosy about what is really going on. Allen's job was like being the Director of the CIA, and The NSA, even though, when appointed, he had NO intelligence experience, whatsoever. Now why would Prime Minister Brown, put such a man in that position?
- banderwocky, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Wow. Captric you tool. Canada RECEIVED uranium removed from Saddam Hussain. Just do a search on whatever flaky news site you "read". Not the one included in your imaginary world. You make up the silliest crap. That's probably why you get buried...and your wife left you.
- scamper22, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3No government cares about rights.
Democracy and rights are inconveniences for governments. I mean who voluntarily puts barriers in the way of getting things done? - yakski, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5Oh yeah ... or maybe deplete uranium munitions that the US has distributed though out Iraq , Afghanistan and Kuwait... ... oh and the "yellow cake" was obtained during the time the US supported Saddam and Iraq... kind of forgot about that didn't you... you know the Reagan and early Bush Sr. years when the US help Saddam and ignored his chemical warfare use against Iran and the Kurds because it suited the right wing agenda in this country......... how hypocritical of you to not acknowledge that the US was intimately involved with allowing Saddam to prosper when he obtained this material... material that was never to be used for a dirty bomb... but for use in either a nuclear plant or in Saddam's search for a nuclear weapon.. neither of which proceeded ... but hey just ignore the US helping Saddam !!!
- yakski, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4No you moron ... the US allowed Saddam to gas the Iranians and the Kurds... this was long before you were born I guess since you act like a teenybopper punk right wing nut.... The no fly zone was after the first Gulf war but long before that Reagan and Bush Sr, until Saddam invaded Kuwait... supported Saddam and sold him all kinds of weapons, and intelligence and chemicals and bought his oil and said all kinds of nice things about the man... you couldn't possibly remember ... wasn't that Rumsfeld shaking his hand back then... why yes it was... so sad you have absolutely NO historical perspective when viewing history or the truth... go back to your video games and keep your head in the sand and your mind in the gutter!!!!
- KidCargo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4The intent of the immunity for telcos is self-explanatory. It is to immunize them from the courts of law of this country where a judge may decide that what they have done is illegal whereupon they would have to pay vast sums of money to the citizens that they may have violated. Let's let the courts decide. No "Get out of Jail Free Card".
- DaviDaviDaviD, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Remember..
"Those that give up liberty for safety deserve neither"
Timeless words. -
Show 51 - 100 of 128 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