What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
324 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -73/+210That's the dumbest comment I've seen in a while.
Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass with a wet sucking sound you'd have a clue. Or are you a Fox news zombie, clueless as to what is actually happening in the world?
There is no way you should be so pathetically uninformed that you can't understand people's unhappiness with President Traitor.
And it's not about being smarter, it's about being BETTER. It's about ethics and morals and proper governance and transparency. It's about doing GOOD.
I'm sick of explaining the obvious to a right wing troll.
Plus, this isn't true: "Yet the public's dislike of Bush has not translated into any real move to get rid of him."
That's *****. The PEOPLE have been calling for this for years, they want a prez they can trust. The POLITICIANS who have to make it happen are the ones dragging thier feet.
I like the analogy of Bush being a spousal abuser. - Chutch, on 10/11/2007, -26/+123I hate to be a negative Nancy but... in order to get any impeachment hearing, one would have to tie any number of these scandals to president Bush... I am actually curious... can anyone show me where Bush actually committed a crime... Because in each instance of a Bush scandal, there has been a fall guy that has taken the blame and gotten fired. Impeachment requires that the president had to have committed a crime while in office, and I am not saying he did not, but can anyone legally prove it? You cant just impeach a president because you don't like him... that is the "real" reason why there is no impeachment.
The beauty about getting an idiot elected to office is that he can always claim he didn't know any better... "I lied about WMD in Iraq... I really thought there were, that was D. Rummy's fault, I will fire him... Unethical firing of US attorney's"? Gonzales can take the heat... I was at Crawford." - mauiwowi, on 10/11/2007, -23/+69Please would some of the Bush supporters on Digg please explain their reasoning to me?
I'm being serious, I would like to know. I don't get it. - shadus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37The reason Bush hasn't been impeached is extraordinarily simple: The democrats want to take no responsibility in the war that they don't have to take... eg: let bush keep digging a deeper hole... the worse the republicans look the better they look by proxy. Unfortunately, politics is rarely what is good for the people.
- Saiing, on 10/11/2007, -8/+35@WhiteRaven
Thanks for that. It was genuinely enlightening. Although I disagree with a lot of your views, it's refreshing to see someone put the 'opposing view' so clearly and informatively without simply resorting to mindless ranting about liberals. You're the kind of guy who needs to post more often. - mauiwowi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27I thank those contributing especially WhiteRaven for clarifying their position.
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23No internet and no cell phones....
How about the fact that they're starving. How about the fact that they live under an authoritarian regime. - evolseven, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26Whiteraven:
Here is the problem with that. Had the premise for going to Iraq been explained in those terms, I highly doubt that this country would have supported it. Instead they told everyone that he had WMD's (which he probably did, but we knew that because we gave them to him) and that the threat from him was imminent. Saddam was definitely not a nice guy, although there are a lot of really un-nice guys out there, and we don't blow up there countries.
Now that may have been the premise behind the scenes, but it should have been put forth as such. Fudging with the facts will only get you in trouble down the line. I believe in an open, honest government. I want to be told the truth, and I want all government information to be publicly available. Now realistically there probably has to be some classified data, but nowhere near what we have now.
Preemptive anything should be discouraged, wars especially. Your banking on some what-if statement that cannot even be proven after the fact. So if islam takes over the world, it would be your proof that we needed to go to war with X, although it may have happened anyway. If islam doesn't take over the world now you say it proves your point, but they may not have anyway. What-ifs are not anything I think this country wants to be involved in. What if you someday kill someone? Maybe we should lock you up before you can commit such heinous acts, obviously you are a person that supports violence, so I believe that you may be likely to commit such an act.
Anyway basic point, is that one, why were we not told this BEFORE the war? And two, What-ifs are a retarded way to live, if we lived that way everyone would be locked up. - mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23The president doesn't have to break ANY laws to be impeached... 2/3 of the senate needs to vote him out.. that's all. For a president so fond of splitting the letter of the law why is this so hard. This is why there are checks and balances. While it's hard to pin the prez down to breaking one single law, at the same time he's breaking the very concept of seperation of powers and respect to the will of congress... core principals of the Constitution the guys that wrote it would never have thought it would get this bad without somebody doing something. Andrew Jackson wasn't impeached and removed from office for breaking a "law" either. Congress disagreed with how he was approving their laws for reconstruction, then cutting the knees out by ordering generals to basiclly do something different... it's almost exactly what's happening now with torture, secret spying and signing statements. Congress back then simply told him to stop, voted to kick him out of office and sent him on his way with no criminal charges at all. The president didn't follow their intention for the laws.. that's all the reason they need.
The only thing missing from impeachment is for Congress to man-up and do the job we pay them to do! It's time for congress to stop listening to the president's drivel about what HIS rights are and start telling him where he can stick it, what HIS JOB is, and what he's going to do about it... or show him the door. I think the US public is far to "zen" when it comes to politics.. the president is having no problems checking... most of the public would want "balance", nobody wants to see the big nasty public fight, but it can only be achived by checking back... just like in a bad game of hockey... it's 100-2 odds... what's needed is Congress to care about their country enough to put some smack down. It's not time for slick, cleverly worded lies, it's time to take the glooves off and make the president defend his words with his fists in front of 100 senators!!! THAT's what checks and balances means. Civility is the enemy here, not the solution. It's a WAR they got with the prez, Congress and the courts haven't figured it out yet. The president's staff has been declaring war on Congress for better than 30 years! It's a treasonous plot to overthrow Congress' power to govern the country. Wake up. The prez is putting cheaters in to make secret clauses in bills behind Congress' backs, putting buddies in Court to rule against the power of their own bench, and the 525 people that REALLY MATTER are still worried about if he "likes" them or not! - OsiVert, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20@WhiteRaven
I disagree, and I'm sure you've heard all the counter-points so i'm not gonna bring them up, but I just have a question. I believe your argument revolves around that we are paying a little now by trying to quell something that could be a bigger danger in the future. Do you think that the conflict over the past couple of years has increased Fundamentalist Islamic hate to the US? What are your opinions of the other threats, ie North Korea, Iran? Do you think we should handle them the same way? - alabamasucks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19if you want to know what the bush supporters have to say you just need to look at the comments that have -16 diggs or less. Most likely you'll find some points, I'll admit, I've seen some valid points get dugg down because they supported or dissagreed with democratic political views.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -62/+76The war in Iraq is a froward thinking, necessary attempt to forestall far greater conflict in the future. The long-standing corruption and unrest of the region is the prime cause of militantism and it only gets worse as time goes on with it unchecked. Something needed to be done. A dramatic move to stabilize the region and introduce the concepts of liberty was necessary. Iraq was the logical point of leverage to use. It was vulnerable both militarily and politically.
The resulting conflict within Iraq only serves as evidence of how important this intervention is. The madness on display is exactly the reason something had to be done. That same madness has been an export of the middle east that rivals oil. Southeast Asia has been suffering for decades and Europe has recently begun to feel the bite. Of course, north Africa has become a killing field due to the hate and violence the militants subsist on.
The only way to prevent centuries of bloody conflict that will kill millions is to attack the source of the sickness. Islam needs breathing space to go through the same kind of reformation that took place within Christanity over the course centuries in Europe. Had Christianity maintained it's old ways into our modern age... there likely would be no modern age. That Islam is as it is in this erra represents the greatest threat to the survival of civilization the world has ever known. Not because of anything inherent in Islam but because of out global society and modern technology.
The necessary reform can not take place in an environment of violence and corruption.
The war in Iraq was a tough choice. The war in Iraq is expensive in a myriad of ways. But that expense is necessary and will buy us a reprieve from endless suffering in the future.
Now, the bad news. Obviously, the American people understand none of this. The lack of will in America or among the rest of the world to pay this necessary price is going to lead to our surrender. Nothing could make me sadder than the knowledge that our failure to sustain the effort and do the right thing will ultimately prove my predictions right. We will pay in the blood of tens of millions and the loss of freedom and perhaps civilization itself.
There are two things I regret about the Iraq war. First, the fact that we are well on our way to giving up without finishing the job. The second thing I regret is that for a time, I actually thought there was a chance that we were really do something proactive and thoughtful for a change rather than just watching the disaster approach. I really thought that just this one time we were going to accept the short-term pain for the long term benefit. But alas, we simply don't posses the willpower and foresight to actually do that. - JK1150, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17The Democrat congress' approval rating is lower than Bush. People hate politicians, welcome to America...
- EmperorPsiblade, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19"@screamingtherun... Sorry about the name. it's a good thing I don't often reply to tyrannysucks -- I'd probably drop that first 'y' by mistake. It's mostly subconscious on my part. I'll double-check yours from now on."
Best part is: you got his name wrong yet again! :D
(It's "screamthenrun"...) - implementor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15The Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's, currently. There isn't any real public support for any of them.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+27I don't hate him. I resent him. I resent him abusing his power. I resent him sending this country down the drain.
And as for "defending our country" -- that could have started anytime before the terrorists actually hit us. What he's doing right now is the opposite of defense. He's turning the world against us. He's making us less safe. And his overall policies are pushing the dollar so low that our whole way of life could very well collapse.
Now, if you care to comment further, please refrain from "liberal nutjob" BS, otherwise, I'm happy to ignore you with the block button. There are plenty of other people who share your opinions who can behave themselves. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+21"you wasn't born"? *sigh*
So how's the weather in Georgia? - thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19@WhiteRaven
I would never be able to put that better myself. I am a registered Republican (though I fall on the common sense part of the spectrum. i.e I am pro choice and I am not a fan of the Bush administration). The problem on Digg is that people are so focused on 1 viewpoint or want support from their peers, that they fail to carry on arguments that have validity. I would for once like to see people debate without the less popular comments be buried into illegibility. I hope for the benefit of Digg that people read your comment and start to look at opposing views because politics is nothing but opinion. There is no true right or wrong. The future of this country would be better off if we learned from each other rather than diving head first into a pool which is governed by a D or R. - Pile, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10The real reason why Bush hasn't been impeached is this:
Bush is very pro-big-corporation, and the corporations are the ones who determine what the populace sees and hears. The corporations have the money, power and influence and they own the politicians. Just look at how the democrats folded over the Iraq withdrawal bill. You think they represent the people but they represent the money.
Bush won't be impeached because he's a corporate shill. When he doesn't pander to the interests of the most powerful industries (oil, automotive, insurance, healthcare, etc) then and only then will he really be in trouble.
If you don't like this, vote out all the politicians who fold like a cheap suit to special interests. Democrats or republicans: replace them all with people of principals who remember their constitutients. - screamthenrun, on 10/11/2007, -15/+23@EntropyMan
[As a fellow digger.. i would appreciate you using my name correctly-- you did the same thing the other day in another thread, but I didn't say anything...]
To get to the point:
Geneva Conventions-- the United States never actually signed the Geneva Conventions (it was more of a verbal 'commitment').. If you don't believe me, go check it out.
FISA-- I assume you are specifically refering to the wire-tapping-- wiretapping that started well before Bush entered office http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap06/Table92006.pdf
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one - Satanael, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14"To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness -- come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we're not ready to do that."
Actually I'm quite ready... - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11@FenirVII, I'd love to understand what you're saying. Could you finish a complete sentence before moving on to the next?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+23@screamingtherun... Sorry about the name. it's a good thing I don't often reply to tyrannysucks -- I'd probably drop that first 'y' by mistake. It's mostly subconscious on my part. I'll double-check yours from now on.
Anyway, did you watch the story with Comey and Ashcroft and how the wiretapping program in _this_ administration came to be? We're not talking about anything that started under but-Clinton's administration. This is new. And it is unprecedented, even taking Nixon and Hoover into account.
As for the Geneva Conventions, we certainly expect them to apply to our forces. But check here for information counter to your BS. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762529232&pn=2
"The United States is a party to the four Geneva Conventions, but has not ratified the two Additional Protocols. The United States refuses to ratify Protocol I because it claims the protocol will legitimize groups involved in wars of national liberation. Although the United States has not ratified Protocol I, it has indicated that most of its provisions are incorporated into customary international law. The United States also decided not to ratify Protocol II, fearing that it might enhance the status of rebels, even though there was little objection by the U.S. military to ratification of this protocol."
The parts we haven't ratified aren't relevant to this question of law. The parts we have ratified carry the force of US Federal Law, as per the Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So were there any other arguments you wanted to try? - polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14Ya know, I don't think I've gotten anything, other than an auto-response, _every_ single time I've written them.
About your point on backlash: That is the whole reason I even voted democrat last year. I think there are others that feel the same way. I voted them in to take action, not just follow in stride. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -18/+25Ignoring @DonWilson's ignorance, that article was excellent. Sad though. I've already written my congressman that I like him but will vote against him if he doesn't at least try to impeach Cheney and Bush before '08. I hope everyone does.
That's my only criticism of the article. It doesn't go far enough. I'd ask, "What right does Congress -- either party -- have to set aside the Rule of Law for political expediency?"
I want Democrats to take the risk, even deal with the backlash, and even lose in '08, if it means they stand up for the rule of law for once. And I want Republicans to grow a real sense of patriotism for once.
The fact that they're still busy negotiating with a criminal over immigration and whatnot sickens me to no end. We will have a nation much longer if we lose the rule of law. Bush may not be the dictator without a precipitating event, but the next President or two may be our last with that title. - Wren5, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15Leaving issues like whether the media is "liberal" or not and how much of an impact this has on his rating aside ... Are any of you going to seriously contend that a person with little awareness of news and politics isn't going to dislike Bush as a default from the entertainment sides of the media? Do any of you seriously think that his portrayal OUTSIDE OF NEWS is anything less than radically negative?
Look at this. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchickenlittle.htm Is that not representative of the kind of treatment he gets? - kirstpo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It really breaks my mind and body to hear people like you still in this position. There's nothing to say, except that you are completely wrong and are giving in to the propaganda that's out there.
Bush did lie about the war, and it is well documented. The extent at which he has lied can be debated. Personally, I do believe he did feed known inaccurate information and was searching for reasons to target Iraq. Anyway, you forget many video footages of Bush claiming Iraq was a retaliation for 9/11 against Al Qaida. We now know that 9/11 was completely unrelated to the war in Iraq or this war on terror. The administration for the most part can't cover it up anymore. Bush can now be heard saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 on camera. The information for Iraq before the war is documented to say that it is highly unlikely Al Qaida has any ties to Iraq or have WMD's. Bush pushed this information to congress and the American people, but made it sound like Al Qaida was in Iraq, they were responsible for 9/11, and they had WMD's. None of those were true. We are left with an unjustifiable war, except Bush than claims the war is to spread democracy. Now Bush claims the war is a war on terror when in fact we created much more terrorism with this war.
And you say most people know that WMD's were smuggled to Syria. To be frank, where the hell do you pull these ridiculous claims out of? Buried in the desert? None of this has any backing, most people do not believe this, most people know what you think is BS. There were no WMD's.
Claiming his regime thwarted several attacks is equally ridiculous. What specific attacks? Did Bush really need to abolish our civil liberties to prevent these so called attacks? When the hell did we EVER thwart an attack abroad. When there are no real attacks, it's easy to claim you stopped all of them. In sarcasm, I'll just say I personally thwarted terrorist attacks on US soil. That's equally as ridiculous as saying the Bush regime stopped any attacks. Bush only abolished civil liberties and rights. Promoted torture. Interrogated, tortured, and jailed innocent citizens. The government could've easily made steps to prevent future terrorist attacks without wiretaps, torture, abolishing habeas corpus, etc. Bush did nothing special.
I do agree that Bush does not control price of gas. Bush and his colleagues do make money from oil industries however. This is where people draw the relation. He also had enough power to direct the country toward another direction. After 9/11, he could've used his new found support to direct the country to make steps away from foreign oil and towards research for different fuel sources, except he invaded Iraq where there happens to be more foreign oil.
This isn't a Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative issue. The outrages pulled off by this administration doesn't even fall into any of those categories. It's simply breaking the law and overriding the constitution. Also, your blind support for only capitalism is dumb. Complete capitalism is not the be all end all economic structure. Capitalism brings it's own plethora of problems. There are a lot of people that believe in a combination of socialism/capitalism. I really don't think you even know what socialism really is. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+19The Democrats need to get over themselves. Their congress shares the same abysmal 28% approval rating.
- maharaj, on 10/11/2007, -26/+32Impeachment is the only way we can get our credibility back in the world. The rest of the world is now looking down on us thinking we support this reckless and ignorant president. Yes he has become irrelevant, but we need to show the world that we still have some sense and get him out so we can start to clean up the ***** ton of damage that has been done in the last 6 years. America has amazing potential, and we certainly haven't seen it under the Bush regime.
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8@whiteraven
Anyone who has adequately studied history (I am a historian) would know that it is impossible for an outside force to establish a stable democracy. Ultimately there must be a large middle-class present for a nation to be able to develop a stable democracy (plutocracy concentrates power into just a few hands and those parties have no interest in democracy because it would remove their power). Even then democracy MUST be to result of a popular movement within said nation. At best an outside force can prop up a subservient "puppet" administration. However, not only will that not lead to democracy but those who have such a government imposed on them will be resentful towards the dominant nation supporting that administration and will be suspicious of any who would advocate democracy for generations. The only way to "win" at this point is mass genocide, by means of a brutal "scorched earth" policy, or we stay there for 100 years and intermarry with the native population (as the feudal rulers from 800 years ago recognized). The only realistic (and civilized) solution is to recognize we ***** up, bring the rest of the world back into the loop with our tail between our legs, and work diplomatically to work towards a stable LONG-term solution. Our situation can be summed up as thus: "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. But if you feed him enough salt he will drink on his own." - mwbohn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@epsilon72
I will dig you down. The Nazi/Hitler comparisons instantly expose the unsurpassable level of ignorance you (or anyone else who equates non-genocidal actions to those of Nazis) must live with every day.
To everyone else:
Don't reelect incumbent politicians. Period. Those there the longest, seem to get into the most corrupt acts. This is probably partly due to the fact that big businesses don't want to bribe those they can't trust, if it all possible, and it is harder to trust a new face. Also, if you are griping about Bush (and how he should be impeached) and haven't contacted your politicians about your concerns, well... I don't even know what to say to you. Politicians WILL listen if enough people tell them something. They are afraid of what the next election might bring. They know that if they cross enough of you, that means there is no going back to their jobs, which happen to be full of 'perks.' - Philodox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It tells me they are doing about as good a job as the previous congress, which had similar approval numbers.
- RearNakedChoke, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@WhiteRaven and those who agree with him...
Why do WE need to be the ones to bring stability to the area and is that something a foreign power can or should even try to do?
Freedom and liberty...these are wonderful things. So wonderful that they cannot be bought, sold or traded about like a cheap commodity. In fact, democracy can only be paid in the price of the blood and tears of the people who desire it and never by the blood of well meaning foreigners.
It is one thing to protect a country from a foreign invasion. We've honorably done so in the past - Korea, Desert Storm...But it is quite another thing to protect a people from their own selves. - SanTe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9timothybryce wrote:
"What am I missing? I would also be curious to hear a coherent, A-to-Z explanation from someone who dislikes Bush as to what his real motives were in going into Iraq, if not the stated ones. I've heard "for oil", "to help Halliburton", "to avenge his father": all are frankly absurd."
Wrong, at least when it comes to oil and (indirectly) Halliburton. Read this:
American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century
http://tinyurl.com/2jest6 (Amazon link)
Kevin Phillips' credentials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_%28political_commentator%29
There's my A-to-Z explanation, meticulously researched and articulated by a lifelong Republican strategist no less. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13You must be new here. No offense. But the idea is to Impeach Cheney first.
- JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@Hobofuz - Those are some good points, I didn't consider that. I actually did look at the exchange rate and it is depressing (as I was planning to go on vacation out of the country.) I simply was tired of comlplaining...
[look! no /sarcasm] - alabamasucks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Bush isn't impeached because no one in the house or senate is putting into motion the proper legal protocalls in which our country impeaches our president. That's about as basic as you can get without saying "no one has the balls to 16 months before the election".
- malacor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@sjbdallas
Clinton wasn't removed because after he was impeached he wasn't 'convicted' or whatever the proper terminology is for being found guilty.
The House Impeaches, the Senate acts as a court to see if they're guilty. - StringyLow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No more Presidents from Texas!
Please... for the love of God. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Al Gore is wayyyyyyyy more "Rich" then Bush is. But then again you are a sheep.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6For the sheep, that is Bush 33% and the democrat led congress is 28%
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15"what does that tell ya?"
It tells me they're not doing their job and following the Constitution either. If they impeached BushCo, they'd go way up in the polls.
And the way we're going, in 30 years, Bush or his natural heirs will still be Supreme Commander. So yeah, I bet the history books will be very positive. - mojibyrd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The reason Bush hasn't been impeached is because that bitch Pelosi and the Deomocrats are controlled by the same puppet masters as the Republicans and they no longer govern for the people but for their own greed and corporate pay-off....it is time the people of America let their politicians know whom they work for and whom put them in office....the people of this country....how much more obvious does it need to become before action is taken - billions if not trillions stolen, gas prices rising, iraq war, illegal immigration, sex, drugs and perhaps some rock and roll, lobbyist payoffs, promote/hire family/friends/girlfriends, lying to congress, lying under oath, lying to the public, jobs going to china/india, i.r.s. is a fraud, spying, torture, loss of freedoms, etc. - i am sure i missed plenty of things, but what is it going to take for the people to say enough is enough?
- Hobofuzz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yeah, keep saying that until the value of the dollar plummets so low that you'll have to work a month to buy a loaf of bread.
Have you tried going to the UK or any country in the EU lately? The exchange rate for the US dollar to the Pound and the Euro is so large that it makes visiting those countries very, very expensive.
Once the dollar value falls below a certain number, it becomes incredibly difficult to leave the country when ***** hits the fan.
And have some respect for hippies. They're the reason the US left Vietnam. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The Constitution of the German Empire created the Reichstag whose members were elected through a secret ballot by all German males 25 years or older (democratic, no?). This wasn't imposed by any outside force but developed within and amongst the German states. The Deutsches Reich (or Weimar Republic) of post-WWI was a realization of a move towards democratic forms of government starting with Otto von Bismark under the German Empire. Democracy in Italy began in 1913 when their first elections were held (constitutional monarchy w/ a parliament) and was the realization of the goals of the Italian Nationalist movement beginning in 1870. Japan's path to democracy began in the 1870s with the Freedom and People's Rights movement. The Meiji Constitution which provided for a constitutional monarchy was enacted in 1889. None of these nations had democracies imposed on them. They were the result of political trends present within each nation.
- rafakr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8I can't understand how he was re-elected in the first place.
That's a clear sign of acomodation for me. (you will probably digg me down for that) - vulgrin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Well, its hard to say he committed a crime when the White House's policy is "if the President does it, its not a crime."
- vulgrin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"Oh, and apologize to those countries you screwed over (long list)"
I agree. We should all apologize. Of course, all of the other countries who have wronged others in history like England, Italy, China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and pretty much every other damned country out there needs to apologize too. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@merlwiz79 (#6821229) said: "With greasemonkey installed in Firefox and this script installed in greasemonkey it autofills the info for you. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/7934"
Thanks! - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+13Damn! I was THIS close!
I swear, I'm not usually this dyslexic. I want a spell-checker for user names, or at least a reply button that autofills. -
Show 51 - 100 of 326 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is