What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
257 Comments
- kemp34, on 08/08/2008, -23/+124When are people going to realize that Obama has not made any stand against the Bush madness one bit? Are you people hypnotized or something?
- Rotzooi, on 08/08/2008, -2/+47Dennis Kucinich has.
- Regbooker, on 08/08/2008, -15/+59Sometimes it seems to me as if Obama's supporters are living inside a Limbo. Honestly guys, he is just another puppet. Watch what happened with the FISA and the Patriot Act bills.
Obama and McCain can be explained trough marketing techniques: two competing products made by the same company in order to capture a bigger share of the market. Plain and simple. - orangefly, on 08/08/2008, -3/+39absolutely....john mccain has shown himself to be an honest and honorable man....he would do everything in his power to bring the bush administration to-nevermind....i can't do it....
- 1337Einstein, on 08/08/2008, -5/+32Would McCain?
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -7/+32Short answer: No.
Long Answer: No way. - DeskFlyer, on 08/08/2008, -9/+34Nope.
- generalalcazar, on 08/08/2008, -7/+32Why do we require an administration to do this? Why can't US citizens pursue this in court?
- nonrate, on 08/08/2008, -17/+38Now I'm no McCain fan, nor am I an Obama supporter, but it sure seems like the "Messiah" is sounding like he's folding to the "status quo" in Washington. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Please resist the urge to get all emotionally reactive at my comment here, if I possibly offended your Lord ( whichever one of these is yours )
- supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -4/+25No one in America has the balls to stand up for freedom.
Bush took many of your freedoms away and you stood by and saluted him while he did it.
And then, just to prove to the world that you really don't give a ***** about the flag or freedom you re-elected the *****. - dafragsta, on 08/08/2008, -3/+22Sounds like a politician's MO. Always find a politically correct reason to not do the thing you don't want to do, even if their constituents are ***** SCREAMING FOR IT. People who vote for Obama without knowing his history or policies (and I don't mean any of that muslim right wing *****) are just as guilty as the people who voted for Bush because they'd like to have a beer with that guy.
Obama didn't even hold a senate spot until 2004. He's a freshmen senator and he doesn't take questions from the audience. I've never seen a single journalist or person in the crowd ask him about his lobbyist money. I certainly don't support McCain, but I resign from this idiotic notion that the only worthy presidents must come from a party in which they must PANDER TO rather than use their own common sense. Barack Obama is smart. That's how he got this far, but he doesn't speak with the fire and specifics on every issue Ron Paul did. (I don't give a ***** if you are tired of hearing about him.)
People pick presidents the same way they pick American Idols. Whoever makes them feel the warmest and fuzziest on the inside while gathering the most mainstream media attention gets the prize. That being said, it's hopeless. The mainstream media lost all of their remaining credibility somewhere around September of 2001. - SmokedL, on 08/08/2008, -3/+22It's no more about revenge than prosecuting any other criminal is about revenge.
It's about the rule of law.
It's about demonstrating that you are not above the law because you are rich and powerful. - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -20/+37Obama will do as he is told by the globalists, just like any good little sock puppet president has done for far too long.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+17Standing.
To sue in a U.S. court you must have standing, i.e. you must be able to demonstrate the actual harm that came to you.
The Bush administration claims everything of importance is a state secret and thus there's no way for someone to determine if they've suffered actual harm, thus no way to establish standing, thus no way to sue.
It sucks... - Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -3/+18And yet most Americans are completely blinded to this. It is really strange seeing this from outside the US. To see the venom that gets thrown at each "side" from the respective supporters, never seeing that both sides are really exactly the same other than some exceptionally superficial issues.
But boy do they argue over those superficial issues... - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -3/+16"Once there's a new President, we can have him order them to testify. "
I don't recall
I can't remember
I don't know how to answer that question
I'm not sure
I'd have to think about that
I'm not prepared to answer that question
My lawyer suggests I not answer that question
I respectfully invoke my right to not answer that question
***** you
Yeah sounds like a very productive tract to take. I'm sure we'll get a lot of information. - delrin500, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13That is total *****. If you don't hold these people accountable what is there to prevent anyone in the future from taking it to the next level?? You have to set an example and it would show the world and the citizens of this country and we do have a rule or law and that we do hold our high ranking officials accountable for the crimes they commit.
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/08/2008, -7/+19Oh for *****'s sake.... the torture thing again? Of course no future President is going to go back and investigate past Presidents over torture... Are you people nuts?
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11How the hell do you call that taking a stand?
Here's what taking a stand sounds like:
"If I'm elected, Bush goes on trial". - apackofmonkeys, on 08/08/2008, -4/+15Wow, that procedure sounds about the same as the UN's. And we all know how effective they are.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Many Dems will have buyers' remorse with Obama, just as we have with the current Dem Congress.
- naner, on 08/08/2008, -8/+18ALL GLORY TO HYPNOBAMA!
Wow, did I really just type that? - supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10What?
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9He was investigated for perjury....get a ***** clue.
- generalalcazar, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11I am sorry, but you are wrong. Presidents cannot lie in order to gain access to the US Military and conduct wars. This is criminal, and it will always be criminal. And yes, there is a law against it. It is called fraud. Those who commit fraud are responsible for the results of their fraudulent activities. Therefore, George Bush is personally responsible for every death involved in the Iraq War. If we don't bring him to justice then we as a nation are just a bunch of pussies.
- Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -2/+10He is the man! Him and Paul would be the best thing for America right now.
- SmokedL, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8Moral compromise?
Really?
This man and his cronies lied the US into a war designed to further their interests.
A war that has killed, by even the lowest estimates, hundreds of thousands of innocents.
And that's just the worst of what they have done. The list of crimes goes on and on.
Torture.
Illegal imprisonment.
Illegal wiretapping.
War profiteering.
Corruption.
Spreading scripted propaganda via supposedly independent news organizations.
Criminal negligence in regards to fully investigating 9/11.
Hell, there's plenty more that I can't list off the top of my head.
Letting these people off scot-free is not compromising. It's either total and utter capitulation, or it's complicity. - BowieX, on 08/08/2008, -2/+10Unfortunately, it's hard to believe otherwise when his foreign policy advisor is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom I personally think truly do have good intentions, but are as meddlesome and destructive as even the most cold-hearted globalist puppeteer.
- Drakk0n, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8In other words this campaign is like the age old question - which is the better cola? coke or pepsi?
- aftern9ne, on 08/08/2008, -8/+16God forbid Obama would rather fix the mess Bush has put us in than commit (before he's even elected) to a partisan witch hunt that could wait until a full investigation is waged.
- 13373h4X0r, on 08/08/2008, -3/+10From the summary: "The answer better be hell yeah! But sadly it sounds like they would push it back to a 2nd term. This is worse than FISA."
What's "This is worse than FISA" supposed to mean? Is that sentence intended to mean that Bush's various crimes are worse than the CEOs of a few telecommunication companies agreeing to assist the government in domestic surveillance without court orders? Or is that sentence intended to express the opinion that postponing "prosecution" of the Bush administration by four years would be worse than granting immunity to the CEOs of telecommunication companies for agreeing to assist the government in domestic surveillance without court orders? Or maybe that sentence means something else...
And what's the purpose of this speculation? To help people decide between voting for Obama versus John McCain, or some other candidate for president? If so, I think having Obama as president would represent a greater chance of eventual prosecution of Bush than if John McCain become president. Furthermore, I think it's pretty obvious at this point in the game that there are only two remaining viable candidates for president: Obama and McCain. Voting for anyone else is a conscious decision to forfeit one's chance to actually make a difference, even if one believes there is only a tiny advantage to choosing one of those two candidates over the other. Even the most cynical vote can find some tiny distinction that represents the superiority of one candidate over the other. - slifty, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8Right now it is Obama and McCain's job to pander to both sides, this is how it works. True colors aren't shown after the primaries, they are shown after the election.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't demand sincerity, but it does mean that both are trying their best not to completely alienate anyone. - catcher6250, on 08/08/2008, -6/+13Lol, this is not worse than FISA, from the words of Obama himself:
"I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."
You can't just go and get the ex-President and put him to jail. He is right, we have more important things to worry about. And even then, he still has prosecuting Bush on his list of things to do. - publiclurker, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9*****. You are nothing but but Bush supporter trying to disguise the shame of your past by trying to claim that no laws were violated.
well, either that or someone who is soo ignorant that he couldn't survive by themselves, and I didn't see anything in your post indicating that you had to have your keeper type it for you. - govsucks, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7He gives me 100 million in gold he got from Big Oil, shouldn't you be ironing my shirt or frying my potatoes?
- silveravnt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9It wasnt about the BJ
- nopRT, on 08/08/2008, -5/+11I don't think it's the president's job to prosecute former presidents. A better question would be whether he would give immunity to the current administration or somehow stop an investigation.
If someone commits a crime, they should be prosecuted regardless of how many people it would disappoint. It sure didn't stop the Repubs from going after Clinton for lying about a knobjob. - jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+8Try again. The world knows that Bush was a mistake. If we don't publicly denounce him and his policies, we look foolish, but even worse, it makes it sound as if we agree with all the things he's done to piss off the rest of the world and then where will we be? Our only hope of redeeming any reputation we might have had at one time is to hold the creep accountable.
- supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -11/+17Hasn't made a stand?
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law." - jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Do you? Sign the petition:
http://kucinich.us/ - inactive, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6You mentioned slavery and Obama in the same sentance... racist
/sarcasm - phocis850, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7This is going to happen with EVERY president for now on.
- Rahodeb, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Congress is complicit in this. Both the republican congress at the beginning and the Democratic congress now. Our system of checks and balances has failed, because we have two parties that realized they can get everything they want by working together.
Until we break this two party monopoly, there is no reason for them to even worry about what "we the people" want for this country.
Of course, the way to change this is easy, vote for someone else. Everyone who is talking about revolution, taking up arms, and crap like that has no idea of what they are asking for. We have a great governmental system, and it works, we just need to use it. - syncr, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7If I could digg this twice I would. Well constructed argument.
Look the only way we are going to get past the gridlock of the past 8 years is to have a mandate election and bi-partisan unity on some key issues. The most important issues, election reform, campaign finance reform, health care, and a viable energy policy, international stability, these things take bipartisanship and consensus. I'm all for getting Bush eventually, but lets stabilize from the plunge first. - pilobilus, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Or in other words, we are ordering from a menu prepared by our enemies. By "enemies" I mean a group of people whose financial and personal interests are directly hostile to our own, and by "us" I mean anyone with less than $100 million in capital assets.
This leaves us two options: We can be good submissive little sheeple and wring our hands and deny responsibility and "pick the lesser of two evils". Or we can organize, participate, and get a real voice and seat at the table through direct nonviolent FORCE, like they do in free countries. - TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5True. McCain is no longer a man of honor.
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -26/+31No one in washington DC has the balls to stand up to these fascists.
- Eivo, on 08/08/2008, -4/+9Why can we do them all at once? There are more then enough people in Washington to get all this done and more.
And it's not revenge, it's justice. - philwalsh, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7I think it's naive to think that Obama would make any mention of impeaching Bush during his campaign. The guy is trying to run a positive campaign so the last thing he wants is to get into this messy situation of impeachment.
Having said that, I can't see him pushing for impeachment once Obama is in office either... - jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7Knight Bush? Yes, I think McCain would.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 263 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is