What is Digg?147 Comments
- AKBryant54, on 10/12/2007, -5/+155BREAKING: Digg stories are never breaking.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+111BREAKING: Nothing Congress votes on is ever breaking.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+75BREAKING: AND ENTERING
DON'T DO IT - Poland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+64BREAKING: Six hours ago...
- thecompkid, on 10/12/2007, -12/+69BREAKING: a mirror = 7 years in the *****
sigh, i just wanna belong - Twist05, on 10/12/2007, -17/+73BREAKING
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -8/+64yeah, 94-2 just SCREAMS close call that the democratic majority barely overcame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53And now for the rest of the patriot act...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+53YAHWEH!
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52NO WAI!
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45"BREAKING: there are still people who support bush!!!"
Yeah, apparently both of them are in the senate. (94-2) - coviecarbine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41Im in ur threads BREAKING ur chains
- CactusChef, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!
- RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35The Democratic majority is in the House, not the Senate. The Senate's split more or less evenly.
- fr0ng, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37I had almost lost all faith in our government. I'm glad to see that there are still some good people out there.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32BREAKING: The link to the article.
...Seriously, every time the link's dead. - fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36BREAKING: drscott made the 2nd post!
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32BREAKING: No one ever gets to the second post because everyone cool replies to the first post whether their reply has anything to do with what the poster said or not because its the only way you're ever going to get your funny comment seen because the cool people only read the replies to the first post because that's where THEY post
THIS JUST IN: . - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Not to shatter your new found faith, but the Senate is just restoring power that they gave away by not reading the bills they vote for. Some justice department flunky had one of Specter's aides (Michael O'Neill) silently slip it into the bill. The justice department man was rewarded with a job as replacement for one of the fired U.S. attorneys.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161260?nav=ais - mrivorey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22The Patriot Act has not gotten weaker...yet. This was only the Senate passing this. The house still needs to pass it. It still needs to be sent to the White House. Assuming Bush vetoes it, then congress has to over-ride the veto. Got a ways to go still.
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31BREAKING: your toe hurts.
I broke mine 3 weeks ago :/ - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I couldn't be happier about this but it certainly isn't going to restore any faith for me. I don't think most of them are voting for it because they are good people but rather the can read poll numbers. Remember a lot of the same people voting for it are also the same people that voted for the patriot act in with this provision in it.
Also the two senators that voted against it are:
Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE] - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18That totally makes up for the FBI abuses, then.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Great news. Let's continue to push to get all our rights restored.
- Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16When anyone compares Bush to Hitler they lose credibility instantly (whether you like Bush or despise him). Ask anyone who lived under Hitler and now lives in the U.S. if Bush can be cast in a similar light and see what their reaction is. They'll laugh at you even if they absolutely hate Bush. The anti-war protestors who compare Bush to Hitler should put down the sign and pick up a history book. North Korea is probably one of the closest regimes to Hitler's in existence (as far as centralized power and oppression) but still not as brutal and I'd rather be here. At least here I state publicly that I do or do not like a political leader without disappearing soon after.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17BREAKING: The Rock Steady Crew
- 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I don't read broken news, thus I can't digg. I await a non-broken news link.
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If they had balls they'd repeal the whole goddamn thing.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Last I checked, neither Bush committed mass genocide. And since you're allowed to sit at your computer posting ***** like this, clearly we don't live in a fascist state.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12With a 92-2 vote, overriding a veto shouldn't be that difficult.
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12a) the ability to appoint prosecutors without the senate's oversight has no bearing on the war on terror unless you assume that the entire government is about to collapse
b) it's pronounced "Democratic plan" not "Democrat plan" you tool - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What is the point of starting your copied and pasted post with question mark-less question.
- corvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8*sarcasm* yea, having the senate approve U.S. attorneys has just completely made our ability to defend against terrorism weaker...what the hell are lawmakers thinking? This is opening ourself to terrorist attacks....*sarcasm*
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@sporkmonger:
The bill is "S.214: A bill to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys."
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c1108BkDZJ:: - stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No... your ability to throw our Freedoms and Liberties away have been curtailed. You did exactly what Bin Laden couldn't do.... you know what that was? Give up OUR Freedoms and Liberties out of TERROR. Pathetic and dangerous. No.... Republicans are not very good at protecting us from terrorists... they seem more intent on creating them, by invading the wrong country for oil interests and blaming liberals for their own crimes. Yes the Republicans under Reagan funded Bin Laden himself when it was geopolitically suitable to do so... and now it's biting us all in the ass. No thanks GOP... you've done enough damage already. How's that debt going? How much interest will the Chinese charge we, tax payers? Afterall we are borrowing money for the war from them right now. How about, we tax payers you Republicans always claim to represent? See.... every man for himself isn't American at all.
- PuppadogServant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+794 - 2 in the Senate, and perhaps not quite that large in the House, but I think they have their two-thirds majority for veto override.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8nice writeup there...but you're quite a bit behind...
congressional elections were 5 months ago...and this has nothing to do with the story at hand
MINUS! - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I bet more Diggers have read it than Congress people.
- Porkchoppower, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo!
Go Turbo!
Get your parachute pants on! - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9BREAKING: 2 supporting senators ACTUALLY Laura and Barney
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9ugm2099 is right. Without the Democratic majority, the Democrats wouldn't have the committee chairs. Without the committee chairs, they wouldn't be able to threaten oversight hearings with subpoenas, and they would have had a hell of a time making the kind of noise they've been making about the U.S. Attorney firings. This whole thing would have gone mostly unnoticed a few years ago, with the press relegating the futile fist-waving of a powerless Democratic minority to small blurbs and footnotes. Now that the Democrats have the power of the majority, the press notices when there's even a chance they're going to get mad.
He's also right that the provision is being rescinded now because it should never have been passed in the first place. It was inserted in the sneakiest of fashions by Arlen Specter's aide at the behest of the Justice Department, without even *Specter's* knowledge. It was a cession of Congressional power to the Executive, and now that Congress has noticed it they're understandably pissed off. Whether a Republican-controlled Congress would be quite so pissed off is debatable, seeing as how it was a Republican aide to a Republican senator who ceded that power from a Republican Congress to a Republican executive in the first place. - demonotaku, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@Carpe
Guess you missed the entire last 6 years where our country has been heading towards totalitarianism. And I'd rather that things get fixed in my own country before we try and start fixing things in other countries. - madfusion15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5BREAKING: the patriot act is a piece of *****
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I've read it, though I haven't finished all 342 pages or so... that's a suspicious number of pages to put together and sign into law right after 9/11, don't you think?
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.pdf
There's a "PATRIOT Act 2", that could be enacted during the right moment/pretext. It allows Americans to be stripped of citizenship if they're considered "terrorists" among other things.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15541/ - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Carpe, tell me how I can vote to get more rights in those countries, short of sending in troops with no plans and wrecking even more of the world?
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3BREAKING: You actually scrolled all the way down here to read this comment
- sporkmonger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@captinherb
Hmm, well if Chuck Hagel voted against it, I want to see the full text of this bill. He's one of those people who I suspect would only vote against it if there was a good reason to do so. Especially given how unpopular such a vote would obviously end up being.
Does anyone know what the bill number is for this thing? - dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@venuspcs:
You are dumb as hell. - shortarabguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BREAKING: uses all unique letters in spelling it.
It's nice to see that a bunch of senators can try to apologize for egregiously disenfranchising their own people through a haphazard attempt at retributive justice against the people who fooled them to begin with.
Dumbasses... Took them long enough. - BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dugg down for a long post having apparently little relation to the article.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is