What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
242 Comments
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+215Bush said they attacked you guys on 911 cause they hated your freedoms. Bush seems to hate your freedoms too.
- understudy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+150Everything can and should be able to be questioned on Constitutional grounds . . . unless . . . we're in an oligarchy—and it seems we are close. Calling the US a dictatorship is a bit strong at this point, but a solid argument can be formed for the case that we are nearly an oligarchy (government by a privileged few).
I realize some people have reservations about Ron Paul (usually for a social issue or two), but if you really want a Republic/Representative Democracy, vote Ron Paul. It will actually HELP your cause (even a far left cause) to first rid the country of its continued oligarchical rule.
_ - Smoove, on 10/10/2007, -6/+120No no no. Bush is protecting us! If terrorists hate our freedoms, then the way to stop terrorism is to get rid of those freedoms. Then there'll be nothing for the terrorists to hate.
- jtingley, on 10/10/2007, -4/+104It's been said that:
"The defense of liberty is protected by 4 boxes in the following order. The Soap Box, The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, The Ammo Box."
The "Jury Box" is where we are at and it's mere inches from failing.
So everyone make sure you're ammo box is full, you may need it soon. - z23rdhsuan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+84and this is where they all just get away with it
- ninjaface, on 10/10/2007, -5/+74Can you say FASCISM?? These ***** forget that they work for us not the other way around. Wake up America. Start holding these bastards accountable.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+62Here you go you neocon *****. Wait until the next Democrat gets in office and starts using all the tools Bushie laid out for them Who is going to listen to your bleating then? This isn't about Right or Left but about checks and balances. Never trust a politician who says "We will never use this for xxx purpose" because, I guarantee, that will be the first thing they use it for but being the myopic jackasses you are, you will not see the bigger picture.
- JD52, on 10/10/2007, -1/+56Sorry Mr Bush..... Everything in government can and will be questioned. It's the people that run the government, not the government that runs the people. If you had spent a bit more time studying you would know that.
- chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41We are the AMERICAN PUBLIC. We reserve the RIGHT to question whatever we please, when we please, how we please and hold you the government responsible. If we so choose to question your actions we CAN do so. You hold office and "powers" under OUR whim, not your own. If we deem you unfit, we have the right, jurisdiction and power to tell you to get the ***** out. Fact. Anyone in office saying otherwise should be IMMEDIATELY removed. That is all there is to it.
- shadyk8o, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39Of course it can't be questioned, otherwise it would be wrong and illegal.
- Arkavus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+44Ja mein Führer!
/salute - napalm9295, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38this is the definition of a dictator. someone that says "you cannot do anything about it."
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38your comment makes far too much sense
- FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31History is like the weather. It comes and goes in cycles and it doesn't care if you are caught in a blizzard wearing only a speedo and flip-flops. Brace yourselves.
- crushtheenemy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28If you question the American Government, you're considered unpatriotic?
I think a true Patriot would do everything they can to take this type of government down, by questioning their motives, realizing the civil war of our freedom, and doing everything in their power to stop this government from taking our freedom. - s0rce7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25it's a violation of our constitutional rights. would someone please impeach these traitors.
- dangerz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22What I don't understand is how people can still support him. Even if you believe we should be in Iraq and all that jazz, can you not at least see how many rights he has taken away from us?
- xiambax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22This is about the EFF lawsuit i imagine.
Anyone else find this scary? The government has total control and power over the US people. Don't you all claim to live in a democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Slavery is Freedom.
Ignorance is Strength.
War is Peace. - 1Stoner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17***** HIM
he needs to go - Kallius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15There are only two types of people that still support the Bush Administration. Those who are stupid enough to believe their lies, and those who benefit from their largesse.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13yeah, keep on snoozing...sleep the country away.
- dcbebop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14HOW? Bush has successfully appointed all the right people into the places in which he needs them and then locked their network down so well that they function as an impenetrable, tightly bound pack.
And what has congress hit them with? A bunch of summons which were all ignored and a round of questions asking about the firing of some public servants (to which I'm still amazed that Gonzales didn't just say "Look, they work for me, they weren't producing, so I fired them". Name the last time you, if you're in management, were questioned by a panel over the firing of people who work for you).
Suggest something other than the traditional "Impeach! Ron Paul 2008" response please. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Uh huh...and you believe that right? Because the govement would never lie or block any investigation or oversight in to the program yes?
- bobangitanov2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15well, they're sacrificing your privacy to protect y'all. i don't see what's wrong. Most of americans voted for them, so they must be giving them what they want. If you didn't vote for Bush, it sucks that you live in the ***** called
Democrats-vs-Republicans. Which is not really "vs" it's more like a turned-based-both-teams-win game in which
everybody else loses. - Yoda7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12If I call someone in another country, the government shouldn't have the right to listen without a warrant. Liberty should not be sacrificed.
- yunus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13"The officials also said that the lawsuits should also be tossed because the plaintiffs have no direct proof they were spied on.
"We cannot confirm or deny whether or not that's true," one of the officials said."
The government's position is, you cant prove it so you cant sue. If you can prove it, its a state secret and you cant sue.
Maybe it would be best just to wait until the next administration takes over to sue or let the new administration eliminate the programs all together and send people to jail at that point. - Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"...Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..." - The Declaration Of Independence
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19When a Dem is elected, thats when the far Right starts mailing envelopes with white powder and making pipe b*mbs
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The exact quote is: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
The quote is by a man named Ed Howdershelt. And no, I didn't know that off hand, I just looked on Google. - DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11They know this isn't going to fly, this is the Neocon rope-a-dope. If it went to court tomorrow Bush would be six months from leaving office before all the details come out.
They're trying to run out the clock. - bobangitanov2, on 10/10/2007, -19/+29LOL @ "seems we are close"...
2 parties in goverment, candidates bouncing from ballot to ballot, rich people ruling your country, poor people not voting... the US
is the most ridiculous oligarchy on earth. Ron Paul is an idiot - keeps iterating on the Iraq war, like he's gonna change anything.
With Ron Paul in goverment, the poor will become poorer, and the rich richer, and the oligarchy worse. What kind of a doctor
that genuinely cares about medicine doesn't support free medicine for all? Ron Paul wants to screw patients and reward rich
people and insurance companies. F@ck Ron Paul. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Thanks sunshine.
- tophu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." - Harry S Truman
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11JD52, I hope you have a standing army, cuz we'll need one, and I left mine in Switzerland.
- Shogi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21Ron Paul is not the messiah the internet has made him out to be. While he does support a lot of good causes and seeks to make some necessary reforms, I believe he is ill-equipped to lead this country. He would most likely TRY to make reforms, but between his own overeagerness, and all Congress, we would ultimately end up with an idealistic figurehead. America is not ready for drastic changes. Changes yes, but over time, and steadily under a moderate hand.
That said, it boggles my mind that Clinton gets impeached over a blowjob but Bush gets away with this. People are sheep. I just wish that it didn't require a wolf to make them realize it. - Calann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10President Bush really hates freedom, He's very un-American.
- Sarevok9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9America is not ready for drastic changes, but we need them.
450bn / year in a war that flip-flopping vp admitted to be a quagmire years prior.
As stated a near Oligarchy / dictatorship
Slipping economy
at this point i think himmler would be a better alternative then the bush administration at preserving our constitutional freedoms at this point. - phloydde, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Actually, if a dem get's elected then they all agree it was too far and rescinds the tools. then next time a republican is elected, they'll call national security emergency and vote the tools back in. Just watch... they're gonna crucify any dems elected to the white house if the dem does even half the same amount of stuff GB is doing.
but actually it won't matter if a dem is elected, GWB has already stacked the decks with all the neo-con appointees and supreme court judges... - scorchedearth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Must be nice to be above the law.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12idiot
- snds, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12You are worried about who's rich and who's poor when your fundamental rights are being challenged by unconstitutional programs that feign security and only employ scrutiny of American citizen who do not deserve to be treated like criminals or terrorists. Talk about partisan hackery. Both left and right sides are playing political games while lives are lost, families are ruined, and rights are marginalized in the name of "security." Get over yourself.
- xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13That is a hell of a quote, where did you get it from? I like it a lot.
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9BEST is to have all these ***** in jail immediately. The continued liberty of Americans strongly depends on maintaining their limit of tolerance for this kind of complete ***** in government.
- chawjubs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8great! good to know my freedom has been ***** once again by a fascist regime...
come cut my tongue out if you want me to stop questioning everything! - nicejai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9From all that I've read... it almost seems like your (barely) democratic congress is just biding its time until the Republicans (quite assuredly) lose the presidency in the next election, at which point they shall have all these supreme powers bestowed upon them... free to use however they see fit. I mean, seeing it from their point of view... they're barely in power, and they have Bush and his administration defining and seizing new laws that give any president unquestionable and accountability-free power. I could understand why they'd just look the otherway while Bush and his administration drives the freedom train off the cliff in a mad frenzy to export freedom and democracy to the middle east; they're letting Bush do all the dirty work of violating the constitution in exchange for more government powers, and will simply walk in and sit at the presidential seat that will be vacated after Bush runs his party into the ground.
I think the main problem here is that your politicians have only their own party's interests in mind, and not the entire country's. I think the U.S. government will do well if future presidents take the lead from one of its former presidents, and take in his top opponent as vice-president. (I forgot which U.S. president used to do that).
I also think that there be a law, that if congress were to take the country to war that the government count them and all their immediate family members, and mandate that X% (5%? 10%?.. etc) of all these people must go to war with all the other american soldiers. I think this will make them think long and hard about going to war, as it makes the costs of war as personal to them as it is to all american military families.
I also think that what the bottom line amounts to, is a simple lack of leadership.
It seems to me that there are no american politicians out there with a vision of what america should be, and believe it enough themselves to take risks, and put themselves in a position to personally sacrifice for it. There are no politicians out there who will appeal to both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' and simply risk by saying "Look, forget what we think about each other, look at this america we could be! Let's put aside our differences and work together on making america better for *everyone*, and not just the people who vote for me". I think this is because no politician has any idea about what "this america could be".
I think a great future leader could start by campaigning on giving you americans your constitutional rights back. Then, remind themselves that they're tasked with improving the quality of life of all americans, even the ones they don't like.
*That*, would truly be a great president. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Tell us where we are wrong then oh great and wise one.
- knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Despotism (1946), Film, 11:00min
Measure how a society ranks on a spectrum stretching from democracy to despotism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-461990723502527420 - physphd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8That's cute, Timmy. And without a FISA warrant, who's to say who qualifies as a "known terrorist suspect"? Why remove checks and balances that NEVER have impeded an investigation before? Seriously, Timmy, of the five FISA warrant requests that were denied in the history of the court, how many has the administration offered as an example of how this warrantless approach will be better? Huh? Did you go to civics class and learn about "checks and balances" yet, or is that next year when you actually get to high school?
- Drakkor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Bush logic: "See here", heheheh, if ya luv freedom, ya embolden the terrorists" , hehehehehe
-
Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is