What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
197 Comments
- ChristPissed, on 01/30/2008, -1/+106An agreement between the US and another country is a treaty, which the President can develop BUT must, by the Constitution, have approved by Congress. STRIKE ONE
Congress, by the Constitution, has sole authority over funding, including any military bases. STRIKE TWO
Congress, by the Constitution, has investigative powers and may require documents and other evidence as it deems necessary. STRIKE THREE BUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway) - jhyeti, on 01/30/2008, -1/+94Friggin criminal. This is why impeachment is neccessary. A president can either sign it into law, not sign it and let it become law, or veto it. Where in the Constitution is the "signing statement" provision. It isn't and by ignoring the law he is breaking it. George Washington was alive he would challenge our 'King George to a duel and ***** his ***** up.
- DeadElephantORG, on 01/30/2008, -0/+82The heart of our constitution is the separation of powers between three independent branches of government. Make no mistake, the "unitary executive", or the "imperial presidency", or whatever you want to call it, is a direct and conscious assault on our constitution.
- notque, on 01/30/2008, -2/+82Permanent Military Bases are the goal, and he's not going to allow anything to undermine the goal.
- iching, on 01/30/2008, -1/+68If you want to see the exact bills he is ignoring go here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/121842 ...
If you want to see the signing statement that he did yesterday go here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20 ... - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -3/+47I don't know what to call it. Will it be a civil war or a second revolution once it starts? Either way, it's coming and within your lifetime. Better decide if you are with We the People or with mother government. Once the shots start, it will escalate like a wild brushfire.
- foreignwarren, on 01/30/2008, -6/+45***** George Bush Jesus Christ Monkey *****!! When will this ***** end?????
- Napoleone, on 01/30/2008, -7/+45Bush has colluded with the top Dem candidates so they can inherit unpopular, unconstitutional presidential powers without seeming to be responsible for it happening. Compare the dates of the articles in the two links below, and you'll see why the Dem candidates said they wouldn't leave Iraq until 2013.
September 24, 07: http://www.examiner.com/a-953145~Bush_quietly_advi ...
September 27, 07: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate ...
Bush and the Democrats share the same agenda. The only difference between them is that Bush doesn't give a ***** about public opinion, he's reiterated that point again and again. He's more than happy to take the heat for permanent military bases in Iraq, warrant-less domestic spying, etc... and the Democrats are more than willing to vote for all the unconstitutional measures he puts forth so long as he they get to pretend to have put up a fight. It's a hell of an agreement.
Do you remember when FISA was initially passed a few months ago? Do you recall how Bush was asking for "only" certain unconstitutional powers and the Democrats went ahead and gave him much, much more unconstitutional power than what he was even asking for? What did Democrats do afterward? They said it was a mistake, that they hadn't realized they'd passed the law they did. Do you realize what a lie that is?
These people are in collusion and we're all being taken for a ride. - hawkeye17, on 01/30/2008, -0/+35Somewhere Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Dick Nixon are laughing.
- Groovemaster, on 01/30/2008, -4/+31At this point, who really cares that the US government does whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want?
Americans would collectively ***** themselves inside-out if they were ever expected to handle the responsibility of a truly representative government.
Just keep your traps shut and let the criminal businessmen carry on ***** your country up. If you plastic patriots had cared as much about America as you always pretended to, you wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. - Glofern, on 01/30/2008, -3/+30This is exactly why he and Cheney should be impeached and eventually held for Treason and war crimes against not only the US, but against mankind.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -0/+19" The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology. "
-- Michael Parent - Frnnkdlxx, on 01/30/2008, -0/+18lol. The anger of the general population during the two illegitemate dictatorships of G. Bush remind me of the decline of Rome. During it's collapse, the people, although they had a formidable law code were plagued by dictators who constantly went against the peoples wishes and caused them harm. The degradingly ingorant populace, faithful of their consitution simply waited hiim out until the next dictator came in to do more harm. The answer to the rise of dictators and the destruction of their Republic? .... .....
That's right. None of their actions created one. Yet here in America, and empire much larger, more more resilient and powerful has a chance, I'd say.... Unfortunately it involves breaking up, similar to the division between the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Should the only candidate with a clean record, incapable to be bought off and knowledgable about the economy, domestic and foreign influences and capable of resonating with the general populace arrive, I'd say that he or she would be the best catalyst to invest your energy into to exact change.
The best way to tell if or who that person is if who is the establishment against? There doesn't have to be a major conspiracy involved (which there is, but I won't get to much further into), but the system is simple. If you worked hard, broke a couple rules and made a couple of bad friends, yet became filthy rich and powerful, wouldn't you fight against the guy who threatened your hegemony and future? Of course.
I'd urge the people to keep looking. Be alert. You'll find the opening, and you'll know what to do. - Frnnkdlxx, on 01/30/2008, -0/+17Isn't he just a special little cretin?
- Rotzooi, on 01/30/2008, -1/+18What no one seems to get is that Bush and his allies are in it for the long haul. His 8 years as President are only the beginning. We may have a Democrat in Office for the next 4, 8, even 12 years. But Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other lovelies are grooming the U.S. public, the U.S. constitution, and worst, the situation in the world at large, to their *long-term* advantage.
"Bush" will return, in whatever way, shape or form. - avengingturnip, on 01/30/2008, -0/+17And this is what happens when you take impeachment off the table...
- fireburner23, on 01/30/2008, -1/+18Don't you know that Dubya doesn't understand Govt' Civics 101...that man was busy sniffing the White Gold in College instead of studying Civics.
- Look4Truth, on 01/30/2008, -1/+17And for all of you democrats who believe the troops will come home if a democratic president is elected, remember that when they never do come home. Both parties play for the same league, they just wear different uniforms. So when "your" candidate gets in office, regardless of party affiliation, and nothing changes just like always, don't say you weren't warned. And also, remember all those people who told you about Ron Paul and how you ignored them.
- MindTrigger, on 01/30/2008, -2/+17Those of you last year who said 'Why impeach, he will be out in a year?' should be kicking your own asses right now. This guy can do epic amounts of damage in one year, and he will. I fully expect it to start accelerating as the end of his presidency approaches.
- rhabd0mancer, on 01/30/2008, -5/+20Bush needs to protect Israel's oil supply.
- eavesdrop, on 01/30/2008, -0/+14He is the decider. I can't believe he gets away with this kind of *****.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -0/+13As much as I want to disagree, I don't see how I can. This is what I was warning all the repubs on here about but they were too busy supporting Bush at all costs.
- principle, on 01/30/2008, -0/+12It is our fault for not standing up for what is right. Instead of typing comments online we should be in front of the US Capitol building with banners and flags. Only through struggle with those who are in power now can the Constitution be restored back to the people.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+12Go to Hell, George.
- ErosAmadeus, on 01/30/2008, -1/+12Who said we don't object to those?
Our large military presence in those countries is destroying our economy.
Do you want Social Security or do you want to be the police of the world? It's one or the other, cause we can't afford both. It's not like those countries are paying us for the service. - krnldmp, on 01/30/2008, -0/+11The Bush administration totally fabricated the need for the Iraq war just to put them there.
- Acewrap, on 01/30/2008, -2/+13...except that Bush is treating signing statements exactly like a line item veto.
- WayneCA, on 01/30/2008, -3/+14Signing Statements = Line Item Veto
Line Item Veto = Unconstitutional
therefore..
Signing Statements = Unconstitutional
Any questions? - DavidYeah, on 01/30/2008, -0/+11They've been used for years, but not in the way they're being used now. Bush is using signing statements to wholly disregard his intentions to execute laws. Clinton used signing statements to challenge a provision of a law for review by courts to see if those provisions are constitutional.
And really, do you need political analysts and constitutional lawyers to tell you that this is wrong? if you sign your name to a law saying "NO PERMENANT BASES" in public and then turn around and sign another paper saying "YES PERMENANT BASES", you're flim-flamming the public.
Conservatives like to talk about how the government should only exist to maintain contracts, yet when Bush puts his names to a contract to enforce a law, it's no big deal to them when he decides that he's going to do the exact opposite of what he agreed to.
Four more years! - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -1/+11"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged": http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm
- TopherT, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9Maybe because people in those bases are going to have a much higher death rate than those in say, anywhere else. Oh, and I DO object to our having military bases all over the world.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10Brilliant. Well said Napoleone
- bcamp1973, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9oh look, the Monkey In Chief is flinging poo at the constitution again. Can't we just put him down?
- elipabst, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9You mean aside from the people living in those countries with US bases.
- TopherT, on 01/30/2008, -0/+8Signing statements are dubious at best constitutionally.
- Napoleone, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7If you keep doing nothing, that won't be the case for long.
- tabularassa, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7man I CAN'T wait for this f%ing chimp to leave the white house!
- notque, on 01/30/2008, -3/+10You mean, our oil supply. Israel is just a scam for us to have a military outpost in the middle east. Talk of it's power is highly exaggerated.
- minorthreat, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7I say it's time we bring out the torches and pitchforks...
- highorbit, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8And STILL they say they have nothing on which to impeach him?
Disgusting failure of oversight. The idea of ALL being subject to the law is ridiculous. - SOS84, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7The great American Traitor is at it again.
- iching, on 01/30/2008, -1/+7Bush just signed the $696 billion defense bill, President Bush didn’t approve the entire bill, though — he used a signing statement to say he wouldn’t follow four provisions of the act, which he said “could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.” Those provisions would have mandated increased Congressional oversight of military contractors, banned construction of permanent military bases in Iraq and forbade the use of U.S. troops to exercise United States control of Iraq’s oil resources.
Antonia Juhasz of the group Oil Change International told IPS the issues of oil and permanent military bases are related.
“We’ve got the Bush administration pushing aggressively for an (Iraqi) law that would give oil companies 20- to 25-year contracts for oil in Iraq and if they were to be at work for an extended length of time, they would need security,” she said.
“If the U.S. military is going to stay in Iraq for 20 or 35 years, they’re going to need bases,” she added.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40987 - fokov, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6Doesn't this basically prove that the whole point is the extract money from tax payers into fascist corporations and use the American military to "protect" the oil companies investment in well oil? Oh well back to work, no one is listening or paying attention.
- Look4Truth, on 01/30/2008, -2/+8Thanks for making my point. Go ahead and root on your boob tube candidate and further the destruction of this country.
- Phrag, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6Speaking of that, does anyone know what happen to the guy with a gun (and possibly bow and sword) who was arrested near the capital building on the 18th? All the news media jumped on it and then it completely disappeared with no follow up or confirmation.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general ... - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6From the comments in the article:
An agreement between the US and another country is a treaty, which the President can develop BUT must, by the Constitution, have approved by Congress. STRIKE ONE
Congress, by the Constitution, has sole authority over funding, including any military bases. STRIKE TWO
Congress, by the Constitution, has investigative powers and may require documents and other evidence as it deems necessary. STRIKE THREE
BUSH IS OUT! (Or he should be anyway) - ErosAmadeus, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6We can't ignore the fact that government agencies take the president's signing statesments as having the force of law. If that is occuring (which it is) then what a court says about signing statements is of little significance.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6If I had a rocket launcher!
- GraveyBrains, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6Where can I sign a recall petition for Nancy Pelosi?
- ErosAmadeus, on 01/30/2008, -3/+9Neither Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee or McCain have any intention of undermining that goal. They're in quasi-secret agreement to keep those bases. They just feed the public a different story and most of us just gobble it up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is