digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bush reckons he might stay a little longer.

blog.wired.com — From the QA: "Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there." "I've been planning that myself."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • UncleBadTouch, on 10/19/2007, -20/+217I would love to see him try.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/22/2007, -4/+221I would rather he leave quietly without destroying our nation and our constitution any further.
      • sodoh, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10I think Brittney will do something like drive an SUV over her child or something and no one in America will notice what Bush does.
        • chase001, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The difference being one of the aforementioned mentally ill rich people is in danger of wiping out the human race and it ain't Britney.
    • pcore, on 10/22/2007, -2/+44Yep, I rather he wouldn't. You act like he hasn't found enough loop holes already.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/22/2007, -6/+101Seriously, he wouldn't last a week without triggering a 2nd American Revolution.
      • OrderedChaos, on 10/22/2007, -7/+40The second revolution already failed comrade! The south lost the civil war!
        • tech42er, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11Comrade? I didn't realize the Soviets were aiding the South! ;)
      • Tyr7BE, on 10/22/2007, -4/+49If this was 1960, I'd say you're right. But this is 2007. And America has become very complacent. The government would come up with some propaganda about how he's staying on board to help protect the country against terrorists and preserve freedom and all that stuff, and 75% of your population would swallow it without much fuss. Of the other 25% who saw through the *****, a VERY small percentage of them would be motivated enough to get off their cans and actually do anything, the rest would just complain loudly and maintain a poor opinion of their government.
        • nihilite, on 10/22/2007, -0/+23I can already hear Rush Limbaugh coughing up some bul1sh1t explanation for why Bush remaining in office is what the founding fathers would have wanted.
          • Waiting2awake, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10Sadly, I fear it will be for your safety. Just remember how safe the Iraqi's are.... Don't fall for it.
          • repete, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5I would imagine, however, that this would be off sufficient weight to bring some to consider civil war.
        • khellendros1984, on 10/22/2007, -0/+15I've always considered myself rather conservative. That being said, I wish Bush's term were over already, and if he tried to remain in power, I don't plan to be one of the complacent ones, and I'm sure there are many like myself.
          • nakani, on 10/22/2007, -7/+8There's no need for us conservatives to apologize for Bush. He's actually a Neoconservative, which sprung from the Liberal movement. His big government spending policies that have us in 2 wars, and military bases in 130 countries has put us farther into deficit than any true conservative could have.
          • Artimusbill, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4I agree. I have never considered Bush (41, or 43) a conservative. A few conservative moves mabey, but that is it.
          • tech42er, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Yup. But sadly for you guys, the Republican party has been hijacked by neoconservatives and their ilk. That's why I'm an Independent with libertarian views now.
        • chase001, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I can't revolt against a dictator right now, Survivor is on.
      • mentor972, on 10/22/2007, -0/+13I disagree. I haven't done anything much to protest Bush even though I hate him, but I would be one of the first to hit the streets in protest if that happened. That would be the last straw for a lot of people.
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/22/2007, -3/+11 No it won't - you'll just draw yet another line. Like when it effected the average American, thats when America would stand up - but it did, and they didn't.

          It would appear that things are much worse than even the cynics want to believe.
        • Tweekster, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8waiting2awake is 100% correct.
          you can claim you will "hit the streets" all you want, but at the end of the day you will puss out

          Internet tough guy award goes to you
      • rv36116, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Unless a nuke goes off in the united states somewhere and he tries to rally the folks to get behind him and "Sopport 'Merica!" and go to war with X country (insert Iran/Syria/Pakistan)...
    • kajoob, on 10/19/2007, -29/+13This was an obvious attempt at a joke. Whether it was funny or not is a matter of taste, but when did liberals lose their sense of humor? I thought you far left people were supposed to be the fun ones at the party. Lighten up!
      • Araxen, on 10/22/2007, -6/+37There's nothing funny about Bush staying in power longer he's supposed to.
        • nickj6282, on 10/22/2007, -3/+19There's nothing funny about the fact that that crook is still in power.
        • MagicCake, on 10/19/2007, -7/+4"This was an obvious attempt at a joke. Whether it was funny or not is a matter of taste"

          Learn to read before replying. I don't think it's that funny either, but you'd be ***** retarded to believe he'd try and pull that. It was a joke. He has made them before.
          • Stormflux, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8Like when he invaded Iraq, suspended habeus corpus, and tortured innocent people? Were those things jokes too?
      • simpleid, on 10/22/2007, -5/+16i don't think it's a joke, even if it's meant to look like one.
      • chalkboy, on 10/19/2007, -15/+7I thought it was funny. Liberals take themselves to seriously.
    • shellacked, on 10/22/2007, -3/+56If he does you'll see a spike in sniper rifle purchases from blue states and a whole lot of support for the 2nd ammendment
      • BOFH2, on 10/19/2007, -18/+1I thought liberals did not like sniper rifles? They tried to get them banned but ran into the fact that some sniper rifles are modeled after hunting rifles.
        • fishpen0, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14The point is that all the liberals would want to kill him. Nice job killing a good joke because you're a moron.
        • tech42er, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Woosh.
        • Tweekster, on 10/19/2007, -2/+0fishpen2. nice job killing a good jobe because you are a moron (the "article" topic)
      • jjb123, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11And the already high sniper rifle purchase rate in red states would probably stay the same.
      • adoggz, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4pish, the sniper rifle is for pussies, real men use the needler.
    • thax, on 10/22/2007, -7/+39Let me guess, everyone in America will blog him harshly if he doesn't step down. At least in Canada we write harshly worded letters, which have some presence in the real world.
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/22/2007, -0/+20 Thats right ! ! And when they really tick us of, by golly, I'll mail them!!

        ;-)
    • sevun, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6There is no way, no way this could happen. A military overthrow of the government would happen before W got a 3rd term. Hmm.. maybe W should run for vice president (to keep it Constitutionally legal).
      • kazamx, on 10/22/2007, -2/+27Couldn't he take a few years off and then get his wife to run for president instead?
        • Dax420, on 10/22/2007, -5/+16I see what you did there.
          • VanillaStarfish, on 10/19/2007, -12/+0What did he do there? I didn't see. I was reading some other comment above.
        • chase001, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2She'd be the Botox President.
      • Th3_anOmoLy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4I really want to agree with you, but how many times during this administration have people said "There is no way, no way this could happen" and whatever it was did, in fact, end up happening?
    • uberfu, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5That is the point at when he would actually fulfill America's dream and actually disappear without a trace_ Not even his dad or Laura would know what happened to him_

      Good luck with that one GW !
    • BOFH2, on 10/19/2007, -5/+8I think that all of you need to remind yourself what the word "quip" means:

      epigram: a witty saying
      wisecrack: witty remark
      gag: make jokes or quips
      • nakani, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4You must be new to America. We laugh at his retarded quirks like mispronouncing the most powerful power man has (which he decides policy on): "nucular". Many of my fellow Americans have even taken to pronouncing it in the same way, as if in solidarity of our "down to Earth kinda guy" president.
    • Disinterested, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1Ron Paul FTW!!!
    • manova, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Here's what will happen...Bush will return home to Crawford and run for the House against democrat Chet Edwards. The district leans republican anyways. After winning the seat, he will instantly become part of the republican leadership in the House. The republicans plan to retake congress in 2010 (they figure it will be 1994 all over again with a Clinton in the white house, that is why they are not putting up any serious fight with their candidates). Once the republicans have the majority, Bush will become Speaker of the House, the #3 position in America. He can keep that job for as long as he is alive and the republicans can keep the majority.
    • whoadave, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't.
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Just remember, he can do so completely legally now. Another example of the difference between "legal", and "right".

      Really, people, how could we sit back and watch THIS president, of all freaking people, dismantle our freedom, and checks and balances, they way he has? Bush was doing such a good job, and seemed so credible, that we all just figured he must have his reasons? If Bush wasn't a red flag, we are in trouble.
      It remains to be seen whether or not we are interested enough in freedom as a nation to demand its restoration.. Should we fix things, though, lets try not to sit back and let the next sociofascists megalomaniac do whatever the hell he/she wants.
    • Zyphron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Wow...just wow... IT IS A JOKE. The election is GOING to happen. Bush is GOING to step down. You all are GOING to look like raving lunatics.
      People make things called jokes. They dont mean anything. I just called a guy on the road a dumbass this morning. That does not mean I actually think that person is entirely comprised of a stupid ass. (although he IS stupid and has an ASS, but that is inconsequential) Point is, nothing is going to come of this other than a whole bunch of diggers having a ton of comments making them look a little crazy.
      Come on guys...be a little reasonable.
  • melban, on 10/22/2007, -199/+12I'd vote for him a 4th time. Glad he was my governor once upon a time.
    • katie212, on 10/22/2007, -20/+8Yeah, right George dubya.
    • alexology, on 10/22/2007, -4/+52what?!
    • Anub1s, on 10/22/2007, -5/+59Right.....welcome back to the real world, shall I fill you in on what's happened since you've been gone?
    • coolian, on 10/22/2007, -8/+70It's because of ASSHOLES like you that this once-great country has been ruined.
      • BOFH2, on 10/22/2007, -13/+2you were bitching about how the rest of the world did not like us before GW and when he steps down you will start that rant all over again but with no specific reason in your mind.
      • Frostman3D, on 10/19/2007, -8/+7Hey, he voted for who he felt was the best candidate. That doesn't make him an *****. If more people voted for what they believed was the best candidate, we might have a better country.
        • macromania, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7uh.
          democracy + ignorance = America
          Right now be glad that the uneducated are, for the most part, not avid voters. If more people voted for what they believed was the best candidate..... *shudder
          George bush is bad enough
          • tech42er, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Ah, so you're against democracy? It's not safe to leave it up to the average voter? Then why not let only the best of the best vote? You see, you can't have it both ways.
      • pseudononymist, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3you misspelled urined.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/22/2007, -1/+23Thank god for the 22nd ammendment
      • pseudononymist, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9everyone just went to look it up
    • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -9/+9Lemmie guess: You're one of the Hillbilly's building the wall in Mexico. Which reminds me: Did you guys manage to get actual bricks from the Berlin Wall? That would be SO sentimental!
      • consoneo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2What the hell does that mean? Wall in Mexico?
        • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7In case you haven't heard, we're building a wall on the Mexican border. It's part of a new vision for Nation Building -- complete with Hollywood spotlights, barbed wire, the whole nine yards. I recommended digging a moat and filling it with laser sharks but I didn't hear back from anyone.
          • strangewill, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Now that you mention laser sharks, I 100% approve of it.
          • goldfishey, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3wow, didnt that start ages ago? Are they still going at it? Won't it be great when it comes down again, and you can get Hasselhoff to sing a song about it?
          • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Instead of Pink Floyd chanting "Tear down the [Berlin] Wall," we're gonna get Hasselhoff to sing? Couldn't we at LEAST petition William Shatner to do another ditty with Henry Rollins?
        • zammit, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3the laser sharks would be stolen by us geeks.
    • heystoopid, on 10/22/2007, -5/+5Let me guess , you were one of the elite few greedy bottom feeders in Texas that made tens of millions dollars donated by the poor helpless State Taxpayers in every one of his assorted shady below the belt deals whilst he was the State Governor !
    • jellygraph, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10melban,... words fail me...
    • answer42, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9Ignore the troll. He can't be serious. Or can he...
    • chenyu768, on 10/22/2007, -1/+13he's one of the 24% of Brain Dead Americans
    • Skooma714, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14Obvious troll is obvious
    • ArthurSucks, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7I really think your kidding. It made me laugh.
    • AustinMandi, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Not all Texans are Dubya-loving Nascar watching hillbillies. Please don't judge all of us because of morons such as this!!!
  • linuxrebel, on 10/22/2007, -16/+327I've born arms to defend the constitution before, and will again if needed.
    • allan17, on 10/19/2007, -28/+9Really? When was that, just out of curiosity?
      • rcorrino, on 10/19/2007, -7/+4He can tell you..... but then he'd have to kill you : )
      • hierophantus, on 10/22/2007, -4/+53It was during the great Linux Rebellion of 2002, silly.
        • ncairns, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Aye, I remember the day.

          Many a

          [soldier@battlefield] $ kill Gates

          went flying.
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Why was Allan's question dugg down so much? You guys have an aversion to discussion of military experience?

        LinuxRebel, were you one to defend the Constitution, which I seriously doubt, then bless you. If you were one who repeated a bunch of words that included that line, and then went ahead with whatever orders were given you in exchange for a paycheck, and some benefits, you basically paid the same respect to the Constitution as Bush has.

        If you did defend the Constitution, or just want to finally make good on that oath, you're rare, and we need you.
    • Nougat, on 10/19/2007, -5/+43'Borne.'
      • linuxrebel, on 10/19/2007, -5/+10Correct, bad e-key on the 770... Thanks for being obvious.
        • zammit, on 10/19/2007, -2/+14yet you managed to get "dEfEnd" and "nEEdEd" ? both of which have frequent e's
      • smitty112877, on 10/19/2007, -2/+0past tense of "bear arms" is "bore arms"
        • Acolyte357, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Good job smart ass. Now if you look at the way he used it, that would be a conjunctive perfect conjugation in which "I have borne" is the correct usage. If you are going to be a grammar Nazi at least get it right.
      • elliam, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Bourne? :)
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/22/2007, -29/+10you have "born arms" - right - was it painful to pass the weapons through your vagina?
      (I guess the "e" key is really close to the "n" key - although I doubt you ever "born arms" and when did you have an opportunity to defend the Constitution? )
      • mithrasinvictus, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3it probably was a typo, but "born" could be used with the correct meaning as an archaic word with the correct meaning.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -15/+1yeah - your right - but I still think my comment was funny....
      • linuxrebel, on 10/19/2007, -2/+8The e key on my kyboard sometimes doesn't register. (Nokia 770) and in reference to constitutional defense. Gulf War I, Panama and additional operations. Yes I'm not a recent High School grad and yes I'm a vetran.
        • bffoley, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2I just got a Nokia 770. You have made me sad.
          • linuxrebel, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Mine was one of the first.... you have no idea how many thousands of little pecks on the keyboard have been made since then. Enjoy your 770 mine is a treasure.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -15/+1Darn - it was such a good joke too. While the past tense of bear is usually borne - born is also a valid spelling....oh well (I still don't believe you ever bore arms to defend the Constitution - but I am wrong....born is a valid spelling of the past tense of bear)
      • linuxrebel, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Ex-Army LastVisibleDog. Entered in 1977 both Grunt and Signal Corp.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3All political banter aside, I do respect your service to the country.
    • Bleue, on 10/19/2007, -4/+10Interesting. The last time Americans went to war over constitutional issues was the Civil war. All other wars have been over treaties or economic issues, often both. But US sovereignty hasn't been threatened in a few centuries.

      Bearing arms could be taken to mean other things though... I'm sure the weathermen think they are bearing arms to protect the constitution, as well as like groups. The FBI is technically doing so as well (no I'm not making a comparison here, no need to tap my phone or anything... ) Secret service also, though that's a bit of a stretch but the constitution does have verbage about treasury...

      So you could be very much correct, but I just wanted to point out, just in case, per change, FYI, that enlisted men are defending their government and/or the citizens, not necessarily, in fact rarely, the constitution, which protects american citizens only. And I frankly cannot think of a war since the civil war in which it was a or many american's constitutional rights that were threatened.
      • codehkr77, on 10/18/2007, -5/+0You really think civil war was over constitutional issues?
        blind as a bat are we?
        • Bleue, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3Yes it was. Seceding states thought it was their constitutional right to leave the union, the federal government refused, the states seceded anyway, the federal government went to war to bring them back into the union.

          It gets more complicated of course but that's about the gist of it. Unless I'm missing something...
        • drachemorder, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6How exactly is a war fought over secession from the union NOT about Constitutional issues?
        • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1You're assuming the "Americans" he was referring to was the North. Half of "Americans" lost their revolutionary war.
      • linuxrebel, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Blue Sovereignty was threatened on Dec 7th 1941 when a US territory was attacked, again in 2001 when NYC was attacked. However some A-Hole in DC decided to go after the attackers distant neighbor instead of Bin Laden.
        • Bleue, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1Good point on the Japanese I stand corrected.

          But given that there was never any threat of invasion or occupation made by terrorists pre or post 911, nor was there ever a question of dissolution of the country, i'd argue that the invasion of Afghanistan had no constitutional basis.
        • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The United States was warned that their actions were an act of war by a country engaged in war. United States instigated an attack so that they could circumvent the public non-interventionists philosophy, drop their new toys on Japan, who by the way, had agreed conditionally surrender before we dropped the bombs, all so that we could be a "Superpower" in the grand arena.

          The attacks on September 11th were crimes in which the assailants all died. It was not an act of war by a nation, no matter how inconvenient that makes things on our politicians.

          Too bad we were betrayed by our government in WWII, otherwise the blow back on 9/11 would likely never have happened.

          Sounds like you are a merc, with no understanding of the oath you took.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Sorry, you seem to have forgotten about two wars in the last 70 years. One was a little-known conflict called "World War II," and the other was an obscure conflict called "Operation Enduring Freedom."
        • Cadaver69, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Operation Endurning Freedom was not a war but a "Police Action". Only congress can declare war, which wasn't done, they just authorized funding
      • Corrosionx, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1The sovereignty of the U.S. is under attack daily from Washington D.C. politicians and U.N. bureaucrats.
    • socketman, on 10/22/2007, -13/+2You could try, but all the liberal gunlaws will prevent anything like that getting very far. Yeah good luck with your semi automatic pistol against a 50 cal machinegun mounted on a humvee
      • hydrodev, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Some of us...MANY of us have more than a just a "semi automatic"... Oh,... Whats a pistol?
      • MiDri, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Come on down to oklahoma, we've got full auto 50 calls on trucks... not joking -- not street legal, but still they are mounted...
        • strangewill, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5But are these trucks in running condition? Or in your front yard on cinder blocks?
      • Memitim, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2So is it your son or your daughter, your father or your mother, sister or brother who will be manning those 50 cals? Are those the heavily armed people that you think that Bush and his cronies are going to order to subdue by force their family and friends? *****, half of the planet wishes that he would be stupid enough to give that order. He'd have a shorter lifespan from that point than the average fruit fly.
      • Skooma714, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Iraqis make due with not even that sometimes.
      • superal1394, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Just to point out, our soldiers are American Citizens, and probably would defect to the rebel cause. Blackwater, on the other hand....
    • BOFH2, on 10/22/2007, -8/+2so?
    • wburglett, on 10/22/2007, -0/+45I've armed bears to defend the constitution before, and will again if needed. The Panserbjørne are always ready.
    • dn11, on 10/19/2007, -5/+6ok tough guy, whatever you say - good luck against the nuclear subs and aircraft carriers
      • chrispr, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Unless he breaks more rules in the constitution, the army cannot be used on it's own citizens.
        • SlipstreamLucas, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1jesus, where to start with the examples....
        • BlackOp, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I knew GTA got that wrong!
        • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1#1, re: Chrispr, not so anymore.

          #2, re: dn11, anyone who would wish to deny Bush's now LEGAL (thanks everyone) option to stay in office would never confront nuclear power subs, and air craft carriers.
    • scuzzman, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3Thank you.
    • DeFex, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2that sounds painful. i hope it wasnt a "breech" birth.
    • mediasl, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8Some of you guys are funny.. talking about defending the constitution. Where have you been the last several years since Bush has been in office? The 'sacred document' has been picked at since day one.

      My guess is that if this were to actually happen, you'd find another excuse to not do much of anything. Essentially rolling over and taking it up the wazoo.

      My solution? I left the country as soon as he took office. I'm now watching the country implode. It's amazing what you can see from the outside.
      • sleepwalkers, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Personally, I think that's more cowardly. Leave as soon as things get bad? Not even bothering to try and help?
        • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Now that's funny. "Trying to help" would convince just about anyone to leave; driven off by the ignorant, apathetic, slaves. You want to try and help, go be an activist for small government, or the libertarians for a while. If you truly don't know yet, you'll see the value of your fellow "Americans".
  • donavan, on 10/22/2007, -24/+145Remember folks thanks to several laws that have been passed he actually has the power to do this... legally ..... anyone remember the Reich stag fire and Hitler .... he did that legally
    • hierophantus, on 10/22/2007, -4/+56Really now? I'd be interested in knowing exactly which laws those are and under whose interpretation they supersede the 22nd Amendment. I'm as disgusted with the man as anyone, but let's be serious.
      • AndrewJC, on 10/22/2007, -1/+30Well, if he declares Martial Law, then he can suspend elections. I think?
        • Observant1, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1aint many who are going to put up with military occupation, the economy about trashed we really dont have anything more to lose
      • greenm1981, on 10/22/2007, -2/+26Under the interpretation of the Executive, National Security Presidential Directive 51 gives control a "continuity of government" to the sitting President in a state of "catastrophic emergency." While the concept is nothing new, the scary part is to what degree of ambiguity "catastrophic emergency" is defined. The language is so broad and vague, that it leaves open anything that significantly impacts the operation of government in the US. According to this directive a catastrophic condition doesn't even have to exist on US soil.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
        • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4Did you actually read the Directive? If you did, did you understand it? I've posted several responses in this thread on the assumption that the President might invoke it spuriously to extend his power beyond his term, but now I've actually gone and read it carefully to see if that's even possible using the Directive.

          It isn't.

          Directive 51 is an order from the President to the Executive Department agencies, directing them to come up with, and later review, policies and procedures to ensure that they can continue to function in the case of catastrophe. That's it. It's a doomsday equivalent of a company executive issuing a memo to his managers telling them to write and hang up instructions for evacuating in the event of fire.

          There's nothing in there even purporting to grab power for the Presidency (which would be impossible anyway, since the President cannot give himself more power than he has by virtue of exercising his own power--just think about that for a second--it'd be like trying to trying to give yourself more money by taking it out of your own wallet). Go ahead and find me the language in there you think gives the President the power to overstay his term. Like I said, I've read it; it's not there. Point out what you want from it and I'll explain to you why it isn't a power grab.

          As an example: you worry that the Directive "gives control a 'continuity of government' to the sitting President in a state of 'catastrophic emergency.'" Those quoted phrases appear, but they do not have the effect you describe. What the President is given "control" of is the coordinated effort to develop and refine the emergency plans. In other words, the executive agencies will each go off and figure out how they should plan for "catastrophic emergency" to make sure they know who's in charge and who'll do what to keep things running, and then report what they come up with to the President (or, more realistically, his office).

          All this is to be done and submitted to the President for approval within 90 days of the issuance of the Directive, which was May 9, which means it should be done by now. All the executive department apparatchiks now know what should happen in a catastrophic emergency. Probably all the littler apparatchiks got long memos or spiral bound notebooks titled "Who'll Be In Charge of My Department?" or some such thing.

          Earth-shattering.
      • kazamx, on 10/22/2007, -1/+23He passed a law that says if he calls Martial law he can suspend all elections. Thats why many of the Truthers believe that there will be another attack on America just before the elections. if another attack happened on the scale of 9/11 I bet GWB could get at least another year, maybe 2 before anyone tried to push him.
        • hiphoc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2True, and Rudy tried to set precedent and pull a move like that in NY shortly after 9/11
      • hiphoc, on 10/22/2007, -1/+13PDD 52 and HSD 20, military commisions act. he can declare any event anywhere in the world an emergency and take over all corporations and the other 2 branches of govt. Illegal you may say? Yes, but tell that to the guys with guns who have GED's who are gonna obey his orders. They have to make rent you know.

        Read it and weep.
        • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3OK, I've got the Act up on my other screen. It's long-winded, like any Act of Congress, and I already know as a matter of common sense that you're wrong, so I'm not going to read the whole thing. I did search it for "emergency," "corporation," "business," and even "world," and guess what? None of them are in there even once. The single reference to martial law is a simple statement that the Act should not be interpreted as limiting the existing authority to declare martial law. Upon searching for relevant keywords, I saw no reference to taking over the other branches of government. It appears to me that the Act establishes the authority and procedures for creating military commissions for trying detainees (hence the name, you know?). Point out to me where you think it does anything like what you said there and I'll take a look. I won't hold my breath.

          As a help for you, here is the citation for the Act (don't know where you get PDD 52 or HSD 20), the stated purpose of the Act, and its Table of Contents:

          PL 109-366 (S 3930)
          October 17, 2006
          MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006


          An Act To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

          (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the "Military Commissions Act of 2006".
          (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

          Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

          Sec. 2. Construction of Presidential authority to establish military commissions.

          Sec. 3. Military commissions.

          Sec. 4. Amendments to Uniform Code of Military Justice.

          Sec. 5. Treaty obligations not establishing grounds for certain claims.

          Sec. 6. Implementation of treaty obligations.

          Sec. 7. Habeas corpus matters.

          Sec. 8. Revisions to Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 relating to protection of certain United States Government personnel.

          Sec. 9. Review of judgments of military commissions.

          Sec. 10. Detention covered by review of decisions of Combatant Status Review Tribunals of propriety of detention.
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Oh you sad, blind, ignorant, people. It wasn't more then about 10-11 months ago. Maybe you heard about it, since it was on the news, and all over the net, for like 4 months.

        That Digg toll is evidence of the pathetic state of this nation.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2What's the 22nd Amendment when they have broken every single first tenth?
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/22/2007, -3/+22exactly, heirophantus!

      a law which is passed that is unconstitutional is illegal. that's why we don't have segregation any more. because it was unconstitutional.
      • Nougat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+16You're right about that, however:

        The law stays in effect until the courts strike it down. In order for the courts to strike it down, a case has to be brought before a judge. In order for a case to be brought before a judge, someone has to be a defendant, and someone has to be a plaintiff. In this case, GWB would be the defendant. Who would be the plaintiff, and would they have the will and finances to carry an extended legal procedure through to the end? Step back just a second, there. GWB would be the defendant? Who would charge him?

        Yes, it would be unconstitutional. And he could still do it with impunity.
        • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Many possible plaintiffs come to mind (basically, anyone who can show standing by alleging a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the Directive):

          A public-interest organization acting on behalf of voters disenfranchised by the unconstitutional holdover
          A president-elect seeking a writ of mandamus compelling his/her instatement in office or a declaratory judgment voiding the Directive
          And, most dramatically:
          A government official imprisoned for refusing to carry out orders given under the Directive, petitioning for habeus corpus, or
          A Congress bringing impeachment proceedings.

          (And only in the last instance would the defendant necessary be GWB; the crucial thing would be to resolve the constitutional enforceability of the Directive, and that question could be presented in a number of scenarios that don't involve the President--note that the Directive deals with many other offices besides the Presidency itself.)

          If this actually came to pass, there would be a ton of ways for patriotic government officials to bring the case to court via civil disobedience.

          As for financing the case, do you seriously think that would be a problem? Not only would there be about a million lawyers willing to do it pro bono, there would be millions of Americans willing to send money to help with expenses.

          And as for "impunity," I'm afraid I'm not as cynical as you. The President would need the compliance and assistance of many other government officials to enforce such a Directive. Patriotism isn't what it used to be, but I don't think even most of the hardline conservatives in government would go that far.
      • consoneo, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4Too bad the wording of that amendment does not make it unconstitutional. He wouldn't be "elected again" if he declared martial law, he would just be maintaining his office.
        • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Too bad you don't understand Constitutional law. Not only doesn't the "elected" language prevent the interpretation of the 22nd Amendment as a strict term limit preventing a President from holding over like this (because the Constitution is interpreted beyond the strict letter of its language), but the 19th Amendment provides the sole method by which a person may become President in the first place--that is, election. Do you seriously think it's constitutional to just seize the Presidency?
        • KJSatz, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Uhh what about when the President dies or resigns? The VP --> President wasn't elected.

          I thought the 19th amendment just said that citizens couldn't be denied the right to vote based only on sex.
        • nakani, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Something is unconstitutional if it is not constitutional. In order for something to be constitutional, it has to be in the constitution.
        • hierophantus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1KJSatz: You're right about the 19th Amendment; I hastily misread my Roman numerals, sorry--I meant the 12th Amendment. The 22nd takes care of Presidential succession, and don't forget the VP *is* elected along with the President (under the 12th Amendment), specifically for the purpose of succeeding the President, along with other purposes.

          nakani: Then the question becomes "what is 'in the Constitution?'," which is not so simple as your circular formulation would have it. We have a 2nd Amendment right to own guns, which may even limit the restrictions that can be put on who, how and when they may be bought--yet the 2nd Amendment specifically says that the purpose of protecting the right to bear arms is to keep up a "well-regulated militia." If you get kicked out of public school without a fair hearing, you have a 14th Amendment claim to get back in, but where is that in the 14th Amendment?
        • 3adkied, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Even if you took that interpretation, that he wasn't 'elected' again, there is still the 20th amendment that states his term ends on Jan 20th.
    • didiman, on 10/19/2007, -11/+11I don't know what's scarier...how delusional you are or the fact that you are getting dugg up.
      • kazamx, on 10/19/2007, -3/+8I take it you haven't been following these changes then. Go read up and then come back and comment when your more informed
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -2/+13Damn... learn your history.
        Germany was a democracy until a national disaster gave Hitler the chance to seize power (for the sake of security).
      • mdoerr, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Can we use some sense here please? Bush sucks but he's not exterminating millions of people from his own country...nor millions of peopke from anywhere else.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/22/2007, -10/+3You are overflowing with male bovine fecal matter
    • gn0stik, on 10/19/2007, -9/+2Aside from what everyone else has said. Your logic is flawed in the fact that what Hitler did was most definitely NOT legal. You see, I'm pretty sure that torching the Reichstag was arson, and illegal. So, Bush would have to stage a false flag event just like Hitler did in order to do what Hitler did. Interestingly, we've got some broken arrows out in the world, somewhere right now..
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9You're changing the argument, to something he didn't say.
        You know that people weren't talking about the arson as being legal.

        People are referring to the fact that it was legal for Hitler to gain complete control of the government in an emergency.
        Much as it is legal for Bush to suspend elections in an emergency.

        A lot of people, because of a variety of details about 9/11 are suspicious that the government was involved. This sort of thing is very very common in history. But some people are stupid and don't know that.
        • gn0stik, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1No I'm not. He said that hitler extended his terms via legal means. Hitler staged the Reichstag fire. In order to achieve a false flag sense of emergency, and consitutionally remain in office. To quote him..

          "anyone remember the Reich stag fire and Hitler .... he did that legally"

          To which I basically responded, no he didn't. There was nothing legal about how hitler extended his time in office. He achieved it via fraud, and arson.

          Now if there was some kind of national emergency, attack on the US, etc that wasn't a false flag event.. we might have something talk about. And you posted a derailing comment to tell me that I derailed the thread? Interesting debate methodology there.
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Nobody knew that Hitler staged the Reichstag fire. It was blamed on a mentally retarded person, and that is all that anyone knew until present times. In fact, it has *never* been conclusively proven that the Nazis torched the Reichstag.
            So your point is basically worthless. On the surface, what Hitler did was legal in the eyes of his contemporaries. That is the point.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Ok I understand. I was being a bit more specific about his political power.
          What Hitler did was illegal and fraudulent, but in the process he used a legal power he held to assume control.

          I still feel your distinction is misleading.
    • boonesfarm, on 10/19/2007, -12/+1Hmmm... I remember Clinton hinting at life after 8 years. I'm sure if Digg was around then, diggers would have compared him to Hitler too.
      /sarcasm off
  • mrdeathgod, on 10/22/2007, -11/+76It makes you wonder. On one hand, you have the neocons doing their best to run this country into the ground. Then on the other hand, you have everyone agreeing that the GOP is going to be annihilated by the 2008 elections. Do you really think they're going to just give it all up and walk away? I mean in 2000 they already showed us that they care little for elections or the will of the people.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/22/2007, -17/+6Can you dweebs cut out this nonsense? Stop using this nonsensical term "neocon" - a current political "n". The Republicans are trying to do what they think is best - and maybe they are totally wrong - but nobody is trying "run the country into the ground" - nonsensical propaganda parroting like this makes REAL political debate nearly impossible and all we end up with is a schoolyard "mine's bigger" argument. Stop rambling like a child. If you want political change - GO FOR IT and SUPPORT SOMETHING - parroting this stupid, dishonest, wingnut propaganda is a complete waste of time
      • Rikkochet, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Haven't you been paying attention? The neocons (neocons! neocons! nyaah!) and Republicans are not one and the same.
      • asdfuiop, on 10/22/2007, -5/+2AGREED. For some reason, whenever I hear the word 'Neocon' I think of the Necromongers from The Chronicles of Riddick

        P.S. @ LastVisibleDog: Good luck getting an alternative point of view to fly on Digg, these guys are all as Hiveminded as the MSM they hate so much
      • toupeira23, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8You *are* aware that the Neo-Conservatives actually call themselves Neo-Conservatives, right?
      • HyperionZero, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Yeah... say that there's no such thing as neo-conservative and paleo-conservative to a political science professor and get laughed out of the room.
    • chalkboy, on 10/22/2007, -12/+3I really don't think the GOP will be annihilated in 2008. Only you and your hippie friends think that. They are not EVERYONE
      • tophu, on 10/22/2007, -5/+6Agreed there. The GOP has a chance if they nominate Dr. Paul.
    • Takalth, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10GOP doesn't have much to worry about. After the Democrats have done just as bad of a job, people will all vote them back into office, while a few more people wake up and start voting for somebody besides the people the Mainstream media pushes into their faces.
      The only real question is which happens first. The country dies or enough people start voting FOR something good instead of AGAINST something they hate.
      The onion does a good job representing modern elections in this article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30587
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Thinking that the GOP, and the Neocon/fascists are one in the same is an easy mistake to make. Ron Paul may very well be the only GOP member who isn't a Neocon, but he still isn't.

      If you've been paying attention, you'd know that the democrats don't have any plans to fix things. They're just waiting for their turn behind the wheel of this huge, bloated, state, so they can have their fun, and fulfill their promises to whomever they sold themselves to. How many democrat candidates who are supposedly against the war said they'd be able to get the troops home in their first 4 YEAR TERM again? Was it two, I think? Gravel, and Kucinich? I don't know about you, but that's not opposing the war from where I sit, and those of you who are so partisan, and caught up in blaming this disaster on the GOP, are ignoring your equally dangerous party. The democrats have done nothing but to prove they're just the other half of the same sociofascist coin the Neocons are on.

      All that aside, I see your point about Bush. He gave himself the power for a reason. I doubt it was simply so that a democrat in office behind him could use it.
      • Observant1, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1the joker has already 'predicted' hillary's win just like he 'predicted' his own win, the same money people are backing her as did him.. then theres bush sr, CIA, bill and hillary clinton, drugs, weapons..
  • MaximusIGN, on 10/22/2007, -9/+217Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

    He says something with a smile that is insane, everyone laughs thinking it's a joke, but he's not.
    • gropo, on 10/22/2007, -12/+5These are both the kind of "humor" I'd expect from someone who used to do a lot of cocaine. Hmmmmm...
    • MagicCake, on 10/22/2007, -14/+2I never understood why that comment riled people up so much. That's a true statement no matter who it's coming from. I can say it, you can say it, anyone can say it! It's true, ***** would be easier if you were a dictator.
      • cloudyprison, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7*wave* Hello 28% approval rating.
        • MagicCake, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3Just playing devil's advocate. Not everything has to be scary, you know. But go ahead and keep digging me down anyway.
        • mrgreenjeans, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Sarcasm doesn't travel through the internet without "/sarcasm" at the end of your statement.
          • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Don't forget new this week "/Sarcasm Off"
        • DrPaul2008, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I'd say he'd kill for 28% these days, but though he likes killing, he certainly doesn't seem to care at all about his approval rating.

          Can someone please tell me how in the hell there are so many U.S. citizens that still support him?! I can't understand why anyone does, but there are always the idiots.. but 24%?! A forth of our population! Is that possible?! Does anyone even listen to Bush anymore? If so, is it for comic relief? Masochism? I can't imagine it's because anyone thinks his words are relevant, or truthful.
      • dafragsta, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6See, here's what the Bush supporters don't get about smart political dissent. We know he says things sometimes that are just flubs and quips. Those we point at because they are just a mockery of his purported Yale education. Things like this are just too close to our worst fears, and whether he knows that or not, he shouldn't even be kidding about things like that. Some things have been rubbed so raw at this point that there is no humor left, only angst. To use a Texism, "He's stirring a hornet's nest."
        • MagicCake, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1I'm not a "Bush supporter", but all right. You have a fair point.
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2It depends on whether or not you understand your purpose.

        Sure, it would be easier to sell favor, and do whatever the hell you wanted to do. However, if your goal was to do your job, honor your oath to protect the Constitution, and ensure to the best of your abilities the freedom of the citizens, being a dictator would make that impossible.

        I understand your point, though. I think that at this point people are just so offended by this man who has no credibility, and seemingly no respect for what his position is supposed to be. When he really shows himself, and truly how not sacred the "American way" is to him, it's a kick to the nuts, and it's really ugly.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/22/2007, -4/+34OMG John Kerry smoked a marijuana cigarette once but didn't inhale!?!?!? VOTE BUSH!
      But cocaine... SHUT UP VOTE BUSH!

      OMG John Kerry might have exaggerated about his 3 tours in Vietnam?!?!?
      but Bush didn't even... SHUT UP VOTE BUSH!!!

      2004, Those were the days...
      • dafragsta, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5It's always most important who the apathetic voters feel "is a pussy."
      • Biggindude, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Hindsight is 20/20.
        • ryecatcher22, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3and for those people who knew bush was a ***** idiot before he was even elected in 2000?

          Wake the ***** up people.
    • Thorox, on 10/19/2007, -7/+1So now the President isn't allowed to joke? The President doesn't have 1st Ammendement rights just like all the GOP haters on Digg?
      • dafragsta, on 10/19/2007, -0/+12Let's see... most powerful man in the world jokes about abusing power. No, some things just aren't ever funny.

        It's like those ***** juvenile delinquents who would hold a butterfly knife or other sharp object, make like they are gonna stab someone, only to twist the knife backward at the last second. He's ***** with fight or flight instinct when he jokes about this *****. Don't think there wouldn't be anarchy if he ever did plan on extending his stay. But why do we need to fear a president who has done more to bestow empirical power upon the office of the president?
      • nakani, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I'm in the GOP and I hate our administration.
  • ruyen, on 10/22/2007, -11/+138Look at this bill that was snuck in if you don't think he can do it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
    It gives Bush such unlimited power in the case of a National Emergency, that some are predicting another 'False Flag' attack on us, that will cause Martial Law to be enabled, and Bush to stay in office past the next election. This is not a new tactic, Hitler used a false flag attack to get the support to start his invasions.
    • hierophantus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+291) That's not a bill, it's a Presidential Directive. It is subject to the limits of power granted to the President under the Constitution--that is, the President can't bootstrap himself into greater power than he has in the first place.
      2) Even if it were a bill, an act of Congress would be ineffective to overcome Constitutional limits on Congress's power.
      3) The 22nd Amendment forbids a President to serve beyond two terms.
      4) The Directive specifically says "This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers... "
      • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -3/+26Good thing we've got a fair and honest President in office who respects the Constitution -- otherwise, your points might simply be seen as "legal hurdles" to overcome.
        • cliffhanger407, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5That's irrelevant. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but seriously, you've got to be joking if you think that people would stand for this. I realize that Congress wouldn't do anything, and that many people would be supporting the president again, but I know for a fact that he wouldn't get away with something like that... it's just retarded.
          • geddon, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3What are you basing these facts of yours on: The big uprising of 1913 when our banking institutions were hijacked by private organizations? Or maybe you're recalling the massive riots that shut our country down for three weeks when we declared war on Iraq? How about all those people storming the Capital when our privacy rights were replaced by The Patriot Act?
          • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Like I said in a comment to someone else, I can sympathize with that kind of pessimism, but it just seems to me like something as blatantly dictatorial as this would be different. (Relatively) reasonable people have been able to disagree about the propriety, let alone legality, of those other events (though I don't know anything about the bank episode--I'll look into that), but I just don't see many people going along with a third-world-style takeover. I know about the power of nightmares, etc, but one thing about 9/11 is that now that it's happened, the next attack won't be as shocking, and a lot more people are on guard against the exploitation of an attack. But maybe I'm naive. I really hope not (and hope even more that I never find out).
      • kazamx, on 10/19/2007, -2/+11Who do you think will go against the president after another 9/11 style attack? NO ONE. After 9/11 anyone who wasn't 100% behind everything the president said was humiliated and called unpatriotic. If there were to be another attack on America, the president would be free to do as he wanted.
        • hierophantus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I can understand that POV, and maybe I'm naive, but I really think something as blatantly unconstitutional and anti-American as a false flag attack and power grab would be a different animal. Also, as corrosive as I feel Bush has been to the constitutional values I believe this country stands for, I still don't believe he would try something like this.
      • cliffhanger407, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1The problem with the assumption that you make is that people understand the differences between directives, executive orders, bills, laws, and constitutional amendments. You're completely right about everything, but you overestimate people. The problem (potentially) will come about when Bush claims this as an act of lawful right. Informed citizens are going to be the ones who respond here, and they will ensure the lawful carry-over of the constitution to the rightful owner of the presidency (or if not, well, just run for the border).
    • FortyCaliber, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Well, no legislative law can outdo the constitution
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4"some are predicting"

      Some are predicting that pigs will take to the skies any day now as well, or that we will all suddenly turn into lead. Unless you have proof to back up your hypotheses (as in, something a bit more substantial than "WTC looked strange when it fell over" or "Dick Cheney looks evil"), it really doesn't mean anything.
    • artanis, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Atleast in section 5 atleast it says this:
      (a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

      (b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
    • desertDenizen, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Roslin has dibs on the long skinny ship with no vipers.
    • mdoerr, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1You ***** hippies drive me crazy. Listen, bush is a bad president. He is not Hitler. He is stupid, he doesn't understand the procedure of taking over the world's first democracy (although some of his aides may), but this is way beyond the scope of what's POSSIBLE, let alone what's even probable. Give me a break. I hate Bush more than the next guy but get some sense.
  • Panoptes, on 10/22/2007, -4/+39I just want to see that big ass moving van driving away from the People's White House with this sick idiot's crap piled in the back.
    • jdaniel284, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I want to see the guy gone as much as the next man but "the People's White House". Now that's just creepy. Let's keep it "The White House".
  • stratofax, on 10/19/2007, -4/+22 But what has the Shrub done that actually worked in the end, besides get elected (w/ Rove at the helm)? Plus, now he's got no popular support, and most of his party is hating on him.
    Despite his bad rap in the West, Putin is well liked among large swaths of the Russian hoi polloi, and much less despised than the Russian robber barons. He's a serious contender for the first czar of the 21st century. But here, Bush is the robber baron's man, and thus no longer held in high regard among his former base, who see they are not getting rich like Haliburton stockholders are. Plus, Bush clearly botched Iraq, among other travesties. With the war(s) also sending many of his most ardent supporters off to become cannon fodder, grinding up the (under) armed services, his support among the generals is tepid at best.
    Rove & Rumsfeld long gone, w/o Congress in his pocket, and Justice in disarray, many of the critical foundation stones of the "special election" look quite shaky today.
    But that never stopped them before...

    Also: the AP transcript is here:
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJ ...
    Search for "planning" and you can find Bush's joke right away. Anyone find video?
    • czeman, on 10/19/2007, -8/+1Yeah, the AP is REAL reliable. Give me a ***** break. The media reports what they want us to believe. The only fools are those who believe everything they say and buy into the negativity. There is a lot to be learned from The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

      Here's one example of AP Bias... The Associated Press Makes It Up http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/0076 ... Bush Offers Best Wishes for Clinton (Liberal bias shows again) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1206685/p ... Booing the AP http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2004/09/booing-ap ... I heard the tapes and saw the reports on television. Everyone applauded in response to Bush's statement of best wishes for Clinton. The media doesn't like George Bush so they're going to report the shortfalls of his presidency and not his accomplishments. There have been plenty of both.
  • Grumps, on 10/22/2007, -7/+30Piss off bloody Chimpanzee.
  • voluble2, on 10/22/2007, -83/+10If I thought any of you guys believed a word you type I would be buying stock in mental institutions. I will miss Bush when he is gone because we ave a strong economy with one of the longest expansions on record despite 9-11, Katrina etc... we haven't been hit by a terrorist attack since the fecklessness of the prior administration led to 9-11 and two countries in the middle east that were ruled by tyrants are now free. Those are the facts.

    That he did all of this while faced by an opposition that could at best be described as slanderous on a good day (and traitorous on a bad one) while maintaining a higher standard of civil rights than we have seen in any prior war is little short of amazing. He has also run one of the most ethical administrations that I can remember in my lifetime. It would be interesting to see how his administration stacks up in numbers of indictments or resignations for impropriety compared to the others of the 20th century. I think he would fare very well indeed.

    So yeah, he let congress spend money like a bunch of drunken monkeys and he was weak on the border but all-in-all he prioritized correctly and navigated us through a difficult period in history with aplomb and extraordinary graciousness.
    • Nupeper, on 10/22/2007, -8/+47please don't breed
      • didiman, on 10/22/2007, -31/+3I would say the same to you, but chances are you will never leave your parents' basement.
    • alexology, on 10/22/2007, -4/+43i just don't get it, what ***** planet are you people on!?
    • bulkhater, on 10/22/2007, -5/+48Oh good lord that was some spot on satire. You have a gift for depicting Bush supporters as uninformed morons of the highest order. Bravo sir, bravo!
    • lukifer, on 10/22/2007, -4/+22"So yeah, he let congress spend money like a bunch of drunken monkeys."

      Ohhhhh, so it was *Congress* who spent $500+ billion dollars on an unnecessary war! Check.
      • kjk437, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2They are no better than Bush is. ***** them all.
    • scrimaxinc, on 10/22/2007, -1/+16Where can I buy stock in mental institutions? I already have stock in abortion clinics and rehab centers, and I'm looking for the trifecta!

      ...but seriously, you suck.
    • didiman, on 10/19/2007, -29/+5I like how nobody disputes your facts. Silly liberals...
      • hierophantus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+23Well, since opinions are not "facts," it would be pretty tough to dispute any "facts" in that post. Nice try, though. Well, actually, "generic try" would be more accurate, but I try to be nice to the simple folk.
    • schrankage, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10Yea, because everyone knows "the economy" is the most imporant thing in the Universe. I know everytime I wake up in the morning I'm wondering all about the economy, and while I eat, and before I go to bed; it's all about the economy.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+13Dude, don't bogart that exhaust pipe!

      Next time, bring enough of whatever you are high on for everyone else. I like the facts you point out though -- we haven't been hit by a Katrina again because of Bush's swift action. Brilliant!

      This economy is only good because THEY tell you it is -- and some are dumb enough to believe. With all the discouraged people, prison guards, prison occupants, troops, TSA agents sniffing shoes, and disappeared -- sure, there is no employment problem. Want to eat or just pig out on free hospital food?

      I think the money you invest in Mental Hospitals will be wasted -- the "survival of the fittest" situation the NeoCons are putting us in. Of course, fit meaning; "selfish robber baron traitor" and survival meaning; "room service for senator and the Cub Scouts."
    • KraftDinner101, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10That's the biggest pile of tripe I've ever been fed.
    • JoWiGo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+24Heh, strong US economy. Brilliant! Check the value of the greenback bud, the loonie is beating it. The countries in the middle east that have 'free people' have also suffered massive civilian casualties in wars that didn't have to happen. Search Digg for when Saddam offered to step down but was ignored. A higher standard of civil rights? Yeah, if you consider detaining, torturing and killing your own countries civilians because they dare oppose your policies. Ethical administrations - including sanctioning torture and breaking several major laws themselves. Look up Executive Privilege and see how many times he has avoided the courts.

      He took advantage of a 'terrorist attack' and passed laws which grant the government a chilling amount of power over the populace. Check your facts.

      And I second the breeding ban.
      • Identity4, on 10/22/2007, -0/+13I third it, thus allowing the proposal to carry through. May I also propose a resolution to have him stripped of the title "human being"?
      • davehuehn, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I miss you, Josh. That comment rocked. We've been learning about some of that stuff in my State Behavior class.
    • ronaldinho, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5I think it was a satire by voluble
    • greenm1981, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10Do you define running up the largest federal trade and spending deficit in US history as economic growth? You need to take a course in economics. The actions at Abu Ghraib are a reflection of a higher standard of civil rights? Constitutional violations and the use of signing statements are not treasonous? Not to mention lying to the world that he had intelligence which would have justified military action in Iraq.

      You are mad! Do yourself a favor and read the constitution, read an economics book, just read something instead of listening to Bill O' Reilly and watching Fox News.
    • thecoolestguy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4median wages have gone down since the Bush administration came to power.
    • JackHorner, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
  • Vazelos, on 10/22/2007, -4/+35China won't become the most powerful nation because of their actions and policies. This man will hand this title over to them royally
  • rhabd0mancer, on 10/22/2007, -3/+9I reckon he ain't!
  • 1kewldude, on 10/22/2007, -4/+15Pootie Tang would be a bettter president - Sa Da Tay!!!
  • Stormwysper, on 10/22/2007, -7/+118So who wants to carpool to Canada?
    • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Can we make it to Brazil?
      • Stormwysper, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Brazil will work. When is Carnival? If porn has taught me anything, all Brazilian women are hot. And like it in the butt.
    • mgrucker, on 10/22/2007, -15/+2Not me you ***** pussy. Don't make idle "threats" that you will never follow through on. Get out and try to DO something to make your country better.
      • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10You're not going to do anything that puts your credit at risk -- just like the rest of us. Get over your Revolutionary Wannabe rhetoric and assume the position, dick eyes.
        • fabianp, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Dugg for "dick eyes"
          • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Gotta give my girlfriend props for 'dick eyes' -- her tag line for people who "look" through their lower extremities.
    • jrmcgrath13, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4England first for a couple years and then on to New Zealand.
      • heystoopid, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1But sadly even according to the local Kiwi dumb ass Fuzz in the twin islands of the rusting shroud they have terrorists in resident too !
        just one of the many links you can find http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/71720/inde ...
      • nakani, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Skip England, it's already a worse police state than the United States are. But I guess as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you should have no reason to worry about their massive surveillance camera coverage...
    • Konrad9, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1You'll see a .ca in my IPmask if this happens.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1Cool, the more idiots that leave, the better off we'll be.
    • frozenpxl, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Shotgun.
  • evo8ftw, on 10/22/2007, -14/+64 More Years 4 More Years!

    Seriously obviously sheep don't understand sarcasm.
    • petewiz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Actually some things just aren't that funny.
      • evo8ftw, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0Just because you don't find something funny doesn't meant the statement is one that is honest and truthful then. God your logic set is failed you might as well just end your life now it will be a lot easier on you and your acquaintances.
        • petewiz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Ha ha, man that sounds like something I would post. But instead of actually being logical, you just ended up sounding like a tool.
          Some critiques:
          1.) Spell words correctly next time you want to sound smart.
          2.) Don't make up words (like "logic set"; unless you are talking about a mathematical theory, this doesn't make any damn sense).
          3.) The suicide recommendation was a nice touch, but I don't take advice from dumbasses.
  • slashbot, on 10/22/2007, -14/+19Anybody that cannot see that this is clearly fiction and satire has been eating their tin foil hat
    • Hetman, on 10/22/2007, -2/+11It was not fiction or satire. GWB was just making a joke and people took it out of context.
      • slashbot, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6Correct.

        Either way, it was not serious
    • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -3/+10No doubt, man. Next you'll have us believe that the "Government" has been spying on us and torturing innocent prisoners. Bunch of loonies.
    • evilregis, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Perhaps... but many a truth is told in jest.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2Digg's filled with paranoid lunatics who like to put their false bravado on display through their comments.
  • nullcodes, on 10/22/2007, -7/+34It was a joke.

    His comment, that is.
    • cvp1, on 10/22/2007, -2/+13I saw it live, you're right - it was obviously a joke.
    • cloudyprison, on 10/22/2007, -4/+11"He is a joke. " There. I fixed your statement.
    • underburn, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8I thought you meant his presidency.
    • Subterfug, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2Yes but his ability to declare martial law isn't.
    • whoadave, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3I've noticed that he likes to joke about things he's serious about.
  • Gerchak, on 10/22/2007, -1/+22He has a strange sense of humor. Plus I wouldn't mind seeing a clip, spoken words lose so much context when typed.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1It's not a strange sense of humor. He's been accused of being a power mad dictator by a very vocal minority most of his term and he's poking fun at it.
  • shaitanx, on 10/19/2007, -6/+5Viva la revoluccion!
  • DelSolid, on 10/22/2007, -15/+23You nut job reactionaries realize he was joking right? The title of the FA was even "Bush Quips He Might Stay in Power" Quips. read that, quips.

    Verb quip - make jokes

    I mean, I hate the douche as much as the next guy but give it a rest. Also, in before obligatory Ron Paul spam...
    • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -2/+23He's sure been cracking some knee slappers, lately. First the joke about World War III and now Martial Law. We should recommend some better jokes to the President, maybe a quip about rounding up all the Illegal Aliens and throwing them into Concentration Camps.
      • Hetman, on 10/22/2007, -10/+6If you consider mexico a concentration camp I would agree with you. We have legal immigration for a reason. And if people want to come to this country fine, just do it legally.
        • geddon, on 10/22/2007, -1/+12No, no.. that wasn't humorous in the least! Something like: "I was talkin to Condie the other day about all the money we're spending on Immigration. I told her that we should just build a bunch of multi-million dollar Detention Centers and round them up inside. That might help them CONCENTRATE on our Laws!" THAT'S some Bushy humor, right there!
  • kajoob, on 10/22/2007, -5/+5...

  • DimensionalPunk, on 10/18/2007, -2/+7*****, he can't wait to go home.
    • rcorrino, on 10/18/2007, -4/+1Yep, He has got to have time to spend the billions he and his cronies "stole" right? No sense having the twins inherit it. THey will just party it away...
  • blackmage439, on 10/19/2007, -12/+18January 20, 2009. Secret Service Agents arrive at the Oval Office, to regain control of this country.

    Bush: "Ah, my loyal bodyguards. I must say you're here sooner than expected."
    Secret Service agent: "By order of the United States of America, you're hereby under arrest, President."
    Bush: "Are you threatening me, agent?"
    SS agent: "The United States will decide your fate."
    Bush (in a Palpatine-like voice): "I am the U.S.!"
    SS agent: "Not yet!"
    • WolverineBlue, on 10/19/2007, -0/+30I'm pretty sure Cheney is actually Palpatine. Bush is more akin to Jar Jar.
    • MagicCake, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11And then Anakin lops off Mace Windu's arm 'cause Bush says he can save Padme's life.

      ...wait, what?
    • Konrad9, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3I'm willing to bet there are also a few generals who would order a few boats and helos back to the US for a little 'op'
    • jimjoebobbillyb, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4no, actually the Pope is Emperor Palpatine. have you ever seen a pic of him? mygod, he's the spitting image. Cheney is more like that Darth Tyranus dude, and bush is the horned, redfaced Sith who sucked.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1FAIL
    • casual7y, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1the SS was the name of hitlers secret police i belive
  • tikited, on 10/19/2007, -9/+6FU*K him, i won't allow it at all. Worst president ever. Lazy ass bastard takes too many vacation and wasting time and money. I rather have Clinton stay in office than you crook. He can't even finish the job at all.
    • MiDri, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Ya the only people that get more vacation time then congress are highschool children... buncha ***** *****...
    • mattwilson, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Exactly! At least Monica finished the "job" for Bill!
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/19/2007, -9/+11My god this is an absolutely STUPID article - these idiots are drunk with their own self-importance. It was a joke - just as THREAT LEVEL seems to be a joke
  • lead2thehead, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8Wow... it's amazing what passes for news these days.
    • LBobRife, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Hate to break it to you but sites like Digg do not have a high barrier of entry for articles.
    • kreneskyp, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3ya i wanted to read about britney and lindsay blowing lines off eachothers asses. Instead i had to read how bush is making a jokes about turning our democracy into a dictatorship. how dare they make a mockery of my news with a mockery of my freedoms! where is the quality control when you need it?!?!?!
  • oscrmyer, on 10/22/2007, -7/+10I am always amazed at how stupid most of the people around here are. It really makes my head hurt. This is obviously him making a bad joke.
  • NCSUspoon, on 10/22/2007, -8/+35A US dictatorship should not be joked about by ANYONE, much less the president.
    • minoss, on 10/23/2007, -5/+9Shut up. EVERYTHING should be joked about. Not necessarily by the president, but by the people.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Seriously. It's obvious he's making a joke, but leave that one to the late night comedians, George.
    • kreneskyp, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10remember:

      wanting to end the war makes you a sissy commie.
      joking about turning our country into a dictatorship in the name of security makes you a patriot
    • Groovemaster, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2The US is already a dictatorship.
    • SiNN4R, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I thought it was funny. President Bush was trolling on an international level.
    • tomis, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1And we'll shoot anyone who tries! Oh wait, isn't that the kind of thinking they have in dictatorships?
  • drewish, on 10/22/2007, -4/+14I would literally take up arms and revolt against our government if the electoral process is suspended for ANY reason, especially if initiated by bush. I dont care if we are getting bombed by iran, and having a bird flu epidemic at the same time. Nothing and I mean nothing is worth negating one of the most basic premises of one of the great governments in history.
    • craigatkinson, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Assuming you have arms. American will be disarmed within the next 8 years. I guarantee it. What people think Bush is serious about here (but was really a bad joke) is impossible since America is armed and wouldn't put up with it. However, Hillary will be elected into office as president, she will disarm America, and America will be ripe for Dictatorship. Mark my words.
      • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Marked, indeed, as "paranoid" and "claptrap."
        • craigatkinson, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Paranoid. Maybe. That doesn't mean I don't have reason to be paranoid. All I ask is that you remember what I've said.
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Beat me to it, Craig. Absolutely correct. I assume you will be dugg down, though, as most of the socialists on here think the 2nd amendment was to allow hunting (and was a mistake at that).
    • tmyprod, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Don't worry Drewish, you wont be fighting alone. I, for one, will stand, fight, and die alongside you.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Lighten up Drew
  • Frostman3D, on 10/22/2007, -0/+15If that ever happened, I'd get as many people that cared about the constitution together, and we'd march on Washington, surround the Whitehouse and remove him ourselves. If I die doing that, at least I'd die for a worthy cause. I used to support Bush, but I can see now that he is clearly the worst president this country has ever seen. This is our country, not theirs. They work for us, and by God nobody is going to steal my country from me. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for what we've allowed our government to do. These people crave power, and if we did go to Washington to kick these bastards out, you better believe they would slaughter us by the tens of thousands to keep the power they wield. We've got to stop this madness. The overwhelming majority of Americans are sick to death at what's going on in Washington. It's time to get rid of EVERYONE up there, and replace them with people that give a damn about this country.
    • PunkRockRalph, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1do you seriously think you and a group of people could just march into the whitehouse and manually remove bush from the oval office?
      • Frostman3D, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1No, I think they would slaughter us all. We live in a 2 party dictatorship. We're not free, but we're led to believe we are.
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1While you think you care, http://www.ronpaul2008.com
  • nexmachina, on 10/22/2007, -3/+7wow, i realize now how much a stupid comment (meant to be funny) can be taken out of context. I saw this who press conference, and if any of you people had a sense of humor then you would understand that ALL PRESIDENTS play with the press. I don't support Bush, but come.... This was meant to be a joke on his behave!
    • cissystrut, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2In terms of humor, maybe not the best timing...
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1We have no need, or patience for his lies, or humor. If wants to pretend he is a patriot, he should go away. He doesn't need to apologize, just go away.
  • zflow, on 10/19/2007, -3/+5Bush... Why it doesn't surprise me to read that he said something like that...
  • futureisours, on 10/22/2007, -10/+10God you lib-tards are stupid. It was a joke. Sheesh.
    • kreneskyp, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3good job taking your freedom for granted.
    • hierophantus, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2So I was stirring my soup in your mother's emptied-out skull while defecating on her naked torso, which I had carved with my initials, and thinking back to how great it was to rape your sister... Wait, lighten up, it's a joke! You didn't even let me get to the punch line!
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Believe it or not, those that are complaining get that he was joking. Now try not to blow a gasket on this one, Smarty, but they still don't like it. Why do you suppose that is?
  • Matjock, on 10/22/2007, -4/+12Years ago I would have ignored a stupid comment by bush, but the things he has done including the way he was brought in to the White House truly frightens me. There is a law on the books that can have the current President postpone elections in cases of "national emergency". With all that he's done it wouldn't surprise me if he did that right around November of '08. Yes, it might sound like another "conspiracy theory", but like I said, he's done sooooo many things to our constitution and nobody really bothers to care. What is even scarier is that if he does do something like that most Americans will accept it and continue with their lives.
    • Frostman3D, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1I totally agree with you. I know Bush meant that as a joke, but in light of what he's done so far, I wouldn't doubt anything from this bastard.
    • Thorox, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Ah, the world's going to end in 2012... how bad can another 4 years be?
  • Punisher2K, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5Are we sure his name isn't Palpatine?
  • LogicBomB, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3I've been waiting for bush to do this for a long while. For some reason I can't see someone so power mad to actually give up the throne.

    I can see it going something like "I respect the constitution however we are in troubled times, I am deeply invovled with all aspects of this war and feel it is in the country's best interest for me to stay only as long as it takes to win".
  • plizard, on 10/22/2007, -6/+4you idiots would allow it anyway and then 2340234234023492348234234 "activists" on digg would bitch about it for years.
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, you're absolutely right.

      Here's some irony for you.. Which would they bitch more about? Too much exposure for a presidential candidate who wishes to right this ship, or Bush declaring a state of emergency, and doing the opposite for another 25 years?

      BTW, great number.
  • Eldorian, on 10/19/2007, -3/+12Another anti Bush quote taken completely out of context.

    I hate the guy as much as anyone else, but come on, do we really have to start taking stuff out of context lately to hate him more?
    • JoeJI, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0It is probably easier to go with hate than rally the Digg community around something positive a politician came up with. Notice that there have been no Top 10 articles on any political matter of any substance concerning the 2008 election? Nothing on the top 3 Dems health care plans, nothing on Obama's proposed social security fix, nothing at all.
      Digg is good for the cool pictures that make the front page every week or two, thats about it....says the man posting on a worthless Digg article "D'ooh!"
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1>I hate the guy as much as anyone else

      It's important to be conformist. Probably the most important thing.
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1"Another anti Bush quote taken completely out of context."

      I don't see how that was an anti-Bush quote. If anything, I think it summed up this "Bush" experience very well.
  • badassninja, on 10/22/2007, -2/+12I understand it was a joke. But that ***** is not funny. As soon as he declared his never ending war on terror, this was the first thing that came to mind. And it scared the hell out of me.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1No, It is funny. Really funny; because it scares paranoids like you.
  • madpoet, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Actually, Congress does control the spending of money in America, and that's usually summed up by saying that Congress has the "power of the purse". Which is why President Bush has to go to them to get an emergency spending bill passed to fund things like the Iraq War. If Congress wanted to stop the war, they could de-fund it by either refusing to pass said spending bill or by passing new legislation that de-funded the war.
    The U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to "pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
    So, in short, President Bush cannot spend money on his own, an act of Congress is required, and any Congressperson who criticizes the amount of money we're spending on the war while voting to pay for it is undermining their own credibility.
    • Matjock, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Uhh...with this Congress he's not having ANY problems getting what he wants.
  • videozine, on 10/22/2007, -7/+9The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

    Here is his loophole - he wasn't ELECTED - he was appointed!
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3He was elected twice - you are an idiot
      • nihilite, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2one could have the perspective that the supreme court put him in office.
        • p0s3r, on 10/20/2007, -3/+1or, like normal people, have the perspective that the voters put him in office.
      • hierophantus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1So I guess the conservatives in this thread only know a joke when they see it if it came from Bush?
      • Victorioso, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1People that demean others simply for a differing opinion are true idiots.
    • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1You're missing the point. Bush has no need to run for re-election should he want to remain in power. He can drag out his term as long as he wishes should he declare a state of emergency, or catastrophe, or whatever the hell it is he has to declare.
  • socketman, on 10/19/2007, -9/+2I'd vote for him again if I was allowed to
    • finbec, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Don't worry, only 6 or 7 more years and you'll be old enough to vote!
      • DrPaul2008, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Socketman, please do! Write him in.
  • camaro