What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
180 Comments
- staticxcc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+78At this point, I don't think anybody is surprised by anything negative coming from Bush about illegal activities he may be doing. He has basicly declared himself above the law to "protect america" while doing the exact opposite. however... I am a strong believer that the "Big Wheel Keeps Turning" and that eventually, all this crap will turn around for the better as america finally steps up and gets this kind of behavior stopped
- boomerxl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63"Mad that Clinton was impeached"? No.
Mad that GWB hasn't been impeached? Yes.
I mean come on, Clinton only ***** an intern, Bush is ***** the entire country. - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -39/+95HST summed it up best:
We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world--a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us...No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.
Who does vote for these dishonest *****? Who among us can be happy and proud of having this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush?
They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us--they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis.
And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. ***** them - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47For *****'s sake iceperson. When are you going to get over it and drop the ultimate freeper defense? If this was Magic the Gathering, you just played the "But Clinton..." card.
Creature - But Clinton
First Strike (this creature deals combat damage before creatures without first strike)
When But Clinton comes into play, destroy any previous arguments about current events...
That was nearly 7 years ago for god's sake. - grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Did you actually read the article?
The 10-member ABA panel includes at least three well-known conservatives or Republicans: former congressman Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), former FBI director William S. Sessions and former Reagan Justice Department member Bruce Fein.
Hardly Liberals. - knupso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36Hardly, but he is abusing his power. Don't think it's just Bush though. The federal government has been slowly tightening it's grip and Replicrats and Dempubicans have all been a part of it.
It's time to stand up to the career politician and start voting against the incumbent.
The intent by the founders of this nation is that people would take time out of their life to serve the people in Washington and then go back to their Normal life and EARN a living.
These career politicians are sickening. They have no concept of what real work and real life is like. Think about the next time you go vote your 8 term senator back in to office again. - CaptShmo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37when my kids open up a history book in the future, if the chapter about bush isn't titled "The Worst President Ever" then i will be deeply upset
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42It's about time someone is willing to come forward and question this obvious abuse of power.
- Xerodog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31There's a reason he just barely made his first ever Veto. He's been line-item vetoing everything else. "I sign this bill into law (but with this sign statement that reserves my right to not follow it)." The reason he doesn't Veto is because a veto can be overturned in the house. Signing statement can't.
They're investigating these now because no other president has abused the line-item veto like Bush has. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33"I mean come on, Clinton only ***** an intern, Bush is ***** the entire country."
Wow, that is one of the best quotable statements I have heard ever. - DerekJ212, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32+1 for the incredible Magic reference and correctly using First Strike!
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Last I checked, the only big problem with Clinton's presidency was that he couldn't keep his pants on.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone in America wishes we could go back to those days. - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Simply to play the devil's advocate... it took a long time to set things up before Hitler or Stalin started killing so many people...
I think it's obvious that the executive branch is gaining too much power. The conservatives are in power in all three branches, so it makes sense that their agenda is getting pushed... but each branch should play their own seperate roll. Allowing this kind of consolidation is going to lead to bad things, whether it's a liberal or a conservative in the White House. Checks and balances are a good idea, please don't let the "we're winning so we can do what we want" mentality to go through. - arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -32/+56***** BUSH!
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Man, I could really go for some Freedom Fries right about now.
- ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36Oh yea, HST = Hunter S. Thompson kids...
- ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26iceperson -
Step 1: Cry me a river
Step 2: Build a bridge
Step 3: Get over it! - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31smackfumaster is one of the flag-sucking half-wits who is easily fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush.
- aMeta4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"I suppose Clinton should have been impeached for this as well (in addition to lying under oath in a civil rights trial.)"
Too bad the Republicans were too obsessed about a blow job to call him on it eh? - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@TubaTechno: I won't speculate on why the ABA has not been concerned in the past, like when Clinton used signing statements to the extent he did. However, I'm guessing it's the shear breathe of Bush's use of signing statements that warranted this.
Odd how a conservative friend of mine used almost the exact same statement you did. I wonder if you both watched the same conservative pundit and are repeating their weak counter-arguments.
Regardless of why they didn't investigate in the past, the ABA is doing it now and more power to them. 800 times people.... 800 times in the past 5 1/2 years whereas all other presidents combined have only done it 600 times.
Bush thinks he is above the law and it's about time someone stands up and tells him he isn't. - Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Let me tell you... when HST is consistently in the right, the ruling class is in the wrong.
"In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are ***** until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely"
***** it... I got my act together and I got my ass gone... The swines can have the United States of America, there are plenty of other fine places to live. Someone wake me up when the current ruling class is confined to the dog kennels at Guantanamo Bay. - drinkGreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I'm Conservative, and I have agreed with alot of things from Bush's administration that I'm sure alot of you disagree.
But at this point, I'm just tired of the whole thing. I'm conservative, but I'm not democrat or republican. To be either means you have to be a liar and a hypocrite I think. Anything that happens nowadays, to whoever it whatever party is just *****. Its basically Hollywood Gossip with more power nowadays.
I think we need to have a check-up vote or votes. For the President, people could fire him after a year or two if he or she hasn't done what they promised. Same goes for anything else in government. - staticxcc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@smackfumaster
I'm not quite sure how posting a story on how bush decides that he doesn't have to follow a law passed in congress (by his own words) qualifies as digg being politically slanted left. Bush wrote it, it's there for all to see. are you ignoring bushes own words mate?
I would veture digg itself as a company doesn't support either left OR right, but it's certaintly possible the majority of it's users might be left. then again, digg is user driven, so if you want right-wing stuff, I guess go to fox news? does fox even allow user comments or to post their own links to stories... don't think so - tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Can you really say that you, as a republican, that you arent upset about anything that he has done to 'protect us from the terrorists'?.
Personally I havent enjoyed having my privacy invaded on every front possible. Nor do I enjoy being made to look like a fool everytime I leave the country and someone outside of the US says 'YOU ARE AMERICAN?!'. When ***** like gay marriage is turned into such a huge ordeal that it overshadows terrorism during election time, thats a problem to me. Like anyone really cares that bill and bob got married. But of course, someone needs to please think of the children. - ,,|,_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14iceperson - you want to talk taxes? where do you think the money this half-trillion dollar war is coming from?
- mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Well since he will be still president when its time for them to open their history books... because he will repeal the election laws... im sure it will say "Best President Ever"
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31He's becoming a feckin' Dictator. Same ilk as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, et al.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19"flag-sucking half-wits"
LOL. Dug you up for a well-turned phrase. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The solution to Republicans is not necessarily Democrats. Try voting for a party besides the two giant ones that have screwed up our country for the last 50 years.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Or, "A Dangerous Example of the Subversion of Fundamental American Ideals"
Or, "Supreme Executive Power Not Derived from a Mandate from the Masses"
Or, "George W. Bush - A Study in Corruption"
Or, "Common Methodologies and Examples of Unconstitutionalism"
Man, I could go on all day. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Conservatives are always the victim, even when they control every aspect of Government and the corporate media.
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why should Bush be impeached...?
He hasn't done ANYTHING wrong.
He's been a pillar of Truth, Justice and the American Way. He's our protector and Savior in our dark time of foreign transgressions.
Plus, George is selfless. He is the shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the world. Others nations would do greatly to follow his example.
God chose our President and his administration to help rid this world of tyranny and oppression and our President rose to the challenge.
Our nation should support this President and this Administration through the difficult winds of change.
/Sarcasm - with a capital "S"
It's sad that people, even at this very moment, believe those notions I sarcastically listed above. The Matrix is strengthy but not impenetrable.
This no longer has anything to do with left or right, Dem or Rep, blue or red, lib or con, etc. This has to do with right & wrong. Lie & Truth. Good & Evil.
What Bush & Co. has done is tantamount to ultimate betrayal. They've used and betrayed the Republican Party, Christianity & American people for their own delusional half-assed quest for world domination.
Most of us feel for this - hook, line & sinker.
Some posters here sound like abused wives - "Oh, I accidental open the door on my face. It's minor. A lil' ice and the swellin' will go away..."
Anything but admitting that the guy you married is abusing you.
Oh well. Real Americans will want this President impeached. I'm a real American. C'mon, nazi neo-cons! Bring the hate!
P.S. Alex Jones rules! - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Ironically, Clinton pissed me off because he was never willing to go to war over something.
However, given the recent approval ratings and they're quick decline, I don't think you can blame it all on "the left." There are plenty of conservative republicans who know he's screwing up majorly. I never, EVER in my life thought we could live under a president like this. He acts as if he is above the law, for all practices he basically is, he acts as if he is king. We've gone from GWB is stupid jokes to just plain being pissed off. The one law he actually vetoes, as opposed to the ones that should have been, actually could have benefitted millions and millions of people. That won't happen because he has no problem with mixing church and state, and he'll continue to ignore the fact that god knows how many of these tiny little human beings are thrown into the trash at fertility clinics.
George Walker Bush is a failure. He may very well go down in history as the man who took a country and flushed it down the crapper. After his terms in office, it will take forever to undo the damage.
The next president of the United States will have the campaign slogan "Not like Bush". - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Who needs reason when you've GOT ALL CAPS!
I'm not saying conservatives are all evil people... but the majority of right leaning friends that I have are getting frustrated with the current administration. A lot of conservatives have started standing up and saying that the Bush administration needs to cool it on some of these issues, and that's how it should be. Heck, if he doesn't listen to the people that got him in office, there's a problem. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15If the people commenting REALLY think that the government has been stolen, and they REALLY think that Bush is a Fascist in the same vein as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Amin, et al, there is a provision in the Constitution to rectify just such an occurrence. It is the Second Amendment, the doomsday provision, if you will. It was placed there for just such an occurrence that you describe, to allow a revolution to overthrow the government that has usurped power.
The Founding Fathers were wise beyond belief. If you really truly believe that your freedom is gone, take up arms and storm Washington. You have the Constitutional DUTY to do so.
If you are NOT ready to take up arms, STFU with the Fascist insults. It denigrated the millions upon millions of innocents that have been slaughtered under REAL monstrous regimes, and denigrates all those who have died in battle fighting for their freedoms and yours.
Sure, disagree all you want, just quit with the over-the-top moonbat insults. - Skittlekiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@,,,I,:
Where did all the money come from? That's easy: nowhere. Hence the ballooning national debt.
Bush's tax policy consists of cutting taxes for everyone who doesn't need tax cuts. Presumeably this makes good economic sense to people who don't know anything about economics. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12'Bye. Have fun on Netscape.
- aMeta4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"800 you say? I'm not sure where you get those numbers.."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/278588_bar24.html
"In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush had used so-called "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives." - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/regime
noun 1 "a government, especially an authoritarian one."
When can we start calling it the Bush Regime? - smacg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Hey, everybody... do yourselves and the nation a favor. Stop using the words "liberal" and "conservative." Try to frame your arguments without reaching out for these cookie-cutter caricatures of political stereotypes. Maybe, just MAYBE then you will start to look at the actual arguments being presented instead of discarding them based on idiotic ideas of who benefits and who doesn't from a short-sighted "us vs. them" mentality. This stupid crap drags the whole country down. Bush issues signing statements of laws with his own interpretations? Clinton did too? Who gives a wet slap. The question is, is this a good idea constitutionally? It doesn't matter if a Republican did it or a Democrat, if Bush has issued 1 million of them or if Clinton did it 14 times as much... none of that matters to the issue at hand: is this a good idea Constitutionally? The Constitution doesn't give a rat's ass what political party the President is. If he's stepping crossing over the lines of the seperation of powers he should be put in his place. That's all. No need whatsoever to invoke "Bush bad/Clinton worse" or whatever stupid ***** you think will score one for your team. Here's another good question: what are the nature of these signing statements? What, exactly, is President Bush writing?
- BMWcrazy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"When government surveillance and intimidation is called "freedom from terrorism" or "liberation from crime", freedom and liberty have become words without meanings."
- revthwack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"After surveying this material and a great many other sources during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the staff of the House Judiciary Committee summarized the nature of the impeachment standard as follows:
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. . . . It is not controlling whether treason and bribery are criminal. More important, they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are "high" offenses in the sense that word was used in English impeachments. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office."
Saying "nope, didn't ***** her" isn't something that I would call an impeachable offense. Turns out that the Senate at the time agreed with me. It was just the House Republicans and you, apparently, that thought otherwise.
I would say that lying to the American public in order to start a war, then constantly trying to declare yourself to be above the law by ignoring it does count as "conduct seriously incompatible with the constitutional form and principles of our government". - revthwack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11justthisguyyano, how about this one:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Which, if you will remember, or bother looking up, is a complete lie, since inspectors went back into Iraq in December 2002. Of course, there's always:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
which is kind of funny for him to say, considering that everyone, including the British, had told us that those documents were all forgeries. Of course, if you are still looking for more, there was:
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
which is kind of funny to hear, considering that the whole intelligence community, including then director of the CIA George Tenet had always been saying that there was not only a lack of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaida, but that they viewed each other as mortal enemies since Saddam was running a secular state in the middle of the arab world.
Face it. Bush flat out lies to us. - Skittlekiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12According to the article, which apparently neither of you read:
"In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined."
More than ALL PREVIOUS presidents COMBINED, and you conclude that liberals are overeacting?
Right. - Xerodog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Funny...i didn't hear the democrats complaining when Clinton was doing unconstitutional things..."
You're fessing up to Bush's wrong doings, too, aren't you? Nope. He's doing everything legally, right? I agree with Clinton's fight to get rid of pork barreling. Then they wouldn't throw stupid things in with an "Emergency Appropriations Bill." Which is another thing. Why is it an "Emergency"? I thought this was a legal war. Why isn't it in the budget then? But that's another subject. - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Actually the number is just over 750 or so for Bush. Probably about 250 or so of those would be questionable. Also the major difference is the assertion that Bush has put into the statements that he has a choice about interpeting the law. Originally signing statements were made so the president could voice his opinion of how he thought a law should be enforced. Signing statements have no constitutional support at all. The constituion plainly states that the president can veto, or make suggestions on new laws, but he has no say in how to interpet a passed law.
- smacg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8See, this is what I'm talking about. People need to think of these articles in terms of "Hey, what are the actual facts? What should we think about this from an objective point of view?" instead of "OMGZ the BUSH is FASCIST!" or "CLINTON DID IT TOO AND SPERMED ON MONICA's DRESS HA GOT YOU LIBS!"
It's not the signing statement that's the issue. It's the way the Bush administration's using it which is being investigated. There are some people who feel that President Bush is using the signing statement as a back-door veto. Whether or not that's the case is presumably what this probe is investigating. President Clinton has absolutely, 100% NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Funny, all the right-wingers think Digg is a leftist site, and all the left-wingers think it's a right-wing one.
I wonder what the truth could be? Hmm... - drinkGreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9which is more expensive, recall voting, or a money-pit of a war?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I'm not so sure. I mean, Bush IS a terrible president--but there's such stiff competition for the title of "Worst Ever."
I don't know. I think by now he's edged out Reagan and Nixon for the title. -
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is