digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Congress overrides Bush veto first time

rawstory.com — President Bush suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest that it was too expensive. It was the first in a decade that Congress has passed a bill over a presidential veto.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iching, on 11/09/2007, -7/+108Look for upcoming "signing statements" or lack of implementations from our 'Commander Guy'
    • dcmjzero, on 11/09/2007, -1/+13can he do signing statements without signing?
    • nimski, on 11/09/2007, -0/+16With this administration? You betcha.
    • Elranzer, on 11/09/2007, -1/+44So it CAN be done... Congress might have made a mistake, letting us know it's possible. Now they have no excuse for not overriding any of Bush's more insane vetoes.
      • Gamer2k4, on 11/12/2007, -1/+11Yes they do...the fact that it's VERY difficult to get a two-thirds majority in a bipartisan congress.
        • andburn1, on 11/12/2007, -0/+11Only with something as mundane - something so wholly removed from issues of moral superiority - as water can Congress agree.
        • jpop, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1Unless it's something totally full of pork... $9 billion more pork to be exact...
    • miketrin, on 11/09/2007, -2/+26Actually look for him to accuse these folks that overrode his veto as being with the terrorist.
      • thcobbs, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5Nah, the accusations will be along the lines of "you're spending too much money rebuilding coastline". Which is a hard argument to make when your spending a bunch of money on a war.
      • mrurc, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3No, he will say that overriding his veto was a waste of Congress' time because the work would have to be done by agencies under his control and he can merely instruct them to not do the work.
    • sangjmoon, on 11/09/2007, -3/+4The presidential constitutional signing statement only affects those parts of the bill that are under the executive branch. The Army Corps of Engineers falls under the executive branch, so Bush could tell them exactly what projects to implement. However, what will limit the ability for this bill to actually be implemented will be how much congress actually authorizes for spending. Because of Paygo which the Democrats reenacted in January of 2007, they can promise all the money they want in a bill, but unless they can cut $23 billion from another part of the budget, this bill will never get the funding to be actually implemented.
    • rz8472, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4If you're against preserving the Everglades, you're with the terrorists. Who knows what those alligators are up to...

      /sarcasm
    • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1No, I think the phrase he coined is "I'm the decider". I may not be a constitutional scholar, but I don't remember a "decider" as a constitutional office. I'm not even sure if that phrase is exactly standard English, but it is the least of my concerns with Bush...
  • theutopian, on 11/09/2007, -6/+94It would be nice if this emboldened congress to stand up to the White House more. One can hope...
    • biotch, on 11/09/2007, -2/+6The Dems do but the repubs always side with Bush's veto.
      Also, itd be nice if the repubs would stop filibustering the Dems on an Iraq withdrawal plan.
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-17 ...

    • andburn1, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Nice sentiment, but defending a spending bill for water hardly merits the designation of "emboldened."
    • epicstruggle, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2Yes they stood up, but for whom? Not the american people, since they got more than they asked for. 9 billion dollars in pork. The real winners are corporations and lobbyists. Just remember that a spending bill that has both republican and democratic support is definitely one that the people should reject.
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2You are so right! Down with evil corporations like the Army Corps of Engineers! Oh wait.

        Dude, seriously, if you want to fight pork spending going to corporations, you are against the corporations providing services in Iraq that are traditionally the responsibility of the military but that have filed false invoices, have lost money and weapons shipments, expecting us to foot the bill. You are talking about 9 billion dollars, much of which is going to fix things like the levees that failed in New Orleans. The flooding in New Orleans was caused by the levees breaking and the pumps failing, not by the hurricane.

        I'm talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, much of which is going straight into the pockets of people who own stck in those corporations, including Cheney. Well, his profits are delayed, so in his case, it isn't going directly into pockets.
    • LukasSmith, on 11/09/2007, -4/+1ok so Bush got Vetoed ONCE. Look at this list of Clinton vetoes overridden. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf
      • delafere, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1"Clinton Clinton Clinton." Resume your OCD meds, Lucas. You're not even making relevant points anymore with this "Yeah, but Clinton...!" *****.
        • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1Comparing one president to another is a pretty fair point to raise. Now, if he wanted to compare Bush's vetos to president Putin's, that may not be a fair comparison.
          • delafere, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Either you say *why* it is "a pretty fair point to raise" or I'll just respond in kind with "Nuh-uhhh! it isn't!"

            Not that it matters in any way, but Clinton had an opposition congress for six years, while Bush hasn't yet had one for a whole year. Clinton's opposition congress (for six years) had larger majorities and could accomplish the 2/3 majority for a veto, while Bush's opposition congress (again, for less than a year) has a bare majority in the Senate (and with Liebermann, you could argue, they have NO majority).

            BUT, none of this ***** matters. I'm not even doing the sports addict comparison of RBAs or vetoes in this case. Comparing the two presidencies in this particular case doesn't even make any sort of substantive point. And neither do you.
  • rcook18, on 11/09/2007, -30/+13I have the feeling this may be a staged event in which Bush allows republicans to appear as though they have a spine.
    • blackmage439, on 11/09/2007, -19/+8Congress currently has a Democrat majority.

      Fail.
      • TheHydrogens, on 11/09/2007, -3/+20A slim majority that requires some Repubs to have a spine. I don't know if that is what rcook18 meant, but I dugg him down anyway for lack of clarity.
      • andburn1, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4Not a 2/3 majority.

        Fail.
    • maroon1872, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1wow a buried comment followed by a buried reply
      (and hopefully not another buried reply)
  • edstate, on 11/10/2007, -6/+271Wait, he's getting fiscally responsible NOW?
    • LBobRife, on 11/10/2007, -1/+57no no, he still wants over 200 billion for Iraq.
    • capiCrimm, on 11/09/2007, -1/+80not really. He's more like the alcoholic that puts a bottle of whiskey in front of utility bills and food.
    • unfilterthought, on 11/09/2007, -1/+16He needs the moneys for his warz!
    • WolverineBlue, on 11/09/2007, -1/+14No, this is actually one of few spending bills that is mostly justified.
    • appetite, on 11/09/2007, -1/+21Do you see a pattern? Bush spends money when it goes to his big business cronies, not when it actually benefits America.
    • RearNakedChoke, on 11/09/2007, -0/+22Indeed. Iraq is going to cost close to a trillion dollars, yet squabbles over THIS???

      Thats like spending nearly all of your salary on a unnecessary vacation to Europe, but not wanting to pay the medical insurance for your own children...oh wait...he already vetoed that one.
      • BHSPitMonkey, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Except instead of spending "your salary", you just borrow the money. And instead of an "unnecessary vacation to Europe", it's an "unnecessary occupation of the middle east".
    • cbuddha42, on 11/10/2007, -3/+6Um, this bill looks like all pork to me. Congress voted for it because each senator was like hey look that's at least a couple hundred million for the Corps of Engineers to come do work in my state. That's my state benefiting on the federal government's dime and getting some dams, levies, water treatment, whatever without having to pay. Incidentally that also means a better chance for that member of Congress to get reelected.

      Why Bush vetoed this is really simple, so don't act all damn surprised. War = national issue --> national spending. Levees in New Orleans != national issue ! --> national spending. Maybe the federal government should focus on federal issues while states deal with their own local issues. IE: Maybe Louisiana should pay to build their own damn levees.
      • delafere, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2The way your state paid for all its highways? The way your state paid for all its damns? The way your state paid for all its water-treatment infrastructure?

        Oh! I see! You just want to change the system now that you've already gotten yours. Yeah, let those bankrupted, flooded-out people in LA with the tax base that is practically inert pay for those billion dollar levees. I've got my highways and dams. /sarcasm
  • NCSUspoon, on 11/11/2007, -9/+245"Mr. President, your country is running out of water. Here is a bill that will help. Although it's expensive, we figure you spend so much on a pointless war, you would care about infrastructure."
    Bush, "Let them eat cake"
    • GeForce8800GTX, on 11/11/2007, -3/+30the cake is a lie, as is all his other mindless drivel.
      • WolverineBlue, on 11/09/2007, -0/+11There really was a cake.
        • tHePeOPle, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5Yeah, but you had to destroy the evil robot to get it.
        • ricree, on 11/09/2007, -1/+7Yep, it was delicious and moist.
        • andburn1, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5But there was no spoon.
      • Takteek, on 11/11/2007, -3/+1I think it's hilarious how people think this is a reference to portal.
    • zantos420, on 11/10/2007, -3/+39then we all revolt and behead him, right?
      • personfromhell, on 11/09/2007, -1/+15I'm game
      • kingkilr, on 11/09/2007, -4/+1First we have to help another country engage in a successful revolution, come on we're halfway there, GO TEAM!
      • andburn1, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Revolt of the Guards? Zinn? Yes please.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/09/2007, -1/+33That is what I found so sad about all this funding stuff. Congress has been proposing viable reasons to spend money. All the while GW is telling them its too expensive and they are acting fiscally irresponsible.. Then out the other side of his mouth he wants billions more to fund a pointless war. It's amazed me anyone can back someone who clearly has dementia.. I mean life sustaining reasons and health care for children are very irresponsible compared to war.
      • appetite, on 11/09/2007, -1/+8yea but infrastructure benefits the average american citizen. war funding benefits private contractors.
      • cbuddha42, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Yes, they are! Your health insurance = your issue, not the federal governments! All the local building projects and other pork in this bill = local issues, not federal! The nation at war, whether justified/right/moral/good/whatever = national issue --> national spending!
    • GhostFreeman, on 11/09/2007, -2/+6cake...water...cake...water...cake...water...beans
      • AudioPhotograph, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1beans...water....beans....cake....9/11
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1But we need water to grow flour so we can have cake! And we need water to put in the cake too! And we need water to give to cowses so they can make ice cream to go with the cake!
        • D0m0kun, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Whoa, whoa, slow down. Bush can't think that far.
      • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Let them eat floodwaters. I know that's poor English, but Bush won't mind.
    • Elranzer, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Cake or death?
      • Tabris82, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1"We only brought two bits and we didn't expect such a rush!"
    • lukifer, on 11/12/2007, -3/+10"Let them drink cake" would have been funnier. ;)
    • warriorscot, on 11/12/2007, -0/+14I think it is more of a let them drink coke moment
    • Drewboy64, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4Hahaha!!! That's gold = P
      But really, you hit the nail on the head. Congress sends the monkey a bill asking for some $10- $20 billion for a project for the next 10 years then "No, too expensive, but I need another $50 billion for Iraq". Pretty sad but true...
      • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Only $50 billion for Iraq? Are they pulling out?
      • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Only $50 billion for Iraq? Are they pulling out?
    • gifflen, on 11/09/2007, -4/+2Maybe he'll find someone else to help you.
      Maybe Black Mesa
      THAT WAS A JOKE.
      HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
    • zerozidane, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5anyway this cake is great, it's so delicious and moist
      • zeero, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1i wonder how many millions of people bought the orange box...
    • AcesJack, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1We do what we must because we can...
    • jpop, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Here's this bill to help out with the water supply for America. We couldn't quite agree on 14 or 15 billion, so we just added 9 more billion to line our districts. We hope you don't mind.
    • bob369963, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5Incorrect. The "bill" has no provisions for State, City or Town drinking water. It has nothing to do with drinking water. Please Read/Educate yourself before making ridiculous comments.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20 ... (Presidents response)

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR014 ... (Here is the Bill) (Wow, a lot of pork in there)
  • Zackypooh, on 11/09/2007, -10/+27First override? That's just sad, but I guess now we know it's possible.
    Collectively, the new congress has just enough balls to vote their opinion. It was bound to happen someday.
    • jasg, on 11/09/2007, -4/+4dont bury the above comment
      what zacky meant when he said "First override? That's just sad", is that there should have been more.
    • Gamer2k4, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Well, Bush has made less than 5 vetoes so far, and not many vetoes get overridden.
      • delafere, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2There weren't any vetoes at all until the rubber-stamp tax-and-spend Republican congress of 2000-2006 got barely eeked out by the 2007 Democratic majority. Thus the few vetoes are all recent.
    • caferrell, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Too bad that the first override is to spend even more money than this most profligate of all Presidents wanted.
      Spend, print, spend, print, spend , print, - then go talk to the owners in Beijing and ask them why you have to move out of your house.....
  • Zackypooh, on 11/09/2007, -21/+3First override? That's just sad, but I guess now we know it's possible.
    Collectively, the new congress has just enough balls to vote their opinion. It was bound to happen someday.
  • slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -22/+46That's unfortunately what happens when you veto a bill popular with both parties.

    Congress needs to stop spending...
    • jcm267, on 11/09/2007, -19/+4We need a line-item veto amendment.
      • Gerz1219, on 11/09/2007, -1/+32Yes, what this country needs is a stronger executive branch, because our system simply isn't imperial enough yet.
      • BlackJackJester, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4The problem is, in the hands of a good president, the line-item veto can be used very well to cut useless spending by congress. However, In a bad president, it would just screw up everything.
    • chrisatwork, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4That dang congress! When will they learn?
    • MattB123, on 11/09/2007, -3/+37"Congress needs to stop spending..."

      Yes! Now, where to start... Um, let's see. Now what was that really expensive thing consuming all the money?
      • coit, on 11/10/2007, -11/+5Don't you know anything. Congress enacts the legislation and spends the money. Bush just signs off.

        Don't blame Bush for the overspending congress. They could cut war funding if they REALLY wanted to do it. Don't believe the liberal lie.
        • DonKarnage25, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2It's not a liberal lie. It's an everyone lie. No one wants to be known as that guy/girl who refused to give troops the funding they need to possibly save their life.
        • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, the President keeps saying that lack of funding will not stop the war and will only serve to eliminate the supplies that the troops receive, which is the least "supportive of the troops" thing that anyone could say. Congress needs to grow some balls because no one *believes* Bush anymore when he says that if the troops don't get equipment it is Congress' fault. If he refused to stop the war due to lack of funding, he really would get impeached.
      • brainster31, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6ummmmm iraq?
        • StarlessKnight, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5*ding, ding, ding* "We have a winna'!"
      • cbuddha42, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1You don't start by reducing funding for the most expensive thing, you start by reducing funding for things that don't really match the spending's goals. Your electricity bill is probably more than you cable bill, but if you only have enough money in the household bills account to pay one which do you give up on and let them cut off? That's right, you would keep your power over your cable tv even though the cable is more expensive. War is a national issue and national issues are what federal money should be being spent on. Other issues like health care and all the pork in this bill are not national issues and thus the first to lose funding when we try and cut back on spending. Not to say that Bush is doing a good job of holding back on the spending, but to say that it makes sense for funding Iraq to take precedence over this in the federal money pecking order.
    • colincornaby, on 11/09/2007, -2/+10Yes, because no one really needs water anyway.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 11/09/2007, -3/+4Yes, because without government to provide it, we would all DIE :(
        • chicofaraby, on 11/09/2007, -0/+10So you dug your own water well, right?
        • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Yeah and all of the farmers who need water to grow the food that you eat or to grow the food to feed the food that you eat, you dug wells for them too, right? Especially the ones who farm in drought-stricken areas. They need wells the most.
        • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1Without federal government regulation, who will keep people from damming rivers up entirely and using whatever is there for themselves? That is exactly what has happened in the past. I am sure the people of Colorado and Utah would be perfectly pleased to keep all of their Colorado River water and let the Southwest bake without it. After all, why grow crops in California when they could have rice patties in Utah?
      • StarlessKnight, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4You realize a hundred percent of the people that drink dihydrogen monoxide die, right?
        • arcticblue, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3What?! But, I'm drinking a cold glass of dihydrogen monoxide right now! How long do I have to live?
        • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2The real danger isn't dihydrogen monoxide, it's hydrogen hydroxide! It's and acid AND a base and it is ionic, even at room temperature! 100% of the people who get cancer are exposed to hydrogen hydroxide and if heated, it can cause allergy attacks!
    • nastajus, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1But it has infinite money, and can make more.
  • nonpareil, on 11/09/2007, -3/+25The first - and hopefully not the last.
  • jmpeagle, on 11/09/2007, -19/+7so the one ime they do override him is to ***** us all over more? We currently have a dollar crisis and they just voted to increase the debt by 23 billion.
    • slashbot, on 11/09/2007, -5/+8Haha yeah.

      Unfortunately spending our money seems to be the only thing that unites the parties in congress.
      • skippyatuw, on 11/09/2007, -1/+23"Unfortunately spending CHINA'S money seems to be the only thing that unites the parties in congress."

        Fixed that...
    • biotch, on 11/09/2007, -1/+11If you're worried about spending ... tell the repubs to quit fillibustering the Dems on an Iraq withdrawl.
      We're over 500 billion in the hole from that useless war.

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-17 ...

      • jmpeagle, on 11/09/2007, -1/+6how about get the Dems to grow some balls and fillibuster the war spending bills. Starve the beast.
        • Totalchaos02, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4I would love to agree with you but we have an irresponsible and insane president who would not use the last of the funding to withdraw the troops but to continue the occupation assuming the congress would fold. I want this war to end as much as the rest of America but I don't trust the president to do the right thing with his back against the wall.
        • biotch, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Just doing something to show you have balls can be disastrous ie: Iraq war. I really think Bush would let the troops suffer with a lack of funding to try to show the Dems are weak on "defense". And you know what? I think it would work as sorry as that is.
          The Dems dont want to fall into that trap. They need to be able to create a planned withdrawal so that the Executive branch's hands are tied and no one can spin their legislation.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3We have a dollar crisis because of the war in Iraq and contrary to what you assume, this is long-term help to alleviate the dollar crisis.

      You see, when you get water to farmers, they can grow stuff and then they can sell that stuff and then they can pay taxes on the stuff that they sell instead of getting farm subsidies from Congress, which takes the subsidy money out of taxes. And when you protect areas from natural disasters, not only does the area continue to contribute taxes during and after the disaster, Congress doesn't have to bail out the entire area with tax money.

      The money required to have properly protected New Orleans during the Katrina hurricane is LESS than the monetary cost of the Katrina disaster. The loss of life adds untold amounts to the cost as well. It's called investment and investing in infrastructure is not throwing money away like invading a country is.
      • jmpeagle, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1this is a farm subsidy. How is giving them more subsidies making them less dependent?
      • martalli, on 11/10/2007, -0/+1We are hardly dependent on others for food. Giving water to the Imperial Valley for farming, or any part of Southern California for that matter is simply unnecessary. The Midwest gets plenty of rain to raise crops for the US. We don't need major diversion projects, although it does maintain the status quo. There is also fairly ample resources of water within the Midwest, East, and Pacific Northwest. The massive amounts of people living in the Southwest are simply unsustainable without massive infrastructure projects. The entire Southwest is simply a major subsidy, farmers, cities, and suburbs alike.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Stupid clicky thingy.
  • jcm267, on 11/09/2007, -42/+6Rawstory, buried as spam.
    • KidDynamo0, on 11/09/2007, -1/+9what is the point of even commenting then?
    • pintomp3, on 11/09/2007, -0/+16Head, buried in sand.
    • mightyzug, on 11/10/2007, -1/+6jcm.... AGAIN. buried as trolling douchebag :P
    • acr2001, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5jcm267. Buried as blithering idiot.
    • jetsetter883, on 11/09/2007, -2/+1well most of what rawstory reports is sensationalist bullcrap, so why are we to believe it right away? i buried it too.
  • sodoh, on 11/09/2007, -2/+19In the grand scheme of things this is like farting in a hurricane. The damage is done.
    • ryborg, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1So, your saying a 120mph fart is like way worse than a 1mph one, right?
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 11/09/2007, -15/+152Dear Mr. Bush,
    You're a douche.

    Sincerely,
    Me.
    • ryborg, on 11/09/2007, -1/+18IP Logged
    • kutateli, on 11/10/2007, -2/+53Dear Mr. Bush,
      You're a douche.

      Sincerely,
      The World

      Corrected.
      • IEatHamburgers, on 11/09/2007, -1/+7IP Still Logged
      • saigumi, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Please don't speak for me as I do not agree with your opionion.
    • Gamer2k4, on 11/09/2007, -2/+10I'M NOT A DOUCHE! I'M TELLING!

      Sincerely,
      President Bush
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3The User 'UtopiaInTheSky' no longer exists.
  • jasg, on 11/09/2007, -4/+22"The bill funds hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration, that are important to local communities and their representatives"

    oh !!, it all makes sense now as to why he vetoed it, he wants to build the Iraqi bridges this war has brought down.
    • epicstruggle, on 11/10/2007, -2/+4The house asked for something like 9 billion dollars, the senate wanted something like13 billion dollars. When it went to committee they were supposed to split the difference somewhere in the middle. Instead they ended up with a 24 billion dollar bill. Around 9 billions of earmarks are in this bill. Bush actually did something right, but its lost in all the hatred of him. You know who really won here? Corporations and lobbyists.
      • gh0st3000, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3Finally, someone who actually realizes that the attempted veto actually had merit, and didn't blindly yell "BUSH WASTES MONEY LAWL".
  • sint4x, on 11/09/2007, -5/+16So, does this mean the congress has been doing nothing all this time as it is evident that they have the power veto the president? Could they have stopped bush from going to war?

    I am Canadian, obviously.
    • huskerdude, on 11/10/2007, -0/+22You need a two-thirds majority to override a veto, something that's generally quite difficult to get.
    • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -0/+6Funding for infrastructure projects like the ones in this bill are generally popular, while stopping the war is not popular for some ***** reason.
      also we had a much different congress when bush invaded iraq. many seats changed in the '06 elections.
    • clandress, on 11/09/2007, -11/+2"I am Canadian, obviously."

      I didn't smell beaver *****... Here's a dollar, gimme 23 Canadian cents and we'll call it even.
      • MattB123, on 11/09/2007, -3/+6Check the current exchange rate.
        • clandress, on 11/09/2007, -0/+7Yeah, I was poking fun at the US dollar...
      • simplynix, on 11/09/2007, -2/+5That joke doesn't work anymore.
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Here's 23 cents. Give me a dollar and we'll call it even. I mean, you like me right? I'm a nice guy and all. Maybe it's a little in my favor but the US dollar will go back up again soon, I promise!

        There, corrected!
        • zammit, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1overkill, and not the band. just that you overkilled the joke - not really killing though, just going beyond what was needed. understand that, and i'll take back my comment, I promise!
    • objectcode, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6thats what happens when you have douche bags in your government while you have a monkey in office
    • RedReplicant, on 11/09/2007, -1/+7Also, we never actually declared war...
    • floorman56, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Could they have stopped bush from going to war?
      No they authorized him to do that. They could stop him any time they want by stopping the money...But whatever happens afterward is on them. if we pull the troops and "The killing fields" part 2 happens it's all on congress
  • mrroarke, on 11/10/2007, -2/+130I guess they were too stupid to call it an "ANTI-TERROR water resource bill," in which case Bush would have approved it for $230B.
    • pintomp3, on 11/09/2007, -0/+9they only reserve those names for things that are bad for the country, like the patriot act and no child left behind.
  • ugniss, on 11/09/2007, -1/+40I guess he is no longer the "Decider"
    • pintomp3, on 11/09/2007, -1/+15he's still the "decider", congress just remembered they can be the "overrider".
  • monarch00, on 11/09/2007, -4/+70Wait what? Checks.... Balances....?

    Our government is supposed to work this way?
    • BlackJackJester, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1Other than the non-existant Judicial branch, yea, its supposed to. Now if only the supreme court did what they are supposed to do, and judge legislation as unconstitutional or not. Hey, I think thats just about everything Bush has done so far...
    • epicstruggle, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4The only ones who won here are corporations and lobbyists. Look in the history of this bill and you find that over 9 billion dollars are for earmarks.
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -3/+2Earmarks for WHAT? You say that like we should all be offended that the bill has earmarks. I'm not sure you even understand what the word means since you think that. OK, let's do some math. The New Orleans levee project is earmarked at $7 billion. You have $2 left to be offended over.

        What would you like to be offended by? Protecting wetlands so the area around New Orleans doesn't disappear? Water projects for farmers who are being hurt by droughts? Building sewage plants?

        How does earmarking for Army Corps of Engineers projects give money to corporations and lobbyists?

        Come on, we're waiting!

        Apparently the epic struggle at hand is whether or not you will be joining us in reality-land. Bush vetoed it because it *didn't* give enough money to corporations and lobbyists. He doesn't veto bills with moronic earmarks if they benefit his friends. Perhaps you would like to own a bridge in Alaska?
        • cbuddha42, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2FTA: "Flood protection projects along the Gulf Coast, including 100-year levee protection in New Orleans, would cost about $7 billion if fully funded. The bill approves projects but does not fund them."

          The key word there being the if in "if fully funded." As in this bill approves the project but does not fully fund it. As in that 7 billion is not part of the bill. How bout next time you RTFA?

          And yes, we should be pissed when the earmarks are for pork. New Orleans levee systems are not the federal government's responsibility.
  • skippyatuw, on 11/09/2007, -22/+14Holy crap!!!! Only problem - I actually agree with Bush on this one. This bill is just one large earmark. Now if he would only apply such logic to, say, everything else, then we might be alright.
    • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -6/+32you're right. the $23 billion requested for our country's infrastructure would be much better spent on bombs and missiles to kill an enemy we created in the middle east.
      • objectcode, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2now he gets it
      • elguando, on 11/12/2007, -3/+7Wasting a helluva lot of money in one area doesn't justify wasting a small amount of money in another. It's the same with spending $3.00 on a Starbucks latte each day. It's a minor expense relative to a morgage, but that doesn't make it a smart use of money. Congress should've have grown balls a long time ago to override a worthwhile veto.
      • sphigel, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2How does what skippyatuw said even come close to implying what you're saying. I hope, in hindsight, you can see the idiocy of your own statement.
  • thesoze, on 11/09/2007, -5/+8take that beotch!!!
  • Lexomatic, on 11/09/2007, -5/+62How you could have sold this to the President:
    ADVISER: No no, Mr. President. We need all that water to form lakes so that we can have an elite force of jetski ninjas to help fight terrorism.
    BUSH: Well why didn't you say so! Pass me my pen.
    • WolverineBlue, on 11/09/2007, -0/+10I think we both know that if we had jetski ninjas, we would own every inch of coastline on Earth.
    • Nayamina, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Dugg for the mental image of jetski ninjas. Actually made me laugh out loud.
  • Evildudetx, on 11/09/2007, -9/+6Might as well give up now and let the EU take over.....our current government seems to like to get us into huge amounts of debit with absolutely no chance of recovery.
    • zammit, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1hmm we were getting relatively close to recovery... until, well, you know who.
      • LukasSmith, on 11/09/2007, -1/+0Relatively Close? did you read a paper in the end days of clinton? Enron, internet bubble burst, Mortgage crisis(started in clinton days and erupted in Bush's),and of course our trillions in debt. Not that Bush hasnt tacked on a few more trillion but still We were
    • LukasSmith, on 11/09/2007, -1/+0*****. Then you add on the fact that EU was really connected. A powerful force with a euro currency that could easily stand up to ours. Jobs fleeing overseas because its cheaper, a world population educated enough to do most of the jobs Americans or Europeans do now. All not problems created by Bush sorry.
  • brianbennett, on 11/09/2007, -3/+6I guess that "one ball" is finally coming along.
    • gudnbluts, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5I don't think Lance Armstrong is going to do much to help, in this case.
  • absolutroot, on 11/09/2007, -5/+9"I oppose this bill because my friends in Haliburton and Blackwater are not in this particular market." Everyone thinks Bush is stupid, but the truth is he is a total genius. This is the first time since his presidency began that he has not gotten what he wanted. And what he wants is alot of money for him and his friends to retire on.
    • StoneLox, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3dude i agree with you but disagree that he is a genius...he basically allowed his handlers to drag his name through the mud for their monetary gain.
      When you really think about it, we've only got 1 life to live so...***** it
    • lazyfisherman, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0that's Bush 4 ya!
    • geekee, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3The water projects are just a massive bureaucracy that feeds on itself at the taxpayers' expense, and ruins rivers and ecosystems in the process. Read Cadillac Desert sometime.
  • DadeEldron, on 11/11/2007, -4/+6Destroy the Tyrant
  • bullhead2007, on 11/09/2007, -5/+21Yeah wow how can ANYONE like Bush anymore?

    23 billion for water to states that are going to run out within a year or 2 is TOO expensive. However, 300 billion a year to kill Iraqis is just about right.
    • Waterrat, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1 Yeah,that sounds like Bush's way of thinking.
    • swiftekho, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3They aren't killing Iraqis... They are killing "Extreme-fundamental-islamic-fascist-terrorists from outer space"
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2You forgot that $7 billion is earmarked for the New Orleans levees which have been known to be faulty for decades and which are now *patched*, which means that they are weaker than before.
  • alphonseragusa, on 11/09/2007, -10/+6So the president is hell bent on spending BILLIONS over seas and Congress is hell bent on spending BILLIONS here at home. Maybe that's why the dollar is really only worth 4 cents.
    YAY!
    • StoneLox, on 11/09/2007, -0/+12a dollar is worth 100 cents
    • macman2k, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3That 4 cents stat is a few years old. The dollar has fallen by 50% since then.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2You seem to think that 23 billion is equivalent to over 200 billion. Actually, it's an order of magnitude difference.

      This bill is an *investment* and will make additional tax money in the long run. Quick! Kill it! It might help the economy! EVERYBODY RUN!
  • RegalGSX, on 11/09/2007, -5/+12What a ***** prick. He thinks every bill is too expensive, except for the ones that funded his "catch Saddam" war.
  • pandasonic, on 11/09/2007, -4/+15Wait WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?! The Legislative Branch actually has power?!!!
    • BlackJackJester, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Judicial branch still doesn't though.
    • swiftekho, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Haha... Power... No you mean balls.
  • alphonseragusa, on 11/09/2007, -10/+6Congress reminds me of a 16 year old valley girl with a credit card at the Gap.
    • colincornaby, on 11/09/2007, -3/+11Honestly, I'm tired of people whining and bitching every time Congress spends money. Guess what? Our water system needs to be overhauled. And yes, it's going to cost money. Let's just get it done. Iraq war spending is the real problem. This water bill is nothing compared to war spending.
      • sangjmoon, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3As with New Orleans before Katrina hit, if the money is authorized, 2/3 of it will be used to fund "administrative" costs (a.k.a., feed the bureaucracy), and most of the rest will be grabbed by the state and local governments to fund their pet projects which have nothing to do with the original purpose of the funds.
        • desqjockey, on 11/09/2007, -2/+1New Orleans is super corrupt, I dont know if this compares.
      • geekee, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3Read Cadillac Desert. Water projects are taxpayer subsidies so farmers get cheap water. Let the farmers pay for the projects themselves.
        • desqjockey, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Which in turn is a ploy to give us cheap food. Farmers arent exactly super-millionaires.
        • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Oh well then, let's just have them pay out of their farm subsidies then. Is that better?
        • ShinRaTDR, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Who the ***** do you think these farmers are farming food for? Everyone except you?. Why don't people ever think before they speak.
    • Chassit, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8The president reminds me of a spoiled 7 year old who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.
  • j1a1g1, on 11/09/2007, -1/+22They override a water bill but not child health care?
    • p0s3r, on 11/09/2007, -1/+5This bill was so full of pork that the congressional leaders were able to buy enough votes. They tried to buy votes for SCHIP but couldn't spend enough on congressional pork to secure the votes.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Thanks for the info, I knew there was a reason Congress did this.
    • Humptydank, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6Water bill, vetoed. Child bill , vetoed. But a waterboarding children bill? Signing party!
  • uptown, on 11/09/2007, -1/+6From the digg decription: "It was the first in a decade that Congress has passed a bill over a presidential veto."
    From the article: "The last such veto override happened when Congress dealt President Clinton the second of his two overrides in November 1998."

    • StarlessKnight, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Round up! Nine is closer to ten then it is five.
  • snotrokit, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4see that wasn't that hard now was it? Now lets get to work on the rest of the crap that he has vetoed.
  • freezeout, on 11/10/2007, -5/+5123 billion for water? way too expensive.
    20 billion to help sick children? way too expensive.
    500 billion for a useless war? what a bargain! can we rack it to to 1 trillion please?
    what's wrong with this picture?
    • lazyfisherman, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3hope all these war profiteers will put some of the money they've made back into the economy one day
      • freezeout, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4at least one did, he threw a giant birthday bash for his daughter, 50 cent and The Eagles played, the price tag was a cool 10 million dollars of our money. Same guy also bought a $20,000 belt buckle.. He made his millions selling battle armor which turned out to be defective.
      • Waterrat, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Don't count on it...it all goes into rich men's pockets.
      • iiWageSlaveii, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0Um... that would be called "Trickle-down" right?
    • nastajus, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1can only elaborate, that the united states war capital so far outstripes the rest of the planet, a minor portion of it could solve many or all the water or sick children or whatever else problems it has.
    • MadKennyP, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1You forgot the part where a huge chunk of that $1 trillion goes to Bush's and Cheney's old cronies, including Blackwater and Halliburton.
  • sangjmoon, on 11/09/2007, -2/+16You do realize that the congresspeople who passed this bill are pulling the wool over your eyes. They want to gain political points for passing this bill, but because of the reenactment of Paygo, they never have to actually fund this bill. Bush wasn't politically savvy over this bill. He wanted to press the point that this bill is pointless unless they actually have the money to fund it. If he was concerned about elections instead of trying to push for his principles of reality, he would have just signed this bill. Because of Paygo, unless congress cuts $23 billion from somewhere else on the budget, this bill will never get the funding promised. Guess what the probability is that Congress will cut $23 billion from another part of the budget.
    • colincornaby, on 11/09/2007, -2/+8I hope they cut $23 billion from the war budget.
      • sangjmoon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I wish the federal budget was as easy as that, but the war budget isn't part of the "normal" budget. Congress will have to take $23 billion dollars out of something else in the budget. Hah!
    • chicofaraby, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3They could cut ten B2 bombers and have change left.
      • jkarhu24, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Those bad boys cost 2.4 billion a piece???? Uhhhh......
      • chicofaraby, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2I was wrong. I would take eleven to have change left.

        http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm

        Unit cost: Approximately $2.1 billion [average]
      • RuffRidr, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Or they could cut the pork out of the bill that was needed to buy the Democrats votes. At $13B they would only have to get rid of half as many planes.
    • RearNakedChoke, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2I think 1 week less in Iraq should cover 23 billion easy...
      • jkarhu24, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1No.
      • zammit, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1it costs money to leave, oh oh, and then come back. 1 week would be pointless, and shaving 1 week of the end date is too far ahead in the future.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Do you have a point? Your argument is that he was right to veto the bill because Congress would simply take the required money from elsewhere in the budget? So he vetoed it because it's FREE? Whooooooooo boy.

      If he were serious about pushing financial principles, he would apply them to the War in Iraq too.
      • FeebleGenius, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Wow, you totally missed the point.

        Congress passed it for the positive press. Bush vetoed it because of what it was: a publicity stunt that will never actually be funded.

        Don't get me wrong here, I think as poorly of Bush as the next guy, however we need not automatically assume he's out to eat babies and throw the elderly in the furnace. There is some semblance of a human being in there somewhere.
  • sphykik, on 11/09/2007, -5/+8now let's impeach him :)
  • VomitFlowers, on 11/09/2007, -2/+8Let them drink Coke
  • wrttnwrd, on 11/09/2007, -3/+21This just in: Congress sent to Guantanamo...
  • WolverineBlue, on 11/09/2007, -5/+2Congress standing up to Bush in THIS AMERICA!? It may be more likely than you think.
  • celeb, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3It's about time Congress "Mans' up"
  • Knikes, on 11/09/2007, -8/+2Haha bush is teh sux0rz
  • advil, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3separation of power in effect... take that Mr. President
  • gn0stik, on 11/09/2007, -3/+9First in a whole decade? Wow, that makes it the first, since.... well..... the last president. Or were we supposed to ignore that, this is not uncommon. Perhaps the fact that we should be focusing on, is that the last time it happened, the executive and legislative branches were run by opposing parties as well.

    By the way, this was a water resources bill. Is there some kind of water..... crisis, coming, that the media missed? Or is this really a big deal because Bush had something to do with it. Honestly, it is too expensive, we do have bigger fish to fry at the moment, and this is petty *****.

    I can't stand bush, but this is just retarded.
    • neognostic, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3Seems you don't read the news, MSM reported last week that the total cost for repairing our water infrastructure, (pipes, drainage, water plants) that haven't been properly maintained at 30 Billion a year for the next 10 years. Or about 6 months of Iraq war spending.
      • bob369963, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Those are the responsibility of the State.
        • jkarhu24, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Exactly. The Federal Government is not in charge of those sorts of things. The reason why thing have suddenly become so federal is that states don't have the same ability to print currency from nowhere, nor do they have the ability to borrow trillions of dollars from China and Japan. Sadly, this credit card mentality that the Federal Government is going to bring this country to it's knees.
    • desqjockey, on 11/09/2007, -3/+130 billion would be just over three months of war spending per CBO.
      Why does every Bush apologist say "I cant stand Bush but..."; we just shouldnt be spending what we are on the war, spending for infrastructure is not really discretionary. Didnt you play simcity as a kid? Republicans are just so irresponsible they want to put it all on a democratic administration.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -2/+1The media didn't miss the upcoming water crisis but you did.

      Not all of the bill is fighting drought, although fighting drought in farm areas seems like a good investment to me. It's also going towards building sewage treatment plants, and towards flood control, including fixing the levees in New Orleans, which are currently so damaged and faulty that the city is going to have another disaster soon if it isn't fixed.

      If it is too expensive and we have bigger fish to fry, why don't we take the money out of the Iraq budget and try to get some of our troops back on our own soil?
  • glock22ownr, on 11/09/2007, -5/+4Bout ***** time! Finally Congress has located it's spine!
    • SeethisPass, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Hardly,
      Most of congress gets a little piece of the water bill pie. Tomorrow they'll all cower in the corner waiting for some extreme retaliation from the bushies that they are all quaking in their boots over.
      They'll never tell any of the adults ( meaning all of us) what bush is threatening them with.
      You do remember the anthrax don't you?
      Congress does.
      Maybe they'll find that with Karl Rove gone no real retaliation happens. That would be a good thing, but too late.
  • geekee, on 11/09/2007, -3/+10It figures that the first veto override was for a pork barrel project. Congress has been screwing the taxpayers for decades with these water projects. There's no one to put a stop to it. In fact, congressmen get re-elected because they are successful at pushing through pork barrel legislation because it brings money into their districts (at the taxpayer's expense).
    • geekee, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Before modding me down, check out Cadillac Desert. These water projects are part of a massive bureaucracy going on for decades that destroys rivers and ecosystems because the attitude is, if there's a river, it must be dammed. Carter tried to kill these projects in the 70s and got beaten into submission by his own party.
    • neognostic, on 11/09/2007, -3/+3I'd rather have it spent here than in Iraq building a trust fund for Cheney and his cronies.
    • gabe90, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1This is not Pork. WRDA is a pretty big bill.
    • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4It's an INVESTMENT. I'm sorry that you don't understand investing and that you have read ONE BOOK that you apparently think is the only possible interpretation and that that interpretation is applicable here. Why don't you read, I dunno, THE BILL?

      Had the $7 billion New Orleans levee investment been done before, the Katrina disaster would not have been a disaster. How many billoins do we have to spend rebuilding instead of protecting against requiring rebuilding? Did that one book you read cover that the levees were known to be faulty for decades and fixes were not funded because it was a "water project?"
  • khabba, on 11/09/2007, -5/+5He voted the bill even after all the things that happened with Katrina?

    The guy is... OMG.. unbelievable!
    • geekee, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8Why the hell do I have to pay tax dollars so people can live below sea level. Screw that. If New Orleans wants levees, they should pay for it themselves.
      • ajwinder, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2because those people pay federal taxes too...i mean, new orleans had a huge economy before katrina hit, a lot of federal money was made by that state. However, the way we do things, since its not a straight federation of states, is that money that would have stayed in state, got shipped up to the federal level into a giant pool of money that every state pays into. Then when something needs to be done in one state, the money is going to be there (or it wont be there, but since its the federal government, we can just spend the money and watch the dollar fall...)

        So depending on what state you live in, you're either coming out ahead, down, or even. But for the money New Orleans pushed to the federal level, they certainly should have gotten a cut back in maintenance on the levees. Seriously, we have the system set up so that a poor state can actually get help if theres an economically crippling crisis. Its in the best interests of the union to do it this way. Them living under sea level, while certainly a little crazy, doesnt fit the math for what you're saying.
      • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -3/+1The city is below sea level because of poor flood management, actually, and parts of town aren't in danger of flooding. If you knew much about Louisiana or wetlands or better yet, of deltas, you would know that, seriously. We studied it first in, I think, elementary school. New Orleans was built above sea level and sank. People built there because it was the high ground. It is a crucial port thanks to the Governor who made the first free public school textbook program. It is extremely significant militarily and it is crucial to the US oil industry.

        Why don't you list where you live for us, so we can determine which natural disaster that area is prone to and insult you for living in a natural disaster prone area. No money to move? Too bad, according to your logic. EVERY area is prone to some kind of natural disaster. Faulting people for living in a disaster prone area is not just stupid, it's hypocritical.
        • jkarhu24, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Not if you don't live in an area prone to natural disasters.... which is seriously the majority of the US in square miles.
      • chicofaraby, on 11/09/2007, -2/+2That's the right wing attitude. "I don't want to pay my fair share to help the nation." Kick the right wing out of Washinigton and make them pay their dues to live in our country. ***** 'em.
  • icexe, on 11/09/2007, -4/+3congrats Congress, you have finally managed to grow one small ball. Now let's try for two big ones.
  • p0s3r, on 11/10/2007, -5/+29Here are the facts:
    1.) The Senate's original version was $15B.
    2.) The House's original version was $13B.
    3.) The bill came out of committee at $23B. A 62% increase of pure pork.

    Those of you celebrating this override are cheering on the Congress for continuing their tradition of overspending on pure political pork.

    Good job, morons.
    • SiNN4R, on 11/10/2007, -2/+10Yes its pretty ***** ridiculous that of all the things they could override him on it was this. They bought each of those votes with taxpayer money and its supposed to be a ***** accomplishment or something.
      • p0s3r, on 11/09/2007, -2/+9Exactly. But for some, since it's against Bush, no matter what, it must be a good thing. Bush is a dick because he waited 6 years to become fiscally responsible, Congress are bigger dicks because they can't stop feeding at the trough of tax payer monies. Here we are at a time of record tax receipts, and the only thing these ***** in Congress can think of is how to funnel more money back to their districts.
        • mrurc, on 11/09/2007, -3/+2You guys might be more convincing if you weren't a slandering circle jerk. Where's geekee? Geekee, you're looking for some action, right?

          Look, you may not agree with everything in the bill and maybe you disagree with the entire bill and maybe you hate the bill and are completely informed. Calling everyone morons for having a different opinion, calling Congress's enforcement of it's own will "***** ridiculous," accusing most of Congress of fraud, and saying that people who agree with this bill agree with it only because Bush vetoed it is really not convincing. Perhaps you would like to state an argument with your insults or otherwise post some details about why you consider this bill 100% pork instead of spewing nothing but vitriol with no supporting information?

          Congressman's districts pay federal taxes, by the way, so it makes sense for the districts to get something in return. Just to clarify.
        • jkarhu24, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Not when the return for the district is tens to hundreds times more than districts not involved in pork spending. When these kinds of bills get passed, corruption is rewarded while the honest are the ones left holding the bag.
    • mrurc, on 11/10/2007, -7/+715 + 13 = 28. Thus it is not a 62% increase of pork, it is a 15% decrease in pork.

      See we can use match to make meaningless arguments too!
      • nationalist, on 11/10/2007, -0/+8i hope this is a joke...
      • p0s3r, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5You don't know how Congress works. The House comes up with a bill. The Senate comes up with a bill. They collaborate and consolidate them. Not blindly add them together. Any normal negotiations would've resulted in a final bill between 13B and 15B.
    • lordmike, on 11/09/2007, -3/+2Had Bush not vetoed the bill, more pork wouldn't have been added to the bill to persuade reluctant republicans to get on board with the override... The added "pork" is your favorite President's fault...
    • MalDON, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Depends, what Kind of pork is it? Honey glazed? Or open fire roasted. Mmmmm. Costs extra for the good stuff. I say every house has a free pork this winter :D
  • madmonkey300, on 11/09/2007, -2/+5No. this is how I see it....they're working together to ***** up the country's economy even more buy putting us even more into debt. Its just that simple.

    Its all a gimmick you guys. Vote Independent this time.
  • geekee, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2deleted
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.