What is Digg?180 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+139How about 3 more days until you begin proceedings. 3 more members (as far as I know) won't change anything and honestly, America is so over this crap, just do it already.
- strafefire, on 10/11/2007, -2/+833 more people, and I'll Impeach [3 people join team]
Okay, 2 more people, and I'll impeach [2 more show up]
Okay, give me 3 more days [3 days pass]
Okay, give me a sugar cookie and a cheesecake from Schaeffer's in the Bronx, and a picture of a midget holding helium balloons while getting spanked by Miss USA, and Playboy's Miss September 2001. If you do that, I'll would surely start impeachment proceedings [Done]
Okay, Now I need.... - Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/11/2007, -9/+86An executive order saying Bush can't be impeached due to national security reasons would be the ICING on the CAKE for his presidency. God would I love to see that, 60% of Digg would commit suicide.
- Shigatsu, on 10/11/2007, -11/+54Well, regardless, its progress. Start calling congress members and get them to support it. There's never been a more important time in history than it is now. For America!
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -8/+50Left versus Right wing party politics has taken a back seat.
This is now about Authoritarian versus Libertarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 - Etaoin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+46Yeah, who needs members of congress? This is an impeachment!
Oh, right. - Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -9/+46As a GOP member I support impeachment of both Cheney and Bush! Let's do it now... Call your member of congress and insist the sign on to this document and may our nation be free.... If you want me to deliver the mesage in person then let me know. I will be happy to visit the white hourse tour group with a peaceful sign asking for both to resign or face impeachment.
Folks we need to be bold but peaceful - spudhead, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32and the remaining 40% would be living happily in a facist state...
- washingtonydc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32It's odd, because congress was able to impeach a president a decade ago when a minority of the country supported it.
If you showed somebody completely unfamiliar with american politics the situation with Clinton and the situation today, I'd imagine most, if having to choose only one to impeach, would put good money on Bush. - TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Please don't do that, just post a link or something.
- hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15They should breeze over the link, and read this one instead from the Urban Legends Archive: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Here's the important section:
"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."" - dagr8tim, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19I love every time impeachment comes up on digg. Most people diggers think that impeachment will end bush. As has been said before, and will be said again. Once the house impeaches Bush, it still has to go to trial in the senate where senator's act as the jury & the chief justice of the Supreme Court acts as judge. Do we all remember who the chief justice of the Supreme Court is, and who appointed him? Not to mention, it requires a vote by 2/3's of the Senate to remove from office or censure. Do you think there are 66 members of the Senate with enough balls to do that, and are not scared of the skeleton's in their closet's.
Not to mention that Bush has less than 18 months in office. Impeachment proceedings usually take longer than that. So he'll be out of office before anything is concluded.
Anyone that doubts me, can read for their selves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Uh, showing how ineffectual liberals backed a bad policy isn't a defense of a bad policy.
The policy still sucks. Like your arguement. - bruinexmo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+22Jesus H. Christ, what the ***** is Conyers waiting for?
Monty Python said it best: GET ON WITH IT! - quaxon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14dont get your hopes up, once impeachment starts i can almost guarantee there will be a "terrorist" attack and bush co will declare a state of emergency and become emperor, he will finalize his plans of becoming overlord of america and we will have a full on police state.
- zip000, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15I get so frustrated with contacting my "representatives" - I live in Georgia, so all of my "representatives" are douche bags. Every time I send them an email or letter, I get a response that is loosely on the subject that I wrote about and more often than not assures me that the representative will do exactly what it was that I was asking him not to do. e.g.
me: "please get rid of the patriot act, it is horrible for this country, etc.
rep:"I assure you that our national security is my utmost responsibility, that is why I support the patriot act."
Grr. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Shouldn't you sound more intelligent when questioning other people's intelligence?
Just wondering. - terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Everyone please take note of his post: If you see "Want proof?" followed by a sentence like "If Bush is lying, then check out who is lying too..." that is not a rational argument, and you should immediately question any assertion the poster is making and any assertions he makes in the future. This is a case of false logic. Just consider the absurd assumptions being made here: 1) if X tells a lie, and Y says the same thing, the lie must either be true or an honest mistake; 2) if X lies to Y, and then Y makes a false statement based on that lie, Y is equally responsible for the original lie.
- diggtomanjeri, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12If anything, impeachment proceedings should be brought up for historical purposes and as a baseline on future Presidential indiscretions. There's no way Bush or Cheney will be impeached, there simply aren't the votes and unlike Dems during the Clinton era, Repubs are MUCH more party-loyal. But, regardless of it's chances of passing, this administration, specifically his VP and almost as much this President, deserve to be impeached over the crimes they've committed and their blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Executive Office's role as a co-equal branch of our Government. It's important to bring impeachment proceedings so it's on the record, in the history books and as proof that when an administration actively works against the people of this country, an attempt to remove it from office should be made.
- SSCrow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Do we really want Cheney to take Bush's place?
- mistergosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And a never disclosed but apparently large percentage of digg users will have their residence permanently moved to Guantanamo, Guantanamo Jr, Guantanamo III and Guantanamo VII: The revenge of Adrian.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Eh, I prefer blatant violations of his oath of office and constitutional law, myself.
- terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Yes, that is the only possible explanation. Idiot.
- 7goats, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Impeachment needs to happen regardless of what damage it inflicts on either party. I think once the charges are put before people the MEDIA will have to cover the story and then people will see that this coward in the White House who cannot "play well with others" has committed exactly the sort of things that the Founding Fathers created impeachment to remedy. When you don't obey the Constitution, or even care about it, that's a failure of office. It is not red vs. Blue. If everything that Bush has done goes w/o any trial and all of the secret meetings of the VP become the de facto practices of the Executive Office and the future Presidents can bully their way into starting a war w/o just cause [and there was no Constitutionally-valid reason to invade] then we can say good bye to the republic. If we somehow manage to not start a war with Iran, and we can get Bush, Cheney, Rice, The Gonz and a few others all out, at least it will be possible to see what else damage this group of losers [I'd like to point out that there are no success stories here this President can boast about] and I think if half of what they said was true turned out to be true we would be in a totally different situations -- BUT NONE of what they swore we could TRUST THEM on has turned out to be true. So, do it now, do it fast and let's move forward.
- Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8If 42-50% of Americans support impeachment, and only a fraction of congressmen are moving towards it, how well are they representing the general public?
Impeach them before they do any more harm. - Crad123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9That would be unconstitutional. If you conservatives support that, then you guys are no better than Saddam's loyalists
- idonthack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not Libertarian as in the party. Libertarian as in freedom.
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8*****. You were calling the statement, "Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies." a lie and supporting that assertion with what you called "proof" (the proof, of course, was proof of nothing at all except that many people are capable of being stupid and mistaken). You were trying to expose what you called liberal lies and propaganda. To frame it as anything other than that just shows how intellectually dishonest you are.
- vertigoacid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yes, you must be a bit rusty.
Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted
Every time you see the word impeach, just replace it with indict if it makes you understand better - terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Wow, "where's the oil"? Really? Of course, the real world must be that simple! All this time I've been struggling to understand the complexities of our world like a sucker! If only I had realized that enormously complex issues could be boiled down so neatly.
Answer: the oil is under Iraq, in huge quantities. Stabilizing/controlling that region with an American friendly government and American businesses is extremely important to our future oil supply. That is not an item of contention, that is simple fact. The debate is about how primary a reason that fact was for starting the war. - Rhino2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Yes, because the Bush admin hasn't ever tried to do anything unconstitutional? By god, they are the national SYMBOL of constitutionalism.
(yes, I'm being sarcastit) - GonadHunter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8This isnt about how long it will take, this is about making a stand against all the ***** that he has done
- terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm digging you down because you use terms like "leftist wackos" and generalize diverse and complex groups of people. In other words, you're an idiot and you don't even realize it.
I would defend with my life your right to free, uncensored speech. - madm0nk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Well since Bush keeps using his executive privilege to stop from being subpoenaed, we can't get the *****(s) to testify under oath now can we? And perjury isn't the only ***** crime you can get impeached over *****.
- scotticus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I hear ya... when I lived in California I wrote Feinstein to tell her I was against a flag burning amendment, just to find out she was for it. No need to have an internally consistent constitution, I guess.
This is why it's important to be politically active and to VOTE. You hear that young people? ***** vote your shizzit! - marioae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Why won't people understand? Jon Stewart said it himself.
Democrats don't have an impact.
Republicans are ancient hacks.
And in the middle of everything we have a multi-million dollar marketing and advertising PATRIOT-based media.
I have said it before: Bush would nuke Iraq and get it over with if it wasn't for blogs and an ever-more-powerful media outlet.
When Bush says that every time soldiers die he feels sad, that's only "politics." Even if a yokel from the middle of *****-up-Town died, he would still say "I am sorry for his loss. Let's honor him." But he doesn't mean it. And many politicians don't mean it. This country is based on wedge-issues and how to fragment everybody so as to appeal to their own wedge-issues.
Blacks will be spoken to in a certain way.
Women will be spoken to in a certain way.
Latinos will be spoken to in a certain way.
The elderly will be spoken to in a certain way.
And every other MAJOR group (quantities in the double-digits of millions) will be spoken to in a certain way.
- There is a reason why the Amish are not as significant for the polls, you know? -
Republicans and Democrats know who votes (and who doesn't), why they vote, and the issues that would be most relevant to get their vote back.
If Bush is an idiot, he is an idiot not because he has been damaging the country. He is an idiot because he managed to get everything so ***** up that his own party sees him as a liability now. That's why Giuliani is so ***** and worried-sick and as DISTANT from Bush as possible. He might hug Bush. But he won't be around. Bush seems to ***** everything he touches. - m0d3s7m1k3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Just do it already, *****!
- sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Uh, how about for secretly authorizing the National Security Agency to circumvent FISA by conducting foreign intelligence surveillance of American citizens on American soil without any showing of probable cause and without first obtaining a warrant from the FISA Court? There is no question that the Bush spy program directly and unequivocally violated FISA.
What about for violating the Geneva convention and condoning the use of torture? - aftk2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Heh...yeah: because certainly none of their candidates is such a force.
- Daedalus81, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Is there a list of congress members out there that currently support it so I know which ones I need to annoy?
- daGUY, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63 more people? DO IT NOW!
- halavais, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10That is a lot of quotes without any clear purpose. In some cases, the quote is not at all relevant to the case that the WH made (that they had evidence that Sadam had WMD and posed an immediate threat to the US). In others, you have demonstrated that members of congress and others on both sides of the aisle were frighteningly credulous.
How this justifies a president making statements he knew were not true in order to encourage the invasion of another country, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of lives, is beyond me. - Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Can we impeach them both? Bush/Dick are equally retarded.
Let Al Gore run the country till 2008's election. - LMControl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Please, please, please...... please go ahead with this.....the Republicans need a unifying force to gather momentum going into the '08 election!! :-)
- smitting, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Even if Bush and Cheney didn't do anything illegal, they can still be impeached. Just because you didn't rob the liquor store yesterday, doesn't mean you won't be arrested and indicted. If you didn't rob the liquor store, then it just means you're more likely to be found innocent at the trial (still... no guarantees).
I'm not so sure that Bush and Cheney didn't rob the liquor store, so to speak. - jpt62089, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11I'm sure the whole world is so over this crap ;)
- crkbbyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'm WAY past ready to take back my country.
- Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Lying before congress is a great start.... This action alone is impeachable but I have seen lists with over 150 charges from one source... Having followed the news and verification of many of the points I have a short list of 50 which I'm including in a book which will be out late Sept.
- avasol, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10You are in fact incorrect. Not just Diggers hate you.
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Dugg down for "sick-kick". Cheap shots are bad enough, cheap shots that are retarded are just painful.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is