Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution
globalresearch.ca — It's a rigged game without a referee...
Erich100- 1893 diggs
- digg it
- MadKennyP, on 06/16/2008, -151/+644This message brought to you by the party that:
(1) believes the government has the right to tap your phone without a warrant;
(2) believes habeas corpus can be suspended at the whim of the President;
(3) believes the federal government should provide funds to faith-based organizations
and (4) hates the ACLU.- samoan27, on 06/17/2008, -15/+76So the enemy of evil is ALWAYS good?
- Lythium, on 06/17/2008, -7/+35No, but political reporting is almost always biased, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt roughly the size of the state of Montana.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/17/2008, -0/+32You're right, though people should have a healthy distrust of ALL politicians and bureaucrats.
- jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -3/+5@peppermintpig
Sadly this is not the case. - samoan27, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5You know what's sad, I made roughly that same comment on an anti-McCain article early today and currently have -68 diggs as compared to your +19. Not saying you're guilty of not doing this, but always be sure to keep that bit of advise even when you agree with the article.
- cosmicv, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1This is exactly why that is the case samoan27.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/meta-is-max- ...
- darkciti2, on 06/17/2008, -11/+11Piss is better than ***** when you only have 2 choices.
I'm voting for Obama.- jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -8/+9That is why you fail
- BabaRamDass, on 06/18/2008, -4/+7There's always more than 2 choices; the problem is you never want to pick anything other than piss or *****. Blame yourself.
- bugsy187, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5@BabaRamDass
Blame yourself? Consider that a system can be flawed at its roots. - rlbond86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1bugsy is correct, the current US electoral system (simple majority to win) is what makes it an effective election between two parties. The British parliamentary system, and Israel's system, are both much better. Under our current system, you either vote A or B or neither. And 'neither' gives you no political say.
- Lythium, on 06/17/2008, -7/+35No, but political reporting is almost always biased, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt roughly the size of the state of Montana.
- wiggles, on 06/17/2008, -73/+26Clarifications:
1) Only on international calls when the data is being transmitted to/from the US.
2) Only for foriegners who are trying to kill us, and only when they're not on US soil
3) Only when such organizations provide a substantial public service
4) So? You probably hate lots of things, too, because you disagree with them -- like Republicans.- MadKennyP, on 06/17/2008, -8/+53Not even close.
- rex84, on 06/17/2008, -5/+39"2) Only for foriegners who are trying to kill us, and only when they're not on US soil"
Tell that to Jose Padilla.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(pr ...- Terr01, on 06/17/2008, -3/+221) In violation of existing federal law.
2) Provably false through examples. As rex84 mentioned, Jose Padilla.
3) Some of those organizations get funds even though they *refuse to hire or help people based on their religion*. Bad. - pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+102) Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ...
- Terr01, on 06/17/2008, -3/+221) In violation of existing federal law.
- didiman, on 06/17/2008, -31/+6wiggles stop making sense, this is Digg
- jfreeman, on 06/17/2008, -4/+251) There's no oversight, so how do you know?
2) What happened to presumption of innocence? For all you know, they're just suspects. Plus, there have already been cases of innocents held there and eventually released after years of wrongful incarceration. - Pittance, on 06/17/2008, -6/+13None of these are acceptable. ESPECIALLY 3. Get your god out of my government and out of my life.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -2/+6most foreign aid from the US, and throughout modern history from all european nations, have come from faith based organizations.
I agree I want faith kept out of my politics, out of my schools ... but I don't _inheritly_ mind if it is nuns and missionaries distributing food in africa. — though, if they start requiring bible time for food then I'm on your side.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/17/2008, -2/+6most foreign aid from the US, and throughout modern history from all european nations, have come from faith based organizations.
- Myonosken, on 06/17/2008, -3/+10"1) Only on international calls when the data is being transmitted to/from the US."
Yeah I'm sure that's helping me and my non-US citizens do business with your country.
Edit: Oh wait, we're not as good as the humans in America so its perfectly fine to violate our privacy. I get it now! Thanks wiggles.
- MadKennyP, on 06/17/2008, -8/+53Not even close.
- ElAssoWipo, on 06/17/2008, -6/+72Those silly CANADIAN republicans...
This is probably the only article I've ever read from that site that bashes democrats.
It's an anti-globalization website.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=the ...
It's more anti-american policy than about which party screws the planet the most.
Plus both your parties are the same thing now. They only disagree on how slowly they'll pull the troops out of iraq.- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -6/+8well, one of them is a lot more eager to go into iran.
- silveravnt, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1They both seem pretty eager.
- Rabbittt, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5Well, in fairness, there *is* a difference in the way they spend money they have stolen from the Public..
- georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -3/+4And that person's comment got 441+ diggs, simply as a mindless reaction to defend the Democrats and bash the Republicans. Another example of sheeple mentality on this site, and in the whole nation for that matter.
- rlbond86, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Yes because the 6 years the Republicans had a majority were like 10 times better
- georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I don't think I could have asked for a better example to make my point.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -6/+8well, one of them is a lot more eager to go into iran.
- Conwaysb0718, on 06/17/2008, -8/+74Oh yes, cuz one party is so much better than the other. The two party system does not work!
- mk3k, on 06/17/2008, -4/+13 sounds good to me.
- jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Its a step in the right direction
- jezsik, on 06/17/2008, -3/+15Well, in fairness, it really does work ... for the wealthy.
- ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4When was the last time you didn't have a one-party government? The Senate's half Republican still, so what do you expect?
- operatorc, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11It works... to convince the people that they have two sides to choose from (because EVERYTHING is black and white, 2-sided, right?) so they shut the hell up and continue to be good little sheep.
The two parties weren't created with this idea in mind... they eventually forged together into what we have today.- luet, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4You could come to canada, where we have like 4 competing parties and sometimes pretend that the NDP or bloc has a chance against the conservatives and liberals
- bman1984, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3The NDP and the bloc are the deciding factor on nearly every vote in Parliament. They hold the balance of votes and can sway decisions one way or the other. Considering one of the parties main goals is to separate Canada and are only concerned with themselves, this system does not work so great either.
In Canada, MP's vote the party line as well, ie. they all are required to vote the same as everyone in their party.
No party systems would be great. Every single seat is independant and actually represents their constituents. That would make a little too much sense I suppose.
- thirteenthcor, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2Our system was never designed to have multiple parties. :shrug:
- rex84, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Okay then, let's just get high and play XBox. :shrug:
- mk3k, on 06/17/2008, -4/+13 sounds good to me.
- wynja, on 06/17/2008, -12/+38Dude, the article explicitly states that this is Democrat backed bail out.
- Chahrlie5, on 06/17/2008, -6/+22Quiet, LALLALALLA *Fingers in ears*
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -8/+9And Republicans position on this is what, exactly? Initiated by what administration, exactly?
Interesting that Democrats are being blamed here. Their worst crime (and it is a big one) is that not all of them are willing to put up enough of a fight against Republican efforts to gut the Constitution. And yet, reading this article, you'd never know it was the GOP behind this initiative in the first place.- Chahrlie5, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1THe point is that the democrats have been crying foul over this and wanting to impeach bush over it, yet they do the same thing themselves.
- wynja, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1It's a big circle jerk in Washington. There is no difference between the Repubicronnies and the Democraps.
- Chahrlie5, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1THe point is that the democrats have been crying foul over this and wanting to impeach bush over it, yet they do the same thing themselves.
- whiterice0, on 06/17/2008, -17/+11Really stung. Didn't it?
- shaka999, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2Ha, I was thinking the same thing.
Lets not answer the charge, its easier to divert attention. If the bill gets through the Congress is the dems fault.- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2Can you explain why all the Republicans voting for this, as well as the Republican administration pushing it in the first place, are *not* responsible?
- MrWhite7, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2no one said they weren't...
- vinod1978, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1As I democrat, I would agree. Democrats HAVE to stand up for the Constitution.
The question is who do hold responsible? The telecoms that were threatened by the current administration, or the Administration itself? Should the telecoms be forced to pay billions of dollars in law suits when the administration put pressure on them to do so?
Yes. The telecom companies could have easily made a PR campaign out of the pressure that the administration were placing on them, and I feel that they would not have been in the position they are now. They must be held responsible, however at the same time - so should the administration members that authorized illegal wire tapping in 1st place.
- shaka999, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2Ha, I was thinking the same thing.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/17/2008, -6/+7WOW - way to go Pavlov!
- Quintios, on 06/17/2008, -15/+19The party in the article is the DEMOCRATS. Did you read it??
- Zombi, on 06/17/2008, -2/+16"brought to you by" are the key words in his comment. Did you read it??
- BlakeEM, on 06/17/2008, -3/+5Yeah but it's not brought to you by republicans, did you read it?
- georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2His comment was clearly referring to Republicans, not Democrats. Points 3 and 4 are the giveaways.
- YossarianDent, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7I didn't have to read the whole thing since I looked for the names. Two of them were Democrats, and the other two (that's 50%, for those of us keeping track) were Republicans.
So, no, the party in the article ISN'T the Democrats; it's both of them. Guess you didn't read it either...or even skim it. Glad you're policing the comments anyway.
- Zombi, on 06/17/2008, -2/+16"brought to you by" are the key words in his comment. Did you read it??
- astitious, on 06/17/2008, -16/+48I don't know who is dumber, the idiot that thinks globalreasearch.ca is a republican front-group, or the army of retards that up-modded the dumbest comment of the day.
- jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1There hasn't been any discussion about Apple here
- georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -3/+6They're probably all Obama supporters so there is not much variance in intellect.
- jfreeman, on 06/17/2008, -14/+53) The only problem I see with funding for faith-based orgs is that the federal government's role is not charity.
4) The ACLU makes mistakes. I hate some of the ***** they do, too.- o0joshua0o, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8The only problem with funding for faith-based orgs is that the federal government's role is not charity or faith.
/fixed it for you- jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Socialism is what then?
- jfreeman, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I agree that the state should not endorse a specific religion, but I don't think they need to pretend like it doesn't exist.
- GlassAgate, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The churches already get tax exemption.
The government shouldn't be giving them
money on top of it. If you want government
funding, then starting paying taxes.
- o0joshua0o, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8The only problem with funding for faith-based orgs is that the federal government's role is not charity or faith.
- manamizer, on 06/17/2008, -5/+26you people never cease to amaze me. this is michel chossudovsky's organization. in addition to being canadian as was already stated by EIAssoWipo, this organization and chossudovsky have been extremely critical of the bush administration and fall WAY to the left of center. the book in the thumbnail is a detailed critique of the globalization strategy used by the world bank, imf, and US and european organizations which was written by chossudovsky. great to see that you're continuing the grand american tradition of blind faith in your party by giving them a pass on anything and everything they do wrong. open your ***** eyes and read more than the title and abstract on a ***** digg story.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -4/+7I assume the party you refer to is the Republican party, since you are giving them a pass on not supporting this bill in Congress and initiating it in the White House.
There is legitimate criticism of Democrats for not fighting it hard enough (although some are), but let's not forget this is a GOP pet project promoted by the GOP White House and the GOP leadership in Congress.- manamizer, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8the article is about the democratic party supporting republican efforts and calling them out for not serving their real constituency by being a REAL opposition party. it's not giving republicans a pass on it, it's condemning democrats for supporting them. both parties are in the wrong. try not being so partisan and maybe you'd see that.
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -4/+7I assume the party you refer to is the Republican party, since you are giving them a pass on not supporting this bill in Congress and initiating it in the White House.
- an0nymous, on 06/17/2008, -8/+14This article is absolutely correct. Democrats are about to enable their Republican colleagues and the White House to grant retroactive immunity to telecoms. It's disgusting and unlawful. Perhaps Obama could publicly oppose this? Someone needs to step up.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5senator dodd has been fighting it:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/senator-d ...- Treoinmypocket, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2That's just to distract people from his unethical and possibly illegal loans from Countrywide....
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -7/+2Obama has publicly opposed this. But thank you for pointing out that it was the Republicans who initiated and promoted and pushed for this, in the White House and in Congress.
There are prominent Democrats opposing the bill. I don't know of any prominent Republicans who are...- MrWhite7, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1keep pushing that football...
- crowbar77, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Link?
- TonyLocNE, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2"There are prominent Democrats opposing the bill. I don't know of any prominent Republicans who are..."
Ron Paul
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5senator dodd has been fighting it:
- trixterIreland, on 06/17/2008, -13/+7obama gave pastor phlegm or whatever his name is (the one that caused him to "quit") $250k of tax payer money, so its not just one party that is doing that.
- Lazydriver, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3And he said... "God Damn America".
Really, now, doesn't everyone have one tin-foil hat friend?
- Lazydriver, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3And he said... "God Damn America".
- dagnome1984, on 06/17/2008, -5/+19Different party same *****.
- rex84, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Same *****, different assholes.
- an0nymous, on 06/17/2008, -2/+6http://digg.com/politics/Targeting_Steny_Hoyer_for ...
Here is a better story about it. Not my submission, but it deserves to be dugg. - ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -4/+12How far we've come.
FTFA:
"Sources said the major change is that a federal district court, not the secret FISA court itself, would make an assessment about whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their alleged role in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. ("Agreement Could Pave Way for Surveillance Overhaul," Congressional Quarterly, June 13, 2008)"
According to Digg's submission history on telecom immunity, the Democrats have prevented the Republicans from giving the telecoms immunity for the last 285 days. Now a compromise stating that federal judges, who are completely separate from the executive branch, will determine if a telecom company gets retroactive immunity (which is what they do already without the Patriot Act according to FISA laws on the books) has half of its sponsors as Republicans but the Democrats get all of the blame?
Not only are they getting the blame for a compromise that is actually the OPPOSITE of a compromise because laws already provide a secret court the power to give retroactive immunity, but they are being blamed by complete nutjobs for telecom immunity demands that the Republicans wanted in the first place?
Does anyone read the articles or do they just read inflammatory headlines from questionable and partisan Canadian sources and then flatulate at the mouth?- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3the article fails to mention that senator dodd vowed to fight immunity:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/senator-d ... - snotrokit, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3There is another problem bubbling here. Federal Judges. Appointed by whom? Remember the Alberto Gonzales, lets replace Federal Judges that will get in our way? I would much rather see it blocked completely, or stalled, or anything for 6 months. That's all we need is 6 months.
- an0nymous, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1We're not going to get it, I'm afraid.
- Geiiga, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1To be fair, that was US attorneys. The ones who attempted to go after election fraud or wouldn't go after the old lady who accidentally registered to vote twice.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3the article fails to mention that senator dodd vowed to fight immunity:
- noahhoward, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2(5) Introduced the 14th and 15th amendments.
- danr2c2, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Those were times when they were called Radical Republicans because they were the progressive party. NOT conservatives. Get it straight - A rose by any other name...
- noahhoward, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Well if you're going to use the same brush to paint them all then you'll have to accept the generalizations won't you. By your last line a republican is still a republican. You don't like it, don't generalize.
- rlbond86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1They also opposed slavery. Then things changed in 100+ years.
- danr2c2, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Those were times when they were called Radical Republicans because they were the progressive party. NOT conservatives. Get it straight - A rose by any other name...
- HPLRF, on 06/17/2008, -8/+22Some Crime Statistics
Can you imagine working for a company
that has a little more than 500
employees and has the following statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spousal
abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing
bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly
bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due
to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drugrelated
charges
* 8 have been arrested for
shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in
lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk
driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
It's the 535 members of the United States
Congress. The same group of idiots that
crank out hundreds of new laws each
year designed to keep the rest of us in
line.- swizzcheez, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11Sadly, it sounds like it's pretty representative of the people to me... :/
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -9/+4How many of those on your list are Republicans, vs how many are Democrats? It is a little deceptive to indict all of Congress for crimes which are mostly committed by one party, not the other. Yes, there is corruption in Congress, always has been, but the ultra-partisan GOP of the past dozen years or so has reached new lows in unethical and even criminal behavior.
If you are going to cite stats, cite all of the details.- TRScheel, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12You really think all the criminals go to one party or the other?
Or the majority of criminals? Really?
With a name like 'rationalist' you'd expect a little more insight. Try to stereotype some more please. - MrWhite7, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4need i point out the lack of citations in your comment rationalist?
- TRScheel, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12You really think all the criminals go to one party or the other?
- wishninja, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4do you have names attached to those stats> I would like to view the source because that is so unbelievable. 84 for drunk driving last year? really?
- hapax, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Source?
- strangewill, on 06/17/2008, -0/+14http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp
- geddon, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Basically, they're corrupt. But the message doesn't specify WHY they're corrupt. It's the power, dude. Absolutely.
- rlbond86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, nobody else works for congress. You're not counting administrative jobs, assistants, etc.
- skeeterbug84, on 06/17/2008, -6/+13The Democrats control congress and have done nothing to stop it. They voted immunity for telco's, renewed the patriot act, etc.
If you ask me both parties aren't looking so hot right now.- terajoule, on 06/17/2008, -3/+4Granted they have done a whole lot of nothing, but with a slim majority in both houses and a republican president, did anyone honestly expect anything to change?
- rlbond86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1They don't have a Majority in the Senate -- there's only 50, they need 51. Get it right.
Moreover, without the 60 votes to override a veto, they don't have control. Mitch McConnel has led a session of congress that SO FAR has filibustered more times than any two sessions combined. This is not the Democrats' doing.
- Scottc320, on 06/17/2008, -7/+2So you wouldn't have supported Lincoln suspending habeas corpus?
- johnnyboy239, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Correct... and in fact, the court did not support it. However it seems a little conceited to liken the times we are in now to I don't know.... the civil war.
- rebrad, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1As it has often been said, "It's all about the GOLD"
- miamilaw, on 06/17/2008, -8/+3MISLEADING.
Taking the decision to give telecoms retroactive immunity OUT of the hands of the uber secret FISA court and into the hands of the regular civil fed district court = 1000% more transparency.
Additionally, in the new political climate (e.g, tarnishing of the GOP brand, recent sup ct decision, etc.), an open fed district court is more likely to scrutinize whether a telecom deserves immunity.
Lastly, this issue would have NEVER come up if Bush Co. would have just left the FISA courts the way it was, pre-"PATRIOT Act". What a bunch of crap legislation. The terrorists hate our freedoms, eh? So, our response should be let's do their job for them and take them away piecemeal.
Haw haw! you neo-con tards and too much! So cute, thinking they're so smart and patriotic.
This website caters to the anti-"New World Order" wingnuts. "The truth is out there!" Nostradamus: didn't you predict 9/11 in a poem? And, isn't the world ending in 2012?!?! Where's Jeebus, gallantly trotting on his T-Rex to save the day when you need him?
idiots.- whiteboyfunk, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3This sure seems like a skewed article even though I could go for hours plotting against leftists. A little sidenote, however.
You could have left your comment at just that. Misleading. Consider this, more than half of the readers here don't have the attention span to read past the headline, so what makes you think they'd read past yours?
You know for a fact that republicans aren't backing Bush nowadays. You don't need me to tell you that. So why would you stereotype us? Perhaps it fits into your agenda.
I can legitimately call democrats idiots over and over from listening to Obama, the Clintons, and everyday knuckleheads such as yourself. What do you base your sweeping generalizations on? The disorganized Bush administration and a couple of weak websites?
- whiteboyfunk, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3This sure seems like a skewed article even though I could go for hours plotting against leftists. A little sidenote, however.
- withears, on 06/18/2008, -3/+5Poor republicans. Lies, desperation, fear are all they have left.
- swrostmore, on 06/18/2008, -2/+8A coalition of Ron Paul Republicans and Progressive Democrats have contributed $120,000 in 4 hours tonight to a PAC dedicated to stopping this farce by holding Dem representatives accountable for their vote. In other words, public financing for ads to help kick these swine out of their comfortable House seats in favor of candidates who actually represent the public. Go here to contribute:
http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa - NNOP, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4How can there be so many diggs for a comment from someone who so obviously DRTFA!
From the article:
"Since 9/11, with few rare exceptions that can be counted on one hand, the Democrats have been complicit with the Bush administration's quasi-fascistic "war on terror" and everything that followed in its wake--illegal spying, torture, wars of aggression, not to mention the looting of public assets for private profit known as "outsourcing."
Unless Republicans are openly describing themselves as quasi-fascists now, I think you could safely assume that this is not a message 'brought to you by' the Republican party. They're just pointing out that it is disgraceful that the Democrats are supporting them. Republicans playing wannabe dictators is not news, Dems backing them up is. - kosser, on 06/18/2008, -4/+5People just have no idea how bad this country will be when obama becomes president. I mean think of it...Who voted for mccain? no one did...He's in more of a minority than Ron Paul. this is a set up. Obama was already chosen to be the president before a single vote was cast. people wont understand that and when he gets into that seat...it's good game, get ready for some serious police state *****. the worse part is people will accept it because they have been so dumbed down they can't tell right from wrong. this is a new generation of people, not like the true revolutionaries back when this country was started.....very unfortunate.
- geddon, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I'm down with all the Conspiracy Theories, but "Obama from the Beginning" contradicts what we thought when Billary was the front runner.
- bizarrojack, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Yeah yeah yeah, the republicans are even worse, but this is a news article, and what's news is that it's not just republicans who can go easy on illegal surveillance. When Republicans want illegal surveillance, most people will either think something moronic, because they agree, or disagree and sum it up with "yeah that's why I never vote republican.
As Challenging a notion as it is, you can't just get the progressive government you want by voting D (but it's a start).
I would have liked a better headline, myself, but that one of the great tragedies of digg. - lexington86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1So... basically your best argument in defense of your party (Dems), is "they do it so we can do it too!" Nice one.
The Democrats offer nothing better than the Republicans. With the Dems, it may be a younger, "more-hip" message, but it's still the same old big-government *****. - SystemHasFailed, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2"(4) hates the ACLU"
Yes.. we should embrace the organization that made bestiality legal for so many years in the United States.
The ACLU are scum. - sultanofspin, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2You're a serious ass.
- heresy_fnord, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1This message brought to you by the party that:
(1) believes the government has the right to tap your phone without a warrant;
Bush and his Neo-con Republicans
(2) believes habeas corpus can be suspended at the whim of the President;
Again, Bush and his Neo-con Republicans
(3) believes the federal government should provide funds to faith-based organizations
Only a Neo-con wingnut Republican retard like Bush and his religious zealot faith-***** friends could do that...
and (4) hates the ACLU.
Also a Neo-con trait, hating organizations out to help the average person.
Neo-Cons and Republicans - nothing but bigots, liars, and thieves, God-fearing freedom hating failures. Democrats will tell you life is bad, Republicans make sure it's a horrible mess. - NeuroSlappy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Democrat accessory to the crime, stay on point and call your reps.
- tetsuwan, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080212-demo ...
Obama tried at least.
- samoan27, on 06/17/2008, -15/+76So the enemy of evil is ALWAYS good?
- AlwaysAwake, on 06/17/2008, -198/+348A pox on both parties. Join the Ron Paul revolution, and get active with people who share your values and concerns, and are working together to bring about real change.
- suntzusputnik, on 06/17/2008, -31/+9i disagree, agree with him or not, ron paul doesn't have the sphere of influence or copious amounts of supporters that can help initiate significant* change. the intentions are there, it just seems like a lost cause in my opinion.
*if you're pregnant or may become pregnant, you shouldn't take significant change. ask your doctor if significant change is right for you. certain restrictions may apply.- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -2/+13"it just seems like a lost cause in my opinion."
And the reign of the 2 headed corporation lumbers on...- toekneebullard, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7You know what? Obama didn't have support when he first started...now that I think of it, no one has instant support. It has to build. Sucks to be you if you don;t think something is worthwhile unless millions upon millions of people agree with it.
- suntzusputnik, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1the issue of timing makes all the difference in the world. a few months back i understand, that was a race for the candidacy, but paul's out. what would be the point of showing support now with the general election being the main focus? sounds like a waste and such intentions exist a la terry schiavo.
^ ron paul's support is not growing, it plateaued a while ago, and has been in sharp decline since mccain was declared the nominee by the media. you make a good point, but it lacks coherence with this scenario.
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -2/+13"it just seems like a lost cause in my opinion."
- jstohler, on 06/17/2008, -47/+40Even Ron Paul bailed on the Ron Paul Revolution.
- michael4lsu, on 06/17/2008, -16/+29No he didn't. It has just begun:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/- Vesuvias, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Yes it has my friend... it has only JUST begun =)
- DraxusD, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Uh, nope... he just bailed on the presidential race.
- michael4lsu, on 06/17/2008, -16/+29No he didn't. It has just begun:
- sspeedracer, on 06/17/2008, -22/+70Where was Ron Paul when Dennis Kucinich tried to impeach those Fuxs? Empty words.
- ferrariman60, on 06/17/2008, -12/+31No kidding. While it may be shocking news to his supporters, he is, in fact, a politician. He is playing the same game as everyone else. The fact that he wasn't there supporting Kucinich speaks volumes. Remember: Actions speak louder than words.
- guntario, on 06/17/2008, -13/+7Where was Kucinich years ago? Don't you think it's mighty fine timing that he's trying his impeachment stunt now?
- sublingo, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8He already tried it once before with the other chump. So yes years ago Kucinich did try it. Well, about a year ago.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Oh, he was also fighting to get us out of Iraq about 4 years ago too. F.Y.I.
His opposition to this administration is hardly a "stunt." In fact it's not even a recent development. - guntario, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1You said it as good as anyone could Speed... "His opposition to this administration." You see it but don't realize it.
- donte, on 06/17/2008, -7/+29Well seeing how it's up to the speaker of the house (Nancy Pelosi) to carry forth the articles of impeachment, it's not really a Ron Paul issue. And since she won't do a damn thing about it, nobody else in Congress has any power over that anyway.
Also, if you actually listen to what he said about him voting to table the impeachment, it wasn't on grounds that he didn't think it was the right thing to do. But the way that Kucinich had tried to handle the impeachment earlier was not in accordance with how the constitution states you should proceed with impeachment. In other words, he didn't want to stray from the constitution to try and punish people who violated the constitution. He even said himself that had it gone through the proper channels he would vote for impeachment, just not when Kicuinich tried to essentially get a rushed vote to the floor. - jgtg32a, on 06/18/2008, -3/+4Kucinich's actions are empty actions.
- mike17032, on 06/17/2008, -36/+21Yes, lets follow the paultards and turn the country over to Walmart! That will make everything better!
- PeppermintPig, on 06/17/2008, -3/+12What the hell are you talking about?
- bowens44, on 06/17/2008, -35/+21Ron Paul is a nut job.
- sodade, on 06/17/2008, -28/+14I am wondering when RP is going to somehow inject his wacky anti-population control and anti-abortion legislature into this new revolution of his. You'd think that he was actually trying to sabotage future libertarians...
- quiggibub, on 06/17/2008, -29/+15Is this the same revolution whose participants stayed home and complained when the object of their obsession did poorly?
- ferrariman60, on 06/17/2008, -9/+8Yes, it is.
- Seafea, on 06/17/2008, -23/+10Ron Paul? That guy who couldn't win a single state in the Republican primary?
- EmmaPeel007, on 06/17/2008, -17/+6Especially if the change is a repeal of Roe v. Wade.
- pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -22/+14what if my values and concerns include the freedom to decide what happens with your own body? or the freedom to do what i want in the bedroom? ron paul wants to ban abortion on the federal level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life_act
and he supports the right of the government to tell you want you can or cannot do in the bedroom:
"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...
he's all about freedom, his freedom to impose his religious views on everyone.- squaredUP, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3If the feds had the power that they were intended to have, which isn't a whole lot, then it wouldn't really matter if the president was Buddha himself.
Please explain to me how in the (original) constitution the feds can impose any believe, even in the slightest, on anyone?
So why again are you so damn worried about it? I personally don't give a rats ass and neither should you. If you want to bitch, stop putting these media conditioned values FIRST in your life and stand for what being an American is all about. That is standing, no matter the adversity, against those who attempt to take the freedom away from you, me or any other individual whom is an American. If you don't love your neighbor, and no one else does, what is the point of being a "nation" at all? Without a common desire/belief we are all just individuals that will be at the mercy of those whom do stand together. What do you want to do?
Sit and think long and hard about this.
What are YOU about? What does being an American mean to YOU? To what extent do you love this land you've grown up on and which your entire world is centered?
To me, it means as much as my family, my faith and my friends. Whom I would gladly die to preserve and save. - dakobstah, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5I agree that his views on Roe v. Wade are an annoying contradiction with his ideas. In this case I fear he may be blindly following the Constitution rather than the principle of individual rights which it was meant to embody. In his latest book he talked about how it is bad to leave decisions best left to an individual up to the government and then said that the government should not let individual women make up their own minds about abortion.
Of course, as you note, he does so by proclaiming "states rights." Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "states rights." Rights are possessed by individual human beings, not abstract collectives. To say that a state has a right is as much as to say that the national government has a right, which is the very notion that Ron Paul is trying to fight.
Still, on the whole, Ron Paul is CONSIDERABLY more consistent in advocating individual rights than any other politician I've seen, heard, or read about.- Twag86, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The term "state's rights" is used to describe governmental powers not specifically given to the national government. These rights are protected by the 10th amendment. Ron Paul (though i dint agree with many of his polices) firmly believes that the national government has too much power and responsibility to effectively handle issues as well as a state government could. the problem with this is that communication today is far more effective in letting the national government handle problems when compared to when the bill of rights was written and it has a larger budget and man power which allows it to handle issues more effectively. Also, with how connected the nation has become, most issues such as schools are in direct relation to the whole nation, not just a concern of a state.
- squaredUP, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1You are correct, the least amount of individuals in a group, the more the group consensus reflects the consensus of the individual. I would support my concepts down to the city level, but I realize that steps need to be taken to achieve a greater realization. One where the least amount of authority is ruling force. The absolute.
- TheWorm, on 06/18/2008, -4/+4I don't know why people are burying this guy. Everything he says is factually accurate..I don't think a lot of Ron Paul supporters know in full the issues that they're supporting.
- maxtangent, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2You don't have the freedom to do what you want with/to your own body.
You can't take or inject many substances into it.
You will not be allowed to chop your own arm off and trying to do so may well end up with you institutionalised.
- squaredUP, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3If the feds had the power that they were intended to have, which isn't a whole lot, then it wouldn't really matter if the president was Buddha himself.
- influenceuh, on 06/17/2008, -16/+5But Ron Paul DOESN'T share my values and concerns. Nor, I might add, is he WORKING.
- swisscheese97, on 06/17/2008, -20/+15You know, I like Ron Paul a lot, but I often find my self hating Ron Paul supporters. is it just me or is there something just really abrasive about their overall demeanor.
- timothycrash01, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7No real difference between Paul, Obama, Hillary or McCain supporters. It's all the same dynamic between the obsessed and the reasonable. I haven't seen that much about Paul in the last few months - in comparison to the Obama / Hillary madness. Of course there's a reason for that - and it depends what website your on. ;-)
- TheWorm, on 06/18/2008, -4/+1Obama and McCain supporters have far less of a super defensive underdog complex.
- Seafea, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Trust me. It is NOT just you.
- Cyberen, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1It's not just you...they are that annoying.
- timothycrash01, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7No real difference between Paul, Obama, Hillary or McCain supporters. It's all the same dynamic between the obsessed and the reasonable. I haven't seen that much about Paul in the last few months - in comparison to the Obama / Hillary madness. Of course there's a reason for that - and it depends what website your on. ;-)
- Pake, on 06/17/2008, -15/+7Ron Paul? You mean the guy who assumes change is brought about by always voting "No" until it concerns pushing religious beliefs into people's life?
- squaredUP, on 06/17/2008, -6/+8He pushes religious beliefs into peoples lives? What? How?
Look, if you agree with him or not everyone needs to stop arguing about such stupid ***** like immigration, the war in iraq... ect. and GET UNITED under the one thing we ALL have in common. That is follow the constitution. Nothing else matters so long as that is being violated, because these other problems STEM from that one simple fact.
If we actually did that, and did not have special agenda's then most of these ingorantly influenced problems would dissappear.
Abortion? States decision...
Education? States decision...
Immigration? Simple... those here illegally gotta go. Close the border and only allow legal folks in. There IS NO other solution. Cept maybe lobbiests trying to get cheap labor and tying up the process.
When everyone turns to the feds to fix things they see as problems (abortion? thats not the feds business) like little kids to their mommy then of course the feds will acquire more power.
If the states ran ***** like they are supposed to then if Alabama does something I don't like well... ***** here's a concept... move to ***** Georgia. (Who has the "power" to do whatever the hell they want short of invading Alabama.)
Thats how it was intended to be, and it may never be that way again, but until you stupid bastards stop squabbling over dumbass issues and realize the main thing, nothing can be fixed.- Pake, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3"He pushes religious beliefs into peoples lives? What? How?"
He co-sponsored a bill that would create an amendment for prayer in school, he's voted in favor of public schools to teach creationism, voted in favor of tax crediting only Christian schools (all non-Christian schools would still be taxed), and voted against removing the phrase referencing "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Now explain how someone "for" the Constitution is so willing to ignore the Establishment Clause that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." when out Pledge of Allegiance has now for 54 years violated the clause.
- Pake, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3"He pushes religious beliefs into peoples lives? What? How?"
- squaredUP, on 06/17/2008, -6/+8He pushes religious beliefs into peoples lives? What? How?
- johnnyboy239, on 06/17/2008, -13/+3Wait.... do you guys still exist? I haven't seen a a comment every couple minutes
- datdamonfoo, on 06/17/2008, -12/+3Ron Paul is a douche. He's about as relevant as Ross Perot right now.
- Twag86, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1Thats funny because when i first heard about Ron Paul I thought of Ross Perot
- j1ggy, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9Ron Paul needs to start his own party.
- clarionhaze, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2yay for republican spoilers!
- j0keR, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5I'd say it's far more important to get involved in the overall liberty movement. Start listening to Free Talk Live and get involved in the Free State Project if you really care about liberty. Political action is too slow. What are we supposed to do, wait four years for either Ron Paul or Rand Paul to run another campaign? Hell no. We can take action now.
- suntzusputnik, on 06/17/2008, -31/+9i disagree, agree with him or not, ron paul doesn't have the sphere of influence or copious amounts of supporters that can help initiate significant* change. the intentions are there, it just seems like a lost cause in my opinion.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -59/+343Don't buy the two party crap their selling. They've got the same goal - and it doesn't look good for America.
- CTK14A, on 06/17/2008, -1/+18Colgate or Crest -- which will it be?
- ferrariman60, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11Colgate, their tubes have those nifty tops that are BOTH flip top and screw top- at the same time!
Crest got NOTHIN!
- ferrariman60, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11Colgate, their tubes have those nifty tops that are BOTH flip top and screw top- at the same time!
- Ninjab3ar, on 06/17/2008, -18/+11They're.
- rocketboot, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3They've = They have
They're = They are- rex84, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1WTF? = What the *****?
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3glad you care more about proper grammar than your country, twerp
- Tyrghast, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Having proper grammar starts a snowball effect that eventually reaches to the highest levels of government. We will correct the world!
- Somnabot, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Hey, if they can correct Bush's grammar...
- rocketboot, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3They've = They have
- DutchGuilder, on 06/17/2008, -0/+13From the sky comes a scream, as Homer is crashing right into the Capitol ... he comes running down the stairs.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They’re nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them][audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He’s right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud] - armoreddillo, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11Divide and conquer,
it's a pretty popular strategy you know. - Indierocka, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Its almost a little comforting that you don't really have to question anymore, we can just know that absolutely everyone is for sale.
- usingpond, on 06/17/2008, -6/+2This message brought to you by the Republican Party.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4Are you TRYING to look like an idiot? If so, bravo!
- usingpond, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Good one.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4Are you TRYING to look like an idiot? If so, bravo!
- devophl, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure its the same goal but the outcome is the same. The Republicans believe that most constitutional protections are null and void in time of war. And this faux war on terror is exactly what they need to suspend most constitutional rights.
The Democrats on the other hand are too scared to challenge the administration and the corporations to fight for the constitution. Lets face it, the corporations have most Democrats wrapped around their little fingers. They may believe its wrong but in the end can't help but vote for these anti-constitutional bills.- starmanfalls, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Just wondering what would happen if no one voted. the whole damn country and not one vote. Just wishfull thinking I guess.
- eliot2000, on 06/18/2008, -6/+3Yeah, both parties are the same. If Al Gore had won, he would have ignored warnings about Osama Bin Laden, started the Iraq war so he and his oil company buddies could make a fortune, and pushed through tax cuts for the rich, despite that being the exact opposite of what he advocated in his campaign. And George Bush would have a Nobel peace prize and an Oscar.
It's not hard to look at the government and see nothing but shadowy conspiracies, but if you look at the plain truth about what government is actually doing, there are vast differences.
By the way, here is a comprehensive list of every democrat mentioned in the article:
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
- CTK14A, on 06/17/2008, -1/+18Colgate or Crest -- which will it be?
- xdcc, on 06/17/2008, -204/+352Democrats: Can we gut the Constitution?
Obama: Yes We Can!- MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/17/2008, -16/+113To back that up, he did vote for the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act
- LadyKofNYC, on 06/17/2008, -11/+60He also consistently voted to finance the Iraq invasionoccupation
- why3th, on 06/17/2008, -22/+4"invasionoccupation" I love the words you see spawn on these comments. Obomber, McSame, all of them used in lieu of intelligent rebuttal.
- wattznext, on 06/17/2008, -25/+13@LadyKofNYC
And if he hadn't, everyone would have been on him for putting our troops in danger for denying them the funds needed. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. - quesi, on 06/17/2008, -2/+10@wattznext
That's a cop-out. - WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -0/+10@wattznext: That kind of spin can be defused with a quick speech, something Obama's quite good at, and the criticisms would be exposed for the hubris they are. Too bad Obama is not courageous enough to forgo the support of the moneyed interests that supported those pieces of legislation.
- georgemason01, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6@gmail.com
Oh wait...
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/17/2008, -20/+21The reauthorization of the patriot act ended a lot of unconstitutional parts of the original patriot act.
- ryanarchy, on 06/17/2008, -7/+29Well, it's not enough if there's anything unconstitutional left in the Patriot Act. Picking the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
- rottencod, on 06/17/2008, -12/+17if i'm ever faced with a choice between 'rape the constitution a little,' 'rape the constitution a lot,' or 'allow my ideals to force me to do nothing at all, and therefore allow the constitution to be raped a lot anyway...'
i will choose 'rape the constitution a little.' sometimes, we do not have the luxury of a truly good choice. - nocash23, on 06/17/2008, -0/+14"The re authorization of the patriot act ended a lot of unconstitutional parts of the original patriot act."
actually the parts that where dropped did so due to expiration under sunset provisions. re authorization extended the rest. - byronm, on 06/17/2008, -8/+1@ryanarchy
Evils that the (R)'s created..
Your point being? - TheTaoOfBill, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1NoCash
It was likely going to get reauthorized anyway. Obama helped rewrite it and if it wasn't for him and other senators the current patriot act would have been much worse. Obama did everything he had the power to do. - dnes, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-s ...
Read this, please.
- br0ck, on 06/17/2008, -14/+22Actually, Obama acted more than almost anyone in the Senate or the House to combat civil rights issues in the Patriot Act!
Obama voted against the original re-authorization: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Obama then helped write and co-sponsored the SAFE act which the EFF said would fix the most troublesome of problems with the Patriot Act including roving wiretaps, limit sneak & peek, and numerous other things that you can read about at the EFF site: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php
Obama joined a senate group to demand fixes to all Patriot act civil rights violations (listed at the following link), and they did fix as many of the problems as they could in a 50-50 senate: http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060106patr ...
Russ Feingold then proposed a bill to restore more rights. --- "A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes." --- Obama voted to keep it alive for Senate floor debate while Clinton voted to kill it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Since the House had killed all the fixes, the Republican senators decided to try pushing through a much worse Patriot Act reauthorization which was guaranteed to make it through the House. The Democrats in the Senate decided to try a diluted version of their fixes (which included several of Obama's SAFE provisions) in the form of a hobbled Patriot reauthorization compromise that could make it through the Republican House. Obama then gave an impassioned plea to fix all the problems, but was ultimately forced to go with the hobbled version or the nation would end up with the much worse version with no fixes. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...
More info: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fa ...- ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -8/+11Swimming against the tide. Facts are only useful to these people if they're convenient.
- Izult, on 06/17/2008, -9/+10I'd be far more impressed if he had flat out refused to endorse it or the original. Instead he tries to "fix" it. If it was that broke to begin with why the ***** did it pass in the first place?
- LadyKofNYC, on 06/17/2008, -11/+60He also consistently voted to finance the Iraq invasionoccupation
- Chahrlie5, on 06/17/2008, -17/+15CHANGE the constitution!
- Myonosken, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3Bush changed the constitution. Change only always means good when its at political rallies.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/17/2008, -3/+8Bush didn't change the constitution he ignored it. The constitution is built to be changed over and over again.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -2/+15Just like Obama, no definition - just "CHANGE". Nice.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/17/2008, -9/+2It's easy to say Obama provides no substance when you don't do any research.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -2/+6How's this for research... did you know he's a blue blooded relative of Dick/Bush? Does that represent change?
- Myonosken, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3Bush changed the constitution. Change only always means good when its at political rallies.
- Jareth86, on 06/17/2008, -1/+19Obama is Bob the Builder?
- SaperKain, on 06/17/2008, -18/+13We should just let republicans replace constitution with the bible. Our own version of sharia law.
- FTWmovin2canada, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3That is actually a very interesting observation.
- dafragsta, on 06/17/2008, -6/+13Hells yes! i just got back from a meeting with the BIlderberg group! Let's rewrite the national anthem to say the "land of the slaves and the home of the apathetic!"
- rationalist, on 06/17/2008, -4/+5And where are Republicans in all of this? You know, the ones who control the White House - and who controlled Congress from before 9/11 until less than a couple of years ago?
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Agreed. All of our congresscritters need to have their feet held to the fire over this issue, regardless of their party; and you're absolutely correct in pointing out that the majority of Republicans are unapologetic in their support of dictatorial power, as they still try to market themselves as the 'security' party.
I'll just opine that it's not a bad idea to do one party at a time in separate articles, however, as it applies more pressure to each party. If the headline was "Congress Ready to Gut the Constitution", then neither party has to respond, as they know that people are going to just assume that their opponents are just as bad. If we have separate stories for "Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution" and "Republicans Ready to Gut the Constitution", then it makes them respond to it as if it's a PR issue for their own party.
I still think it's healthy for voters to realize that the Democratic party is no panacea, and they can't assume that because they vote for the (D) instead of the (R), that they're going to get better representation. As always, people have to vote for the individual, not the party, and that takes some research and time investment. ALL politicians who support such gutting of our civil rights need to be held accountable in their next election.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Agreed. All of our congresscritters need to have their feet held to the fire over this issue, regardless of their party; and you're absolutely correct in pointing out that the majority of Republicans are unapologetic in their support of dictatorial power, as they still try to market themselves as the 'security' party.
- feoren, on 06/17/2008, -12/+11Hold on a ***** minute. The article names 7 congressmen, 4 republicans and 3 democrats. How the ***** did this become something the democrats are doing? There's not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, but there's a difference within them: a difference between good people and bad people. And Obama is one of the good people. I'm really ***** tired of all these people saying "open your eyes you idiots, the two parties are the same! Become enlightened like me and my high-and-mighty anti-establishment ***** that's hip today!" It's not about voting democrat or republican, it's about voting for someone you respect, someone who will make a good leader, someone who is the right person for the times. Obama is that person, so ***** whatever the other democrats or republicans are doing. By making a blanket statement about Democrats and linking that to Obama, you're feeding the two-party ***** you're so arrogantly railing against.
- notanidiot, on 06/17/2008, -9/+1Man, ***** the Constitution! I'll rip a hole in the middle of that sumbitch and start jamming my ***** through it, then skeet all over the damn thing!
Here's a thought, if there are no taxes at all, doesn't the government disappear? Who pays for the government without tax money? Does the Consitution allow a sales tax? So what do we have, anarchy? Who will protect the Constitution if we have no government, you dumb dumbs?
Furthermore, would it make you feel better if instead of making laws, they just kept adding amendments to the Constitution? Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution, to get rid of birthright citizenship (which the KKK loves), so would you all feel better if they amended the Constitution to specifically allow taxes, to allow foreign intervention, so on and so on?
Ease up Consticunts.- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6I don't normally respond to trolls, but you should look into the sixteenth amendment sometime, since that allows for the income tax. The point of these constitutional amendments is that there is a mechanism for changing the law of the land, and circumventing it with legislation that is incompatible with this law, just so they don't need ratification from two thirds of the states, is unacceptable. There is a due process, and it's there for a reason, but it's not being followed. Paul's amendments were never intended to actually be ratified; they were invariably in response to pressure to support bills that are counter to the constitution. The point he was trying to make was that the bills he was being asked to support were unconstitutional, so if they want to do what they say they want to, then they need to pass an amendment and get two thirds of the states on board.
- notanidiot, on 06/18/2008, -5/+1No, Paul's own website has him touting a plan to end birthright citizenship, which would require an amendment.
Changing a law does not require an amendment every time, otherwise congress's votes would mean nothing. But anyway, Paul says that the income tax is unconstitutional, and since its in an amendment as you say, seems like he must just be a senile old coot. - WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3I agree with you that eliminating birthright citizenship is both wrong and not going to happen (though I understand why he was making the argument). As for his view on the income tax, the argument he was making is that the sixteenth amendment is in violation of the fourth amendment, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS [emphasis mine], and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I'd say that having to demonstrate proof of your finances is an exception to the right to be secure in your papers, and so his criticism holds water. Note that he doesn't argue that this would alone invalidate the sixteenth amendment, and he recognizes the fact that it would take another amendment to end the income tax.
Look, I'm not going to argue every bit of legislation Paul has supported over his long congressional career, as there are many I disagree with. I personally have voted for Democrats in every previous presidential election I've participated in. I will without hesitation argue that Paul *was* by far the BEST candidate for president this time around, as he was the most unequivocal about supporting a humble foreign policy, in which we're not the world's police, about ending the counterproductive War on Drugs, about drastically reducing federal spending before we pop the Medicare and Social Security bubbles, and about voicing his concern about unchecked federal government power.
I consider myself to be a progressive decentralist, who wants to facilitate local solutions to problems, where the voters have more say over the way they're run. Even if Paul has supported some legislation that raised my eyebrow at times, those issues pale in comparison to the critical issues he addressed in a flawless way. So go ahead, pick your nits, but just know that you're helping to quash political support for some incredibly important issues that we're faced with, and which are not being properly addressed by the other candidates.
- notanidiot, on 06/18/2008, -5/+1No, Paul's own website has him touting a plan to end birthright citizenship, which would require an amendment.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6I don't normally respond to trolls, but you should look into the sixteenth amendment sometime, since that allows for the income tax. The point of these constitutional amendments is that there is a mechanism for changing the law of the land, and circumventing it with legislation that is incompatible with this law, just so they don't need ratification from two thirds of the states, is unacceptable. There is a due process, and it's there for a reason, but it's not being followed. Paul's amendments were never intended to actually be ratified; they were invariably in response to pressure to support bills that are counter to the constitution. The point he was trying to make was that the bills he was being asked to support were unconstitutional, so if they want to do what they say they want to, then they need to pass an amendment and get two thirds of the states on board.
- JDFrancis, on 06/17/2008, -7/+6Obama voted against retroactive immunity. Google it. McCain voted for it.
- rex84, on 06/18/2008, -4/+8Don't talk like that about the Baby-Jesus Obama!
- Tayls, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I thought the Constitution already has been gutted...hmmm.
- randumbusername, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1si se puede
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/17/2008, -16/+113To back that up, he did vote for the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act
- btschul, on 06/17/2008, -118/+189There are too many obama supporters on digg; this story isn't getting anywhere near the front page. campaignforliberty.org
- Stryder81, on 06/17/2008, -14/+46They are everywhere!
http://www.imgdash.com/uploads/3a0c738415..gif
>:-p- btschul, on 06/17/2008, -4/+17nice
- dagnome1984, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3They're asking for change!!!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155590
- JDenigma, on 06/17/2008, -10/+37It goes to show how typical hypocrisy is in human nature. Most people seem incapable of being objective thinkers. That also reminds me with respect to the items that MadKennyP above listed, number 2 was the suspension of habeas corpus. Well speaking of hypocrisy, notice how many of the left winger types who will criticize the Bush administration for that and rightly so, will at the same time be such sycophantic apologists of Abraham Lincoln who himself suspended habeas corpus? I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? It's not popular to criticize the presidents who are seen as the greatest amongst the great unwashed of society.
- chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -13/+10Lincoln was facing a rebellion. The exact circumstance in which the Constitution allows suspension of habeas corpus.
You fail.- marcusbrutus, on 06/17/2008, -3/+24That wasn't a Rebellion, that was an example of whole states legally seceding from the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and forming a competing one.
- chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -21/+4That question was settled in 1865 and you racists lost. Remember?
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -4/+9Seriously, nobody here was alive back then, so we can argue until the cows come home about whether it was justified or not. But the fact is nobody will know the exact circumstances and it matters ZERO anyhow.
The reality of OUR situation is that today's democratic representatives will talk the talk, but they will not walk the walk when it comes to protecting our right of Habeas corpus. They've done plenty to demonstrate this. - chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -16/+3*****. The fact that slavery is wrong isn't arguable.
The center-right Democrats are weak and foolish, but they they voted against the illegal war and they aren't the one's trying to strip habeas corpus from our legal system. They wouldn't need to defend it if the extreme right wasn't attacking it. - relic180, on 06/17/2008, -1/+12I really don't know what you're argument is exactly...
Slavery is wrong. Correct. Why did the ethical issues of slavery need to enter into a discussion about habeas corpus? They didn't. It was a definitional thing, that really can't be answered by anybody alive today. So... moving on...
The center-right democrats aren't "weak and foolish", they're compliant. That's the point. They SAY they want to fix things to politically posture themselves, but really they don't want to fix it. They're passively allowing HC to be stripped from the legal system, while paying lip service to what a travesty it is. The two parties are working toward a common goal, simply taking different routs to get there. - chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -17/+2"Why did the ethical issues of slavery need to enter into a discussion about habeas corpus?"
Slavery was the "state right" in question during the Civil War. I didn't make the OP try to justify the Republican attack on habeas corpus using Lincoln's constitutional use of suspension during a rebellion. I didn't make the other idiot claim that the Civil War wasn't a rebellion. I am simply pointing out that the Civil War settled the questions, both of "states rights" and of slavery.
I agree that the Democrats could do more than they are doing. I blame their cowardice for not aggressively pursuing charges against the criminals in the White House. They suck.
But the fact remains, the Democrats didn't get us into this situation. The Republicans did. These threats to our liberty are from the party of Ron Paul, the extreme right. The blame lies there. - vanimal, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6Blaming one party or another doesn't accomplish anything. It's the reason the Democrats haven't put a stop to the unpopular war, because they're counting on enough people blaming the Republicans showing up at the polls to increase their power. As long as people think like that, it will remain more politically advantageous to let the Republican's war continue rather than risk beginning the Democrat's withdrawal that might not go well. Both parties have had numerous opportunities to put a stop to the war.
- AugustusOsari, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5The Civil War was about sectionalism. Slaves were just something the north could get rid of to hurt the south. Nothing more, nothing less.
- JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Nice chico. Now reduced to calling Lincoln critics, racists. You're also playing word games in bringing up the word "rebellion" to say that that's what the South was guilty of. You apparently don't believe in secession which is what the South wanted, not rebellion. The North were the aggressors and besides it's in the rights of any patriot to rebel against a tyrannical government. In spite of what your little history textbooks told you, slavery was not at the forefront of the war. Sure, slavery was a contradiction of the very principles of our country and it was immoral, but that was a separate issue and was not justification for initiating that war that was only used to centralize more power with the federal government. You're just using excuses for your hypocrisy chico. Everything is right wing with you and the left wing is angelic to you. If that slavery was justification in your mind for the war and suspending habeas corpus then you should be consistent in defending Bush too whom you could say is using the ends to justify the means just like with the Civil War in that he's also trying to liberate slaves, but in another country. You can't have it both ways there chico. None of your clever little rationalizations will fly with me. The suspension of habeas corpus also wasn't the only bad thing about Lincoln. The guy was an out and out dictator in that war. He also had dissidents arrested and shut down newspapers. I suppose all that is ok with you because the ends justify the means, right? Gotta free some slaves, no matter the costs and how one goes about it, right? Right?
- AugustusOsari, on 06/17/2008, -6/+11I've posted several comments on Digg about how Abraham Lincoln was the beginning of the end for America.
But I guess I'm the only one who thinks that?- sodade, on 06/17/2008, -5/+9I am mostly a liberal and I totally agree that Lincoln was a criminal leader who caused a lot of needless death. When the states signed in to the Union, did they ever sign a contract saying that they couldn't only get out of the Union on pain of death? Slavery was never the real issue for either side.
- operatorc, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3No, but I'm sure many people will automatically assume you're racist for believing that. Lame, right?
- Brownds, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4@ AugustusOsari & Sodade
Ah you know the south fired the first shots starting the Civil War right? when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. (April 12, 1861) And the south wanted to secede because the Republican party opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office. So in fact slavery did have a lot to do with the war. You guys need to brush up on your history before commenting about history... - AugustusOsari, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5And Lincoln knew that that would happen and decided to move in (to Fort Sumter--he actually invaded the Confederacy, technically, so it was the north that was aggressive) anyway. You need to brush up on your history before commenting about history.
Seriously, the south was just going to let the Union man a fort in their country without consent? Yeah, right. Let's not even get into the fact that Lincoln taking office was one of the most important reasons behind the secessions...or that Lincoln (to an extent) and the Radical Republicans in congress (primarily) were essentially anti-Constitution in many ways--big government, throw out habeas corpus, claim that the south was rebelling when it was perfectly justified in its actions, et cetera.
Both sides were racist as all hell.Hell, Lincoln even held the personal belief that blacks were inferior to whites.
Only the north was unconstitutional, doing things *beyond its power* to fight the southerners.
The north wanted ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY: destroy the south and everything it believes in.
The lesser of two evils lost the Civil War, and that was that. - BabyWookie, on 06/17/2008, -6/+1Lincoln's only fault was the fact that he didn't punish those backwards, racist fags harshly enough. Still, next to FDR, he is the best president that we ever had.
- AugustusOsari, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Oh, just in case you need more evidence that it wasn't about slavery, Lincoln didn't actually free the slaves. He told the south to surrender or else the slaves would be freed. The south did not surrender, of course.
Also, in case you need more evidence that the north wanted to ***** the south over rather than anything else, Sherman's March to the Sea. 'Nuff said. - AugustusOsari, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Lincoln was a backwards, racist fag himself.
Also, he wanted to let most of the south off pretty damn easily (his war had already killed a ton of them, so he had to make himself look good somehow, right?) but congress actually stepped in and made it as bad as they did.
- satanatnmtedu, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2You really think Ron Paul is objective? You really think Paul cares abotu the Constitution? He thinks there is no separation of church and state. Paul thinks the founders were all Christians. Paul is NOT for the Constitution. If anything, Paul supporters are not thinking objectively.
- wentwj, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1Despite the fact that Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus wasn't the same as Bush's, Lincoln also managed to do more than his share of right things while in office. Bush, on the other hand, has nothing but a long history of dismantling what makes this country great.
- chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -13/+10Lincoln was facing a rebellion. The exact circumstance in which the Constitution allows suspension of habeas corpus.
- JDenigma, on 06/17/2008, -6/+41Oh and another example with respect to this hypocrisy subject given the hypocrisy of what gets dugg up or buried on digg, it's also amusing how the left were hypocrites about Bill Clinton's anti-terror and crime bills in the wake of the Timothy McVeigh bombing, but when the Bush administration supports these same anti-terror bills somehow it's suddenly awful and different with them and they come out of the woodworks. They didn't seem to have a problem with Clinton's foriegn interventionism in Somalia but bitch about Bush's interventionism. The republicans are also just as guilty of this hypocrisy too. The republicans bitched about Clinton's unconstitutional, invasive anti-terror crime bills and they bitched about Somalia and the needless use of troops as sacrificial lambs, but now suddenly when the great king Bush does it, somehow it's different and a ok!
See, it's never a matter of having principles and philosophy in your life. It's a matter of whether you're on the red or blue team. Rah rah rah sis boom bah go team go! My teams rubber your teams glue :-p Ah, hypocrisy reigns supreme in the human race. Don't you just love it boys and girls :-)- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -0/+18All of this simply illustrates to exhaustion that the only actual difference between the two parties are the rhetoric and the means. The ends are always the same.
I was going to make a joke about which color team I'm on, but all the different colors sound either racist or stupid so nevermind. - buba1243, on 06/17/2008, -10/+4I hated Clinton, I hate bush, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. I think Obama with his transparency bills might give America a chance but some of his policy's make me think. Either way he is way better then McCain.
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -3/+13That's what they want you to think. But he's not really. He would probably just do less damage on his way to the exact same ultimate outcome.
- operatorc, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0Obama is popular and he'll allow the puppeteers (Zionists) to get away with things that Bush cannot due to his embarrassing ratings. If McCain wins then, well, they won't need Obama after all.
- JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1buba1243
You at least sound like you're one of the reasonable Obama supporters, but I really wish you would examine his ideas closer and give further thought to this before you cast your vote for him. Don't buy into the notion that you HAVE to vote for someone. Frankly, I'm likely going to just stay home and not vote on election night. You're really being misled into thinking Obama is this innocent man who is going to clean things up for us. Please don't fall into that trap of naivete.
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -0/+18All of this simply illustrates to exhaustion that the only actual difference between the two parties are the rhetoric and the means. The ends are always the same.
- btschul, on 06/17/2008, -4/+9For the first time in a long time I am wrong, and for the first time since I can remember, I am glad to be wrong. (about this story making the front page)
- BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -7/+2Go worship your geriatric, creationist, theocratic, ultra-capitalist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, conspiracy theory-spewing WASP pussy doctor somewhere else. Ron Paul makes me sick.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3You know what makes me sick? Censorship. Douchebag.
- btschul, on 06/18/2008, -2/+4can you back up any of those claims? Thought not. Go back to sucking obama's dick you mindless sheep
- JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Babywookie
After having looked at several of your comments in this thread, just one question, how old are you? I'm thinking your alias with the word baby isn't that far off from reality. - BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1@JDenigma:
My age is in my profile, my daft friend. - BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1btschul:
Here I thought that it was common knowledge that the "Good Doctor" has, for many years, published an incredibly racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletter, in addition to currently being endorsed by all the major white nationalist groups and regularly having dinners with some ultra-con group, which includes many members who don't even try to hide their racism. I guess it stops being common knowledge if your shove your head far enough up your ass though. - JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Yeah, excuse me for forgetting to check your profile. I did after I posted my comment. 29 huh? So that makes you a man-child.
No one wants to listen to that old saw anymore about Ron Paul's alleged racism. That's all just obfuscation of the relevant issues to talk about. Keep ranting about that to yourself for all I care. - BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1@JDenigma:
Yes, I am a "man-child", because I hate your Pinochet-reincarnate, kooky, right-wing Internet cult leader. Keep ranting on about "freedom", "liberty", CFR, NWO, socialists, federal reserve, the illuminati and all that other good ***** that the Great Leader feeds you in his kool-aid. - JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3lol You're funny
Before you make assumptions about people as all fitting into the same group, it might interest you to know that I'm not one of these people who believes in things like the illuminati which you listed there and neither am I an Alex Jones fan. You guys assume we're all conspiracy obsessed nutjobs.
- JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1.
- BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -7/+2Go worship your geriatric, creationist, theocratic, ultra-capitalist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, conspiracy theory-spewing WASP pussy doctor somewhere else. Ron Paul makes me sick.
- Tryptomine, on 06/17/2008, -4/+14Dugg for irony.
- jgzman, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Indeed. I only get the front page feed, myself.
- jgzman, on 06/17/2008, -9/+3And what's wrong with that? This isn't Fox News, we're not 'fair and balanced.' We're loud and obnoxious, and we like what we like.
- an0nymous, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2http://digg.com/politics/Targeting_Steny_Hoyer_for ...
- julianwan, on 06/17/2008, -4/+10This story is on the front page
- BabyWookie, on 06/17/2008, -11/+3Piss off with this Ron Paul spam ***** already. ...***** conspiracy fags!
- starmanfalls, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2woo big bad girl. Show your ***** I mean brains.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -2/+4What's wrong? If it's not Obama spam, it's *****, eh? Enough people dugg this, and so it's on the front page. If you can't live with that, find some other site to hang out on, because Digg isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
- BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -5/+1Unlike Ron Paul, Obama is actually relevant and genuinely popular. Ron Paul and his cult of personality are just annoying, desperate and often creepy. The only reason that total garbage like this makes the front page front time to time, is because the cultists are very well organized on their survivalist forums and are good at gaming Digg.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5Well I've got some news for ya, buddy: if Paul wasn't popular to some degree, how would his stories be getting thousands of diggs? You think there are thousands of people trying to subvert digg for their own devious purposes, and then you have the gall to call them conspiracy [homosexuals]?
Paul's campaign was 100% grassroots, and is a harbinger of political campaigns to come. If you think that it takes media support to be a relevant politician, then you've got another thing coming as the internet becomes increasingly popular as a source of information. Trying to marginalize his supporters as cultists in favor of "relevant" political support just exposes you for the easily-led tool you are. The internet revolution is about the people creating their own reality, not conforming to someone else's. Either help put your imprint on the bit of reality you pass on, or stand aside and consume, but don't attack the people who are trying to fix this mess we're in by supporting candidates they actually believe in rather than the intellectually lazy 'lesser of evils' of the two main party candidates. - BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -5/+1You got me all wrong. I only sort of support Obama because he is the most progressive of the right-wingers currently running for the office of the president. I have actively supported Gravel and Kucinich. I genuinely believe that Ron Paul's personal beliefs and the ultra-right wing social agenda that he spreads are evil and dangerous, and I try to mock and discredit them at every opportunity. Yes, it's great that he is anti-war and non-interventionist, but even Hitler had positive attributes.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I also supported Kucinich and Gravel, though Paul was the best at articulating his positions in a clear and consistent manner (despite his faults). I personally think that one of the mistakes you might be making is believing that we must support a single ideology at the national and state levels. I believe that having someone like Paul at the federal level, and then electing progressives at the state level gives us the best of both worlds given our current political climate. I strongly feel that my representation at the federal level is so inadequate, that it's best to decentralize power so that it is exercised more locally, where there is a much more healthy balance between the number of voters and the number of representatives. This would give each of us a bigger say over how the government (in this case a local government) uses its power.
My solution is incomplete, as states with a poorer economy wouldn't have the same access to critical resources as those with a more robust economy, and so the ultimate solution would be to elect progressives who support the empowerment of localized authorities over federal ones, but that party has unfortunately not been invented yet. Given the current choices, however, the best way to increase my representation is to get the progressives at the local level, and minimalists like Paul at the federal level. Then, it's much more straightforward for organized voters to get policies changed for the better, since they're managed more locally, with a smaller critical mass needed to effect change. Then, as some states do smart things that benefit their citizens, there will be added pressure for other states to follow suit.
As it is now, I've learned that our federal representatives cannot be trusted to wield as much power as we've already given them. To argue that power needs to be further consolidated is borderline pathological. - BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1WiseWeasel:
Ok. So, which of their positions are Gravel and Kucinich are not exactly clear about? Was it the pulling out of Iraq right away part or the need for universal health care, the need to protect the environment, worker's rights, separation of Church and State, the woman's right to choose, equal rights for gays, eliminating the corporate influence in the government? What? - WiseWeasel, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Neither of them were clear about their economic policy, including plans for getting the national debt under control in a credible manner. Iraq and foreign policy is a draw between all three. As for legislating morality, Paul opposed the federal government having any say over the matter. And personally, a national health care system accountable to our corrupt congress scares the hell out of me. If there is to be universal healthcare, then it should absolutely be run by the states, where there's a chance that voters' voices might be heard. Eliminating corporate influence over government is done by cutting back their subsidies, thus making their money supply dependent on direct popular support. I'm totally with Paul on the concept of decentralizing more government power, and I would trust him more than any other candidate to not use federal power to oppress any group through federal intervention, including those you mention.
- JDFrancis, on 06/17/2008, -8/+6For the tenth time OBAMA VOTED AGAINST RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY.
- Stryder81, on 06/17/2008, -14/+46They are everywhere!
- Fangsinmybeard, on 06/17/2008, -59/+50Big brother is back and he has a friend, his name is Uncle ***** and he wants you to love him.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Yeah I know that guy from somewhere!
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3CHANGE please, looking for some Change
- Somnabot, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3...nickels, dimes, or quarters will do. No pennies.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3CHANGE please, looking for some Change
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Yeah I know that guy from somewhere!
- floatingorb, on 06/17/2008, -29/+7I think those telecomms are cool; Once, AT&T held my hand in warm water and made me pee frogs. -- (citation needed)
- stienster, on 06/17/2008, -20/+38curses. anger. fed-up. Thieves. Racketeers. Evil. Fodder.
- imightbewrong, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1curses. anger. fed-up. Thieves. Racketeers. Evil. Bantha Fodder.
- kokodhem, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1Consider the source before you spew bile.
- jesshls, on 06/17/2008, -46/+13Obama will make changes in America .. pray for that
- 1337chic, on 06/17/2008, -12/+6How about we do more than pray. It is time to get active in America. Obama has called for being active too.
- madmonkey300, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I want him to do his job first and vote against war resolutions like he's ***** supposed to.
Buried.
- madmonkey300, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I want him to do his job first and vote against war resolutions like he's ***** supposed to.
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -7/+10Wow, my hate for you seems to exists on many different levels. It's almost eerie.
- operatorc, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1Yeah, because prayer really makes a difference, right?
No, no it does not.- LOCK3D, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Well you could argue that it has a placebo effect in certain situations.
- operatorc, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0You do have a point there so I concede that, in a way, prayer can make a difference on people's emotional and mental state... but I can't see it making any sort of divine difference. :P
- operatorc, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0You do have a point there so I concede that, in a way, prayer can make a difference on people's emotional and mental state... but I can't see it making any sort of divine difference. :P
- LOCK3D, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Well you could argue that it has a placebo effect in certain situations.
- madmonkey300, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I have to ask, how does your brain even fit that thick ass skull of yours?
- 1337chic, on 06/17/2008, -12/+6How about we do more than pray. It is time to get active in America. Obama has called for being active too.
- rewinn, on 06/17/2008, -13/+241RTFA. Telecom immunity is Bush's idea. Too many Democrats are going along with it, but it's the Democrats that have blocked it so far ... as they should. Of course, we have to hold them ALL accountable, regardless of party.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -10/+31They're on the same team.
- ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6If they were on the same team, we wouldn't be discussing this right now as the Democrats would have given them telecom immunity 285 days ago when this fight first started.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4if they weren't on the same team, it would have been a solid no.
- ZenMojo, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6If they were on the same team, we wouldn't be discussing this right now as the Democrats would have given them telecom immunity 285 days ago when this fight first started.
- JDenigma, on 06/17/2008, -5/+37The only, I repeat the ONLY reason why many democrats on the surface may seem to be opposing Bush on this is simply because of political posturing. They're doing it to make themselves look good amongst the electorate so they can get more votes for THEIR TEAM. Watch though, if they get Obama in the Oval Office, they'll be singing a different tune and will no longer be so quick to obstruct such things. They're just doing it for show. It's all about the TEAM you're on to maintain the illusion. That's one good thing about gridlock at least.
- honesttussey, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6I've read your comment several times and I still don't understand it.
You're saying that certain Dems are opposing Bush just for appearance and if Obama gets into office they will gladly push his legislation through even if it was no different than bushes?- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5Sounds like you got a pretty good grasp of it.
And it's a majority of Dems, not just 'certain' ones. Dems that make it into power and stay there only do so because they play ball with the big 2 headed party. - JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Uh, then maybe you need to improve your reading comprehension. Some people really need to have things spoon fed to them. I hate sycophants like you.
- honesttussey, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Wow you're really an *****. I was just asking you to clarify what you said. On second thought, go ***** yourself.
- relic180, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5Sounds like you got a pretty good grasp of it.
- jhaks, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3That is a lot of speculation and assumption. How did you get all this secrete insider information?
- JDenigma, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Get back with me when you have something concrete to say that isn't snotty and insulting.
- gerrylazlo, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1Wow, without a shred of evidence to support you, you can both read minds AND predict the future. My hat's off to you.
- honesttussey, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6I've read your comment several times and I still don't understand it.
- quesi, on 06/17/2008, -10/+31They're on the same team.
