What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
80 Comments
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -11/+61Several years too late, if you ask me, but better late than never.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37If Bush and Cheney go through their term till 2008 unpunished, then it will set the cogs in motion that all future leaders can get away with this kind of mischief. Bush and Cheney need to be punished so future leaders know We the People will not tolerate this from our elected officials.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30@ doctorfungi
Justice is never a waste of time. - Skeptic1970, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Wake me up when there is someting actually happening. This is the 3rd story I have seen on the front page of digg about how someone will be filing articles of impeachment. Let me know when it happens.
- yogione, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Now is the time to impeach for several reasons:
1. The public must be made aware of the crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed and will continue to commit
2. It re-establishes the rule of the Congress according to the Constitution,
3. It will move the country towards ending torture and restoring habeas corpus
4. it will help restore the trashed system of checks and balances in our government
Read what some of the impeachable violations they can be charged with are:
United States vs. George W. Bush et al: Former Federal Prosecutor Drafts Indictment Against the President
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/08/158219
This is about restoring the rule of Constitutional Law in America.
Also, everyone should write Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and tell them that our support for them is dependent on whether they get on board and pursue impeachment of Dirty Dick and Georgie Boy.
There is really no good excuse for Nancy Pelosi to just randomly declare that impeachment is off the table. It can only be because she's covering Bush's butt. And if that's true, that itself needs to become a political item that works against her. She has to come to realize why she was made speaker - to get rid of Bush and Cheney.
It is historically important to destroy Bush and Cheney's names and make their pictures synonomous with crime and corruption for future generations, in order to help protect our country from people like them in the future.
This not a likeability test. These men have committed very serious crimes, and have KNOWINGLY subverted the Constitution to gain personal power and influence. They have ON PURPOSE, KNOWINGLY, and WITH MALICIOUS INTENT broken the law and disregarded their oaths to protect the Constitution and serve the people.
The public needs to fully understand that these are not nice people. They KNOW they are evil, and the choose to be evil in order to pursue power and wealth.
Especially in the case of Cheney, Rove, and David Addington. These men know history. They know what the Constitution says, and especially in Addington's case, they are experts in Constitutional Law and the history of its interpretation.
With that kind of knowledge, the decision to disregard the Constitution and violate the law has to made on purpose, with full knowledge and intent to commit crimes.
They need to be nailed on it. NOW.
Nancy Pelosi has no reason to be speaker of the House unless she gets on board with this. She should be replaced by someone who wants to do the necessary job. Otherwise she goes down in history as a Democrat who colluded with Bush and Cheney by giving them political cover to continue to commit crimes and violate their oaths. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Impeaching Clinton was typically lame, conservative stupidity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Is this going to hamper the Cheney-Rumsfeld 2008 ticket?
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14you're under the impression that clinton was impeached and nothing happened?
he was acquitted, but not many people heard apparently.
if cheney and bush are successfully impeached, there will be repurcussions. namely: less blood for oil, less death worldwide, a greater potential for peace, a chance to return to the Law of the Constitution of the United States of America and the prosperity its wisdom bestows upon its citizens, and a greater chance those citizens will better world neighbors. - ijustfloat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Come on... this will at least be a minor annoyance to Cheney. Frankly, that's better than nothing.
- Grumby24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'll believe it when I see it.
- ElbridgeGerry, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"Sign up for Action Alerts"
Do we get a code ring? - Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5your 4th reason is a really good reason. Giving someone 2 years as VP to gain some momentum into the primaries would be bad. but on the other hand why would a legitimate republican candidate align themselves with Bush knowing his approval ratings are basically crap. Would you want to try and talk to the public when they know you were hand picked by your good buddy George to be VP.
If Cheney goes down look for someone who has no presidential aspirations to become president - OblivionsPuppet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Your rambling dude seriously, Bush is just doing whatever other president does. He's exercising the collective power selectively as he sees it, now I want to say the next part loud.
CLINTON DID IT TO!
Slick Willy wasn't some angel who walked a clean path, it was his lax responses in the 90's that gave Al-Qaeda the freedom to plan 911, and now it's Bush's stupidity that is allowing them to plan another.
The only reason the Democrats are whining about Iraq is because it's not like a Hollywood movie where Chuck Norris can go flying in, topple the evil dictator, and peace shall reign.
Both parties are drinking from the same cup of collective stupidity,. - aresef, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Just Cheney? Not the entire cabinet? Well, I guess it's a start.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Apparently, despite the evidence to the contrary diggers believe he is the messiah come to save them from the repubes.
The publicity stunt is working already and I'm almost certain no one will answer when asked, why else would he be waiting until now to do this? - MikaelMN, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Contact us and we will let you know which Representatives are on the fence and should be inundated with phone calls to get them to honor their oaths to support and defend the Constitution against the worst domestic enemies to it this nation has ever known.
www.ImpeachforPeace.org
Sign up for Action Alerts and you'll be the first to know what you can do to restore Democracy to this nation. - funkspiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Go Dennis! Go Dennis!
- clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4According the article he postponed the date he was going to introduce the articles because of the West Virginia shootings. Why should that have anything to do with what is going on in Congress? It doesn't. The man is only interested in press coverage and he would have been drowned out by the Tech shooting if he did not wait.
- niko8778, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i'll believe in when i see it, but huzzah if its true. Maybe they'll further disgrace bush as well and impeach him, considering the numerous times he's been caught lieing on film anyway
- SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think it is just fitting that people want to characterize this as "vindictive" or "payback for Bill Clinton"...I guess there is no reason why JUSTICE should come into the picture. I mean, it isnt like the Clan lied to the entire nation, hell the world about Iraq...or 9/11, its not like they have made obscene amounts of money for their cause of funding their EXTREMISM...its not like they have ***** on the Constitution, the Military, or IRAQ, its not like they have violated any major laws...its not like they have conspired with RIGHT wing propagandist to make their crimes an issue of "liberal media" instead of about the true nature of their beast. Many of you so called "PATRIOTS" are responsible for the murder of your children and loved ones, KNOW THAT.
Its okay though, you all have fun. Im just gonna sit back and pray for all your souls. Thank You Very Much!!! - SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3is that the best fall back you can come up with? That everyone is saying he masterminded everything? I dont know anyone who says that, except people like you trying to take the attention away from the truth...dont worry big boy, it will come out some day...there are plenty of players, they know who they are, hell, maybe you do to Mr. Apologist and Spinmeister...
No one is saying hes the mastermind, just the puppet whose strings are pulled at the LEAST...and noone is saying the GOVERNMENT as a whole conspired all of this...but it is a CLEAR FACT that the people who have attempted to STRANGLE the law do have ULTERIOR motives and they do NOT coincide with Rule of Law or Freedoms of Democracy...they couldnt even tell the truth about the damn war and had to make that another crime... Your post is more than dissingenuous. Shame on you kid. - gthrank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3About bloody time that someone got impeachment moving. It's a ***** system that we have to wait for 4 years while our country declines before these all-powerful criminals can be removed.
- SuperChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@knomevol
stated in part "you're under the impression that clinton was impeached and nothing happened?
he was acquitted, but not many people heard apparently."
Not exactly sport - On Saturday 19 December 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, becoming only the second President in U.S. History, and the only man popularly elected as President to have been so charged. The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).
Although the impeachment process succeeded at the level of the House of Representatives, without the Senate's confirming action in this matter, no further action was taken. - mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Perhaps the most pointed of these was a July 18, 2001 letter from the Comptroller to the Vice President. It noted that GAO had "been given 77 pages of miscellaneous records purporting to relate to these direct and indirect costs. Because the relevance of these records is unclear, we continue to request all records responsive to our request, including any records that clarify the nature and purpose of the costs." (Emphasis added.)
Cheney's False Statement About the Responsive Documents Was Plainly Intentional
Despite receiving this letter, Cheney still claimed to Congress, a few weeks later, on August 2, that responsive documents had been produced.
Of course, Cheney is a busy man. Yet there can be no question as to whether he was aware of the July 18, 2001 letter from the Comptroller complaining about the 77 pages of documents' being unresponsive: He even attached it to his own August 2 letter to Congress, as part of a chronology. And again, he personally signed that August 2 letter.
Nor can there be any question that Cheney knows what it means to produce responsive documents - and not to do so. In the same paragraph of the August 2 letter in which he claims he was responsive to the Energy Task Force request, he makes a lesser claim with respect to another GAO request - stating that there, he had merely "provided substantial responses." (Emphasis added.)
Plainly, Cheney knows the difference between being responsive; offering a substantial response; and sending insulting non-responsive materials, featuring unexplained phone bills, columns of unidentified figures, and a pizza receipt.
Thus, Cheney's claim to have produced responsive documents was a false statement and, all evidence suggests, an intentional one. That means it is also a criminal offense - a false statement to Congress. (In a previous column, I discussed the false statements statute and its application.)
GAO's Polite Tone Belies The Shocking Evidence Its Report Offers
The straight arrows at GAO were no doubt horrified that the Vice President of the United States, who is the Constitutional presiding officer of the U.S. Senate, would deliberately mislead the Congress with such blatant misinformation.
The Report quietly - but tellingly - notes that the Vice President's team "solicited input from, or received information and advice from nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, if the Vice President is not trying to cover up the fact that he met with big energy interests - including past contributors - and allowed them a large role in settling our nation's energy policy, why all the secrecy ? That is what other observers have suspected - and what has been rumored from the beginning. Thanks to Cheney's obfuscation, we still can't know for certain. Yet thanks to GAO, we do now know for certain that he lied to Congress to cover up something, and there is little doubt in my mind as to what he is hiding. "
Source:
John Dean, former Counsel to the President of the United States
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Source: United States Declaration of Independence
Has Mr. Cheney not abused the congress and the people in this matter?
Is it not time to provide a new guard for our future security?
Is impeachment not the Constitutionally proscribed remedy for such abuses?
What are we waiting for?
These things don't arrive to the citizens in the mail in a fancy invitation; we citizens are responsible to initiatiate the proper constitutional remedy of Impeachment.
The protection of our Constitution is, at the bottom line, the DUTY of every citizen and member of government and military. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ah the dreaded ad hominem attack.
I do know better.
And as you are posting down here, who is the coward little boy? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone know what the charges will be?
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2finally gonna get the bastard
- AnaHadWolves, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20Ladies and gentlemen, stop and take a deep breath: we do NOT need to impeach Dick Cheney. It is a bad idea for several reasons, including:
(1) it will take time away from other pressing things the Democratic majority needs to pass.
(2) it looks vindictive and simply a payback for Bill Clinton's mistreatment at the hands of the Repooplicans.
(3) it plays into the hands of the Repooplicans who said that a democratic majority would do just that: focus on gridlock rather than on making the lives of Americans better
(4) most importantly, it would allow Bush to select a NEW VP who would, therefore, be a leading contender for the '08 election as a Presidential candidate. No, let snarling and nasty Dick Cheney continue to be the face of the Repooplicans; he helps us with the electorate far more by simply being there than being removed.
As the Shao Lin master used to say in the old "Kung Fu" TV series..."patience, grasshopper, patience." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a brilliant move by Kuccinich. He never would have gotten attention before. However, by doing this he is in the forefront, being seen as somebody doing something big, something that hits on frustrations many people have felt ( Cheney ). It is good for the Democrats at large too, any exposure Cheney gets is bad exposure for him, the administration, and the republican party going into an election cycle.
The only thing that could foul it up is if the stress makes Cheney sick. Then the democrats look like bullies - jonathono2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dont care what the motive for filing is. I don't care if has any actual effect. I don't care if its a waste money. I don't care if its a waste of time. Edit/ I don't care if its a "buzzword" and by the way i hate how saying "buzzword" sarcastically has become a buzzword.
At least history will know what a ***** asshat this man has been. - minusonebit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cant wait to get rid of him. But why stop with him? Lets keep right on going up the chain...
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9He is absolutely right, this is a publicity stunt by a small name.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"1. The public must be made aware of the crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed and will continue to commit"
That isn't a problem, the Democrats won't stop bitching about every little move. If George Bush wiped his nose on the bottom of the oval office desk there'd be a media circus and democrat *****. They don't need impeachment to inform America; if that is the only way they can get that point across then they are worse leaders than Bush & Co.
"2. It re-establishes the rule of the Congress according to the Constitution,
3. It will move the country towards ending torture and restoring habeas corpus"
You give the dems (or any politician for that matter) too much credit here. The only goal of a politician come election runups is to get reelected. Democrats and republicans alike will make enough of a show out of this to guarantee a win next election then immediately go back to their pre-bush antics, which are just as politically motivated as Bush & co.
"4. it will help restore the trashed system of checks and balances in our government"
The system of checks and balances are fine... but our politically motivated congress have no interest in that system until it benefits them. This is not a failure of the syste, it is a failure of the people behind it. - evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are very bad people? And I am pretty sure one of them is a witch.
- Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Freedom hating socialist?
I mean really? That's all you got? Couldn't you at least have the spine to say what you are trying to say which is "Communist" (using the SCD - Standard Conservative Dictionary - definition which means "n. 1. Anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to have some social programs aimed at helping the poor. 2. Anyone who might want to consider cutting back on social programs aimed at helping the rich and multinational corporations. 3. Anyone not Republican. 4. Any Republican who questions any party stance).
I mean if the only tool you have in your rhetorical arsenal is name calling, why not use the term you mean instead of trying to confuse the subject. After all the only people who you're going to convince are those who already agree with you, and I am worried that "Freedom Hating Socialist" might have too much subtext (and Syllables) for many of them to parse it properly although I suppose a lot of them probably have the latest version of the SCD (released yesterday for the Alberto hearing) and might look it up but why risk it? - skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@BohicaTwentyTwo : I think they realized that they have no power to push any bills through with their slim majority and a veto waiting for them at the white house. They've all but given up on even discussing new legislation at this point. Thus, they're just the "endless base-less investigations congress" ;)
- AnaHadWolves, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's review, shall we "OblivionsPuppet"?:
Clinton's venture into Bosnia, et cetera, was a mission to prevent more genocide. The UN approved of the mission and we were joined by many countries. The mission had a definition and an exit-strategy. In short, it was a humanitarian mission that was well-planned and well-executed by our President, our allies and our military.
Bush, on the other hand, invaded Iraq based on lies and mis-information, with scant support from other countries, an extremely poor plan for a post-invasion occupation and zero planning for exit. Mired there now, Bush refuses to see the obvious, fires military commanders who do not agree with HIS "vision" of Iraq and muddles along, sacrificing many of the best and brightest of our military men and women for his obstinacy.
THAT'S the difference between Clinton in Bosnia and Bush in Iraq. President Clinton did the right thing; George Bush continues to compound his error.
Big freakin' diff! - ericatdigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9PUBLICITY STUNT....
PUBLICITY STUNT....
PUBLICITY STUNT....
PUBLICITY STUNT....
PUBLICITY STUNT....
..this guy is just trying to get his name out there. aside from wanting to impeach cheney (which nobody likes) what else has he done? this guy is just wanting media attention. - delaen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You're out of your mind jaymoon.
It wouldn't take nearly that long. While it's a nice thought, anyone who really thinks anything will come of this is not paying attention. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4yay!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Oh noes! He doesn't follow bush like a blind man on a lease... He must hate freedom...
- dadothree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1as a member of the district kucinich "represents," i'd like to point out that the guy is regarded as a complete stooge in his home state, even in the northeast ohio democratic stronghold he enjoys. the guy keeps getting re-elected, but even the dems look at each other wondering how it is happening.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I can only assume since this Congress has given up on trying to be the "most ethical congress" ever, they are now trying to become most "do nothing congress" ever. This bill will go nowhere and waste more time. Here's to a Republican Congress in 2008. "Gentlemen, to evil."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is that the best you can come up with? A bunch of unsubstantiated rhetoric?
Kid? Chances are I am older than you are. - SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@davev
unsubstantiated my ass...haha, you are such a coward. If you are older than me, that makes you an even more pathetic excuse for a human being...you should KNOW better. - omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's hard to get through articles from this site. Do they have to have their name in bold, red, capital letters throughout each article?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unless, of course, he is acquitted of the charges. At which point, Kuccinich and the rest of the Democratic party will look like asshats for wasting the time and money.
- IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3As usual the over-dramatic liberals on Digg with their usual nonsense. Bush or Cheney will not be impeached because there is no real crimes committed. It's time for democrats and liberals to move on with their hate and emotional driven "facts".
- LeeSoong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dennis Kucinich?
Forget him. He ran for President until it got hard, then he quit.
He is a double time loser, wouldn't even face the music of his own failures.
He just wants to grab attention with outlandish statements and ridiculous ideas.
Incredible in the worst way, an annoying distraction in the land of mature politicians.
Please send Dennis Kucinich to Baghdad to sweep the street corners outside the Green Zone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Sadly, you are both right.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is