What is Digg?129 Comments
- TheBogie, on 10/12/2007, -16/+64The dems need to get themselves some sack, like Mike Gravel.
Mike Gravel has a pair of premium grade brass balls in his pants.
If any of the higer ranking dems had even one testicle like Mike Gravel's, Bush would have been out in January. - Alex76, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41He is right, but the Dems are afraid that Bush still has influence in the bible belt and with conservatives, so they dare not take him head on...
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29I think impeaching cheney would be just as good as impeaching bush without all the above baggage.
- conjuror1972, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Im glad my country doesn't have a "bible belt".
- axel2k1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I'm glad that so many people think that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their actions. I'm equally thrilled that people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. However, I'm not thrilled by the fact that we live in a two party system, consisting of Nazi Republicans and Pussy Democrats.
I'll get buried for this criticism, but I feel this viewpoint should probably be expressed. Republicans seem to have the idea that "staying the course," when you're headed toward immediate disaster is a viable strategy. Despite being "fiscally conservative," they apparently have forgotten a basic business-school principle of "sunk cost." Democrats, on the other hand, have the right idea that the current strategy isn't working, but they can offer no viable solution. Even if they could, the most moxie they'd be able to muster would be to pass some nonbinding resolution at which Republicans in power would scoff.
It's like we have a playground bully beating all the smaller kids into submission, and only two groups with a "solution" that anyone is listening to. The first suggests that regular beatings are good for you, that it's a necessary part of being able to play on the playground and the second group is standing on the sidelines saying "stop that, that's not right!" - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@missinglink "So please. Impeach away while I look at my watch and laugh. How are those first 100-hours going?"
In missinglink's world, making sure your party looks good is ever so much more important than doing what's good for the nation. - robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20I think part of the reticence to impeach as a whole is that Democrats largely voted and supported the war, and are equally culpable for getting the country stuck in the current morass. Second, they don't want impeachment to be seen as payback for Clinton's impeachment. Finally, they don't want to detract from the upcoming 2008 elections, and reinvigorate the Republican base (who may stay home in large numbers).
Furthermore, there is nothing that clearly rises to an impeachable and convictable offense (yet) and will either force resignation of Cheney and/or Bush or conviction. Articles of Impeachment mean nothing without the Senate voting to remove the person(s) from office.
Basically what we have is a case of bad management and poor decision making. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to cause an administration to fall without clear cut criminal behavior. There is no mechanism for a "no confidence" vote of the legislature that is binding on the administration.
There may well be and probably are crimes, but it is difficult to prove since the war making powers of the commander in chief are given great leeway by the courts, and SCOTUS tends to shy away from political questions where the Congress could act. - SteveCUBE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15They deserve to be punished and made example of.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17I'm sure the fact that Bush's approval rating is damn low has NOTHING to do with the sheer number of anti-Bush articles. Nah, it can't be that- it must be Digg's liberal slant.
- veganoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10christ.....JUST THROW THE BUMS OUT
- LLLSecretChimp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but impeachment is kind of like being indicted. Clinton was impeached, but then not convicted.
- Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"So please. Impeach away while I look at my watch and laugh. How are those first 100-hours going?"
Impeachment was not one of the items in the 100 Hour Plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_hours
It's also important to note the 100 Hour Plan is a House of Representatives-only agenda. - deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Can we impeach George W. Bush now?
Jesus, what is it going to take to get that idiot impeached?
Someone give George a blow-job already.
In all seriousness, it will be a stain in American history if George W. Bush does not get impeached.
Let's get it started. Spread the word ... http://www.democratgiftshop.com/impeach_george_w_bush - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11What message will this send to other aspiring douchebags? "You can do whatever the ***** you want in the last two years of your office, we'll just let you slide since you're on the way out anyway"?
- faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@unpluggedboy...Impeachment does not remove them. They would then have to be convicted. That is the process of removing them. By that time, the election will be upon us, or possibly even over.
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Impeach Cheney, then impeach Bush. Then go after them both for War Profiteering and war crimes.
- Outdoordude01, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20But the Bible Belt's influence is weaning
- DEEd33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Impeach them both. Lets start anew with a Commander in Chief that 39% of the population doesn't feel like impeaching.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It is time to amend the Constitution so we the people have the power to hold our leaders accountable and to impeach them immediately when popular and necessary. We must not forget that public officials serve at the pleasure of the people.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13What is this the 50th anti bush story on Digg today?
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Contact Nancy Pelosi about this at http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html.
Contact your Congress people using http://rnc.org/GetActive/WriteElectedOfficials.aspx. - fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6now if caption Kirk goes insane it takes Spock 1.3 seconds to relive him of duty.
if GW goes insane it takes 2 years to relive him of duty ?
things that make you hhmmmm...... - jdthree, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Hey missinglink, please educate us libs with some of your brilliant right wing ideas that "your" administration has come up with over the past 7 years.
- razor150, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If a President commits war crimes the how and why doesn't matter. Even the President isn't above the law.
- MercedRocks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Is anybody else sick and tired of hearing about those idiots Bush and Cheney day in and day out? God I cant wait till 2008... :(
- migbike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I wish the democrats (or republicans for that matter) had the balls to stand up and hold people accountable for this blatant disregard of the constitution. What kind of message does it send to other politicians and future presidents when someone can basically trample all over everything our country was founded on and not even get a second glance. Impeachment probably wouldn't solve anything, but at least it would be a pretty strong declaration of "you ***** up." At least it shows that there are people in our government who aren't completely willing and able to bend the american people for fear of "making a fuss."
- LucidOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are soooooo in denial! There is an abundance of evidence that felony crimes have been committed by this administration. The investigations which are going on right now will show that conclusively. Some people are so brainwashed that they will never believe it though. You sound like one of them!
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3isn't the NSA warrant less wiretaps a impeachable offense. or the water boarding "technique" we use.
- chukd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31. you have to prove they did the crimes. this is difficult because once a person gets elected president all investments go into a blind trust that manages the stocks. so unless you have specific evidence of a payoff you have no proof of a crime.
2. if you did get the impeachment and got to the hearing for removal from office you need a 2/3's vote of the senate. looking at the current numbers, it wouldn't happen. - mlock2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5They should impeach him why not? I don't get why we are not doing anything if we don't than are we all not just as responsible for this like he is ? We did elect him didn't we?
- Mercury821, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I would love to see Bush and Cheney both booted, but come on. If there isn't even enough support in Congress to overturn a Bush veto, how on earth would the Senate actually convict and remove him from office? I just don't see it happening. I'm all for the impeachment, but the Dems just don't have the balls right now.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I remember watching Powell try to sell Iraq to the United Nations. It just confirms that I can read people very well.
He looked like a man who wanted to come out and say something, but he feared displeasing his masters. How long you think it'll be before Powell himself comes out and says that State told the administration that it was all BS? - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jjsays, So what is you're point, how many people have been lost in Kosova, how much did that cost.
If you really gave a ***** about the troops you would be doing something beside bitching on DIGG. - razor150, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Clinton was impeached for Perjury, and it doe sounds bad if you don't look below the surface. Looking below the surface you find he committed perjury because lied about a blow job in a show trial that was meant to embarrass him. It is no coincidence it was eventually thrown out. While perjury may be looked upon the same way in the eyes of the Law, it does look different in the eyes of the people. That is why the majority of the people still think it was wrong the the Republicans impeached and tried to remove Clinton from office.
In comparison Clinton didn't knowingly lie about intelligence that got us in a ruinous and unnecessary war in the middle east like Bush did. What Bush did was far more offensive, even if you don't think what he did was illegal. - empirefalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am amazed at the at the American people. Here you have an illegal president killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children everyday, placing people under arrest and secret detention everyday for opposition to his illegal and bloodthirsty policies, destroying any credibility your nation may have in the world….AND THE PEOPLE DO NOTHING! Shame.
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Impeachment IS important. Even if it doesn't get a conviction it at least moves towards one. America needs to show that it does not fit the impression that Mr. Bush gives to the world. And especially that it won't tolerate the kind of BS that has been forced upon it by Bush. And that it doesn't want another Bush.
And quit saying there's no evidence of any crime. The U.S. House of Representatives has posted a handy, searchable reference of 237 clear examples (released in '04, though I don't know when they became part of the House's website) of how Bush and company ***** us into this needless and devastating war: http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/ (thanks to Digger 'genesee' for posting it recently) - chukd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All congress does is investigate. I am tired of exploratory committees and investigations. all they do is let politicians off the hook for not really caring about the given subject.
- ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fictional characters are not based in real life situations. On T.V., problems resolve themselves in less than an hour...complex problems take 5 to 6 hours...those are called mini-series.
- sven007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If the war is legal (as in only defend instead of preemptive strikes, aswell as following the guidelines and procedures), then there will be no war crimes to worry about.
And don't anyone bring up "but they were going to attack us" NO ONE WILL ATTACK THE COUNTRY HOLDING EVERY SINGLE NUKE IN THE WORLD. an attack by a major country on the US is suicide. - pongjinn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7It's okay, I'm sure conservatives will make their own digg soon enough, just like they did with wikipedia and youtube.
- hydratedsquash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, they probably have committed crimes while high too!
- bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Every lie he's told a president has been under the presidential oath... Didn't he take an oath when he took the job? An oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution or something like that? He's busted just on that one alone. And how about the spying on Americans crap that was illegal besides. And I'm sure there are lots of other infractions that were made during the process of screwing America in the butt with an unsanded broom handle. Impeaching is a way to help bring them into the spotlight.
- LucidOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Cheney's impeachment is already in the works. The evidence which will be uncovered in his trial will be more than enough to indict all of them for capital crimes including treason. The dark days of "W" are drawing to a close!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4so if the Iraq war last another 6 years we will have gone 12 years with 6000 KIA. That is a victory boys.
12 year of combat against our enemies and it will have only cost 1 trillion, maybe.
That's a victory boys. - RedShirtNumber2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If we let Bush and company get out of office without paying a price for what they've done we will never have an administration in office that can be trusted again. They will see what Bush got away with and become increasingly blatant in their abuse of the constitution and the public trust until we are left with a dictatorship.
- jdthree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"You don't know me jdthree, so be careful assuming that you know how I think, how I interract with liberals or how I feel about any particular issue that I do not directly address."
Hold on there tough guy, I simply asked a question. If you are unable to answer then...... that's your problem. - Frenchy79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Isn't anyone worried of the precedent that's being set for future presidents by not impeaching Bush/Chenney?
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What happened to the prohibition on comparing Bush to Clinton?
I thought Digg agreed that it was going to put these comparisons to rest to defend bad decisions. - gazwilwah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bush like Clinton and Reagan etc.. are all just puppets for the gangsters who run America.
The people who run the US government are businessmen, we're talking Oil and the selling of Arms.
This Is why the US government has attacked 50 countries since ww11 and are currently on a mission to control the worlds Oil.
The New World Order Is here just like Daddy Bush predicted In 1991 on september the 11th. - edverb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2//It appears this Marxist idiot above (edverb), is insinuating that Bushie 41, was in office///
Listen you wacakaloon....I'm not insinuating anything, I'm flat out telling you. Bush 41 was in office. Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it.
The incident at Ruby Ridge occurred in August 1992. Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993.
Do you understand the concept of linear time...or is that a "Marxist" plot too? -
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is