What is Digg?140 Comments
- httpgeek, on 10/10/2007, -17/+33Right like congress has done anything it said it was going to do post election...
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Do you realize that httpgeek is probably not even in the 8th grade yet?
- AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I say they impeach everyone in all branches of government and start anew.
- mattc908, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19Ooo Former Reagan Aide......... we should all listen to him........for his high status of Former Reagan Aide
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There is no lame-duck status exception to impeachment. Even impeaching Bush/Cheney on the very last day would be absolutely worth it. The point is that there has to be accountability. Future Presidents need to be made to know that they will be held to account if they behave contrary to the Constitution.
- badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Left wing Democrat? The man served under President Reagan! Ya know the one that Rdy Giluliani and Mitt Romney demagogue about at almost every debate. How in the hell can you say this man is a Left-wing? God lord next thing you know these Neo-cons will be claiming that Barry Goldwater was a communist.
The real conservatives are taking the party back from the neocons. - juststeve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Ummmm...how about the fact that dems rolled over for Bush's blank wireless check. Likely they legalized everything that had been breached prior.
Game over, reset board.
oh wait..there's no reset. - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -16/+22httpgeek: Go take a Poly-Sci class because you're woefully ignorant of what powers the Dems currently have with the votes they have in Congress. All they can do investigate & possibly withhold funds (maybe). The Republicans & the White House do stonewall every effort they've put forward, in case you were asleep. You should learn the basics that used to be taught in the 8th grade before you go inaccurately shooting down the entire Democratic party, especially when they have kept the vast majority of their pre-election promises, which can't ever be said for the Republicans, except giving the richest 2% huge tax cuts, just like Al Gore warned of.
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Congressional inaction would make these lawmakers as guilty as Bush. All political considerations need to be put aside, and the unlawful activities of this administration must be stopped before the Constitution is eroded to the point of no return.
Congress must act. - 00z003, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9impeach congress
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5only if our enemies are the american public
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5ah, the Clinton defense
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -2/+7b-b-but Clinton
- doconnor5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Um, Sparky, that was Paui Craig Roberts who talked about the false flag.
Get your facts straight first, then you can distort them as much as you want. - badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Stevanoski your comments are some of the least skillfull and the most devoid of facts on digg. You bring up Bill Clinton on almost every comment you make. What the ***** does Bill ***** Clinton have to do with Bush's illegal wiretapping? And then you say " you love him as your hero". Who the ***** are you talking to? Are you really suggesting that the majority of diggers "love" Bill Clinton? I mean you complain about all the Ron Paul supporters and I doubt you could find one Paul supporter that has anything but destain for Bill Clinton. Please try to make substantive comments because your making yourself look like a total idiot. I also think its funny that , no actaully its sad that for the graphic beside your name you use the Continental Naval flag. Do you even know what "Dont Tread On Me Means"? I mean how ignorant can one person be? If your going to defend the worst President in American History for ***** sake you have to do better than injecting Bill Clinton into every defense you make. The most sad part of it all is that your probably a grown as man yet you have the mind and intellect of a bratty 14 year old You think that anyone that disagrees with President Bush MUST like Bill Clinton. That assertion is plainly asinine and you use it as a cop out to dodge actual discussion of the issue at hand. GROW THE ***** UP! And for the record I think Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are crooks, although they didnt do near as much damage to your country as this latest moron has. Ron Paul 2008!.
- ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Yeah no kidding, Iran-Contra anyone? Only the single largest breach of the constitution in American history...somehow even more so than the current NSA wiretaps and data mining.
- Parker307, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If he's not impeached it will set a precedent for future presidents so disregard the law. You don't want that.
- badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes I do know what neoconservatism is? But that wasnt the point of my comment. The point was that your calling a former Reagan aide a Left-Winger. Once again NEOCONS like yourself must resort to totally changing the subject and nitpicking small aspects of what a detractor says because you have no original thoughts of your own. Your probably read that little quip about "Liberals wanting conservatives to sound like nazis" in the Weekly Standard. But since you asked I shall take this opportunity to educate you on what a neocon is. The founder of neoconservatism was a man by the name of Irving Kristol. Im going to paste some of the wikipedia article about him on here for you.
"Irving Kristol (born January 22, 1920, New York City) is considered the founder of American neoconservatism.[1] He is married to conservative author and emeritus professor Gertrude Himmelfarb and is the father of William Kristol. He describes himself as a "liberal mugged by reality". Kristol was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Brooklyn, New York and, although he had a bar mitzvah, says that belief had nothing to do with his family's observance.[2] He earned his B.A. in History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active Trotskyist. Before graduating, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist meeting, and they married on January 18, 1942.[3] He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940"
Thats right. The founder of the neoconservative movment was a TROTSKYIST. Im not going to teach you what a trotskyist only to say that is was based in COMMUNISTIC idealogy and theory. You dont even know what "real" conservatism is about. Its about small government, low taxes, minimal spending, and adherence to the founding principles of our Constitution. It is rather stunning to me how far from the original topic of the article you Bush defenders can go. That is the power of total ignorance and blind apathy mixed with a heavy dose of constant propaganda. SO to get back to the original point of the article which you seem so disinclined to do.... TAPPING AMERICANS TELEPHONES WITHOUT A WARRANT IS ILLEGAL!!!!! ALSO IT IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONSERVATIVE!!!! This is a mutated form of conservatism. I mean my point to you was that REAL conservatives such as this gentleman that served under arguably the most conservative president the country has ever had are taking this party back. So again I say, you are either extemely stupid, brainwashed, or in a state of self denial to call a former aide to President Reagan is a liberal. You have not always been here. Read your history. Republicans have generally goeetn the country out of wars not started them. And answer me this/ How does spending 1 TRILLION dollars on a needless war in the desert of Iraq fit into the conservative ideals? Im sure you have no intelligent answer to the question so I will be expecting an answer such as "Get your head outta yer ass Liberal hardy har har" Ron Paul 2008! A real conservative you Dbag - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+5I hate the president for his ineptitude and the democrats for theirs.
Where the ***** is our leadership. - badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Im a Republican you ***** dolt! I guess the Constitution was written by Democrats because the punishment for treason is death you ***** ass. Dude you seriously are as stupid as a bag of rocks
- badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah! Everyone knows that former Reagan aides are left-wing looney liberals. /sarcasm
The real conservatives are taking the party back just face it! - zeusthemoose, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5*****, READ THE FOLLOWING:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=82 - bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They don't care. "Their team" said they don't have to share, and they like it that way.
Lies, deceit, bullying and *****. It's the GOP way.
And the boot-lickers that support them? The term "useful idiots" is very fitting. - azAZ09, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think its funny when conservatives try to distance themselves from other conservatives and salvage the general ideology by using labels like "true conservatism", "compassionate conservatism", "neo-conservatism" or "populist conservatism" for their particular flavor of conservatism. I find it funny because within that tiny splintering of their unified front one can see the spark of the realization that there may be something wrong with identity and definition of conservatism in general. The truth of it is revealed in the label. For example in qualifying themselves as "compassionate conservatives" there is the implicit admission that conservatism in general is not compassionate. GARussel makes the point that Fein is "a conservative, not a neo-conservative" making the distinction because the neo-con's actual behavior creates the opposite result of the key points of ideology he has been mislead into believing conservatism upholds.
Conservatism uses oversimplified false dichotomies to distinguish themselves from their political opposition such as big government vs. small government, us vs. them. The real landscape of opinion is far more multidimensional. By recognizing the difference He has nearly arrived at the realization that there is a difference between what conservatives say they believe and what the results of their actions show they believe. Included in this rhetorical shift from reality is the way they have developed a false identification for what liberalism truly is.
Fein makes a good point because he is right, not because he is right-wing. Don't erode his credibility by realigning him with conservatives. - Helios187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If the founding fathers were here they would have already marched on washington and started killing people. they realized that to go against the constitution is treason, and treason in punishable by death.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I never supported Clinton, I called for an investigation into several issues that had placed a black cloud over his presidency, however I became upset when the investigation got sidetracked and ended up focusing on what he did with his interns. I didn't care about that at all, and told people this would only obfuscate real issues. People were upset over the affairs with the women who worked around him, but I said it would be a travesty if those would be the grounds upon which he would be impeached, because it would only prove that the Republicans who controlled Congress were only grasping at straws.
Now there is even more impropriety with the Bush administration, and whenever investigations get close to revealing anything, most often the people involved decide to resign and disappear into the woodwork. Remember their names, I'm sure they'll show up again on the public forums in a few years. At any rate, the only people who are not getting closely inspected are the President and VP. I call for impeachment proceedings against both Dick Cheney and George Bush. If people think it's a waste of time, then I believe it would be a better waste of time than a first strike upon Iran. If Israel thinks that Iran is a threat, then let Israel handle it. After all, they've got nuclear warheads capable of hitting Tehran if they're so hard up for a war. (Referring to Israel telling US to hit Iran, not Iraq back in 2002) - socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They'd hold Jesus in secret holding camps as a 'terror suspect' indefinitely siting executive privilege.
- GARussell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Bruce Fein is very highly respected. He's a conservative, not a neo-conservative.
- Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Impeach them each.
- bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Even impeaching Bush/Cheney on the very last day would be absolutely worth it."
- Absolutely. But doing it now could have much more benefit if it prevents them from finding a way in the time they have left to do much more damage to the US and the world than they have already. - behn1220, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3...and then, strangely, nothing happened.
- chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't think they'll be impeach even if Jesus himself come down and ask for it.
- bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, those damned Reagan Communists, huh?
- badfish0116, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Helios you're totally right. These comments will probaby get dugg down but I am in firm agreement with you. Thomas Jefferson was by todays definition a terrorist and he would have Bush and Cheneys heads on the end of his saber for ruining are country a commiting acts of treason that far surpassed anything Benidict Arnold did. I have said itbefore but its worth repeating..... These people are WAR CRIMINALS and TRAITORS. They deserve a fair trial and when found guilty they should be hung! That is the punishment for betraying the nation. Period.
- Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As a GOP member from Va. I support Impeachment of Cheney and Bush to begin right away. They have lied and failed our nation and it's own voters!
- MJG2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Much like Godwin's Law, in any continuing internet discussion the probability of someone making some comparison to Bill Clinton approaches a near certainty.
- 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No. You are thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
"He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College."
Of course, if someone with so little education and experience were to say something, the best reponse would be to just ignore him and *roll eyes* /sarcasm - crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Republicans bad ... democrats good. After all both parties have spent trillions of dollars of your social security funds and they left you worthless IOUs in a lock box in Washington D.C. In addition, both parties have borrowed and spent trillions of dollars for you to pay back for the rest of your life, otherwise called the national debt. In the mean time, the political power elite side tracks you lemmings with meaningless issues and you bite on it hook,line and sinker while they are laughing all the way to the bank !!!
Boys and girls ... the F@#$ing joke is on you !!! - BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, 'neo' is another form of the word 'new', but used as a prefix.
Neo-Nazi = New Nazi (as opposed to the ones who actually ran Germany back in the 1930's and 1940's)
Neo-Con = New Conservative (as compared to the conservatives during the Reagan era. Say what you want about them, but it is very clear that the agendas of the two types are different) - bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agreed with everything you said except your Ron Paul ad at the end. He'd sell us out faster than you could say his name.
One digg up, one digg down. Ranking unchanged. - bushesbitch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4almost every member of the senate has been blackmailed , these cowards won't do a damn thing to save this country but ron paul might .its time to clean ***** house !!!!!
- bjornski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, REAL conservatives aren't new. The fascist Zionists in office now are the "new" breed that stole the name and claims to be "conservative".
They're not. They're communists. Personally, I call them "Neo-Coms". Except their "state" is "the market". All hail the market!
Ron Paul isn't a conservative, he's a Ayn Rand corporate anarchist.
Look around you. See all those publicly financed items? Ron Paul will sell them. And then you can PAY yet again to use them.
"What the market will bear..." - Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So does the left have only one left agenda? I don't think so.... You have far left who support every social program and other members of congress who are donkeys who would oppose far left views.
The neocons desire to build an empire and seek long term war and the founders of the conservative party prefer to protect out borders, limited gov etc - psycop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 OK kiddies...here it comes. Where should I begin. How about with the traitorous neocons we have sittin in the hot seat at the moment. Everybody and their fvckin' brother knows this administration is nothing but a pack of liying, war mongering corporate lackeys with dollar signs in their eyes and a knife in each hand on the ready to stab the next Head of State, sovereign nation, or person(s)
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+3a-dur, a-dur
. . . . . . .... . . . .
a-durp durp durp - spucky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why not? Do you have any evidence that they lie, or are you just a liar?
- MeauxToo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would ask you to take a Poly Sci class, as well as, a basic civics lesson. Congress was endowed with the "Power of the Purse" -- the most significant power of all. If they do not act, then the Executive branch looses its ability to function. Therefore, they could have simply continued to send the President the same bill until he signed it. They clearly had the votes to pass a bill with deadlines and constraints on the President's authority -- they passed one and he vetoed it. However, the Democrats did not have the courage of their convictions to stand their ground. Eventually, the President would have been forced to sign the bill when it was clear that his continued vetoes would leave troops in the field without funding. The public was with them, and would have supported them in a protracted fight. Instead, they gave in, and in the case of the wiretaps, chose their precious vacation time over our enduring and sacred rights.
I am a libertarian that crossed his fingers and held his nose in voting Democrats into office on the hope that would stand up to this President. The only difference between the behavior of this "opposition" Congress and their predecessors is that they whine a little bit before rolling over. Where is the oversight? Where is the resistance? - DustyinBFE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2People like Ron Paul are only showing a side of the total injustice, like the IRS and the banking interests that form the structure of labor and resource extraction from the underclasses to which they themselves benefit. I call them the propertied class that, at this late juncture, is fearing the heat from a growing autocracy that threatens their moderate holdings as it grows in appetite and power. Until their own holdings were not in danger of appropriations from the even larger sharks in the sea, these individuals were conveniently silent. These people are fervently anti-social in the sense that the idea of shared commons like public school or medical care or any other leveling safety net on their own shared tab, resonates like a heresy of the old bogeyman, communism.
Call in to the Alex Jones show (the primary reason Congressman Paul was allowed to even enter the 'debates' a few months ago) and ask at what limit the state should provide for the public welfare.
How we should treat the most marginalized sections of our people.
And how sacred is the term 'private property'.
Congressman Paul IS a welcome wedge to open the window of public awareness into the seamy side of our electoral process but represents the interests of the propertied class, not the majority, unless one considers the pulling of the rug from the floor boards under which our dismembered liberty lay buried, a hopeful sign of change and a voice of the growing rumble of rage at our butchered and packaged world. - dadanen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ah yes, Stevanoski I looked up the bill in question (hr 2956) regarding bringing the troops home by April. It in fact only reduce the presence of the US military in Iraq and does not bring our troops home instead. We would still have a presence there and our troops would still be in potential danger from insurgents.
You may very well understand his position if you yourself read the bill and read his position on it.
Also he didn't vote on that bill, which is like voting against but doesn't count, and some of the other presidential candidates also voted against it or didn't vote, such as Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.
P.S. He is a doctor, seeing that he has medical degrees in obstetrics and gynecology and does practice. - JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let's see: they increased the minimum wage, they tried to pass another stem cell research bill, ... Yeah they have done stuff since elected.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is