What is Digg?209 Comments
- ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -37/+303Maybe Gore really is too smart to be President. I remember in 2000 some were decrying him as "too intellectual" and now I can see what they meant. How very ***** sad that one can be too smart to be President of the US.
- DiggerDoombot, on 10/11/2007, -23/+120What a nice presidency that would be. To have a president that writes books verses one that can barely read them.
- joshua5, on 10/11/2007, -14/+110The President doesn't trust books, they're full of facts. He goes with his gut.
- joshua5, on 10/11/2007, -21/+117Personally I blame only those that voted for Bush. If you are reading this and you voted for Bush know this: Its your fault.
- SuperMoses, on 10/11/2007, -25/+117Al Gore has realized that the democracy in the US is a farce, this is why he's not running. He gets a lot more done out of politics.
- swordphish, on 10/11/2007, -16/+90Am I the only one who noticed that the entire world pretty much went to ***** after Bush was elected, and remained that way for his entire term in office?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -40/+107@bubisparks
No we didn't. The Bush Family Crime Syndicate rigged the election twice. - bigspruce, on 10/11/2007, -10/+64@edebolt
"Last one to lose an Presidential election and then win the office was Nixon. "
No. The last one to lose a Presidential election and then take the office was GW Bush.
Does anyone else feel like they live in a banana republic (and I don't mean the clothing store)? - bobthebruce123, on 10/11/2007, -22/+73The first step in getting someone like Gore, or Ron Paul, or any other candidate for that matter is to realize that you're not alone in wanting change or a different type of person for president. it's easy to feel disillusioned and like no one else thinks the way you do, especially when everyone is indoors and on the internet. but if everyone knew that on election day they were not alone and could make a difference -- if digg voted with a collective voice for example, thats a huge bloc that can really make change.
- Witchboy, on 10/11/2007, -18/+66Haha. This post seriously made me laugh out loud. Wow...that's the best you can do? Bush shreds the constitution, hands the FDA, EPA, etc over to corporate whores, breaks the budget, spies on US citizens, bogs us down in an endless war. And OMG Gore dressed like a monk! Oh noes! Haha...wake up.
- course6, on 10/11/2007, -22/+57gore_respect++;
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+43Thank you, Mr. Gore! I'm so glad he's bringing relevant issues to the forefront.
I for one am sickened when I see non-stop coverage of Paris Hilton going to jail when 71 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan this month alone. What the hell is wrong with this country? - bubisparks, on 10/11/2007, -34/+65Never forget!!!!!! The US of A voted for him TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -11/+41If the Republicans can impeach Clinton for lying about having sex in his office and blow it up like the Apocalypse I think the Democrats can easily get Bush into trouble.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+45@mikesbaker (#6825467)
Apparently, you've been living under a rock. That charge was debunked 10 years ago. Please crawl back under and try again in another 10, when it might be funny. - fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+44Yeah, that's obviously what this is about.
/sarc - Platypus3333, on 10/11/2007, -12/+41Though this is true, Gore lost under fairly unique circumstances such that, in the eyes of many people, he arguably won.
- netdawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+45Hey moron, did you even read the article?
- MichaelBradley, on 10/11/2007, -22/+49I'd like to violate Bush's ass with my foot.
- edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+32lack of votes. Need 2/3 of senate to pass.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -16/+39Why the ***** havn't those pussy democrats in the Senate impeached that bastard yet? What more do they need?!
- gravtex, on 10/11/2007, -12/+31I'm not a democrat, but I still can't believe how we got stuck with Bush - FOR EIGHT FRIGGIN' YEARS!!!
- hootpie, on 10/11/2007, -19/+38More like how very sad that one can't be too stupid (to the point of near mental retardation) to be president.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Here's a thought:
We don't need ANY parties. We need to vote for candidates based on their qualifications... not their affiliations. - bigspruce, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20In the article, it says that Bush and Cheney must have been either "gullible or too dishonest".
I think we got one of each - guess which is which! - ChrisGranger, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18As a Canadian, it boggles my mind that Clinton was impeached for having an affair and Bush hasn't been, even when he makes end run around the Constitution when it suits him; illegal wiretaps, misleading people to war against Saddam's Iraq in spite of al-Qaeda being behind 9/11, atrocious handling of Katrina, etc.. I literally wonder just what he'd have to do to get impeached... kill puppies on live TV?
- dev0null, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@CDHarris: "We don't need ANY parties."
That works for me too. - stealthboy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Ok, I know this has no place on liberal Digg, but can someone please outline the exact laws Bush has violated that would then lead to an impeachment? Seriously, I know you all cry for impeachment, but can you please explain the exact offenses? Oh, and not just your opinions, but actual U.S. code law. Thanks.
- flink405, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14None of the things you listed regarding Bush are impeachable offenses - wasn´t Clinton was impeached for lying under oath? That is a crime. Not the sex he was having in the White House.
You all need to educate yourself on what impeachment is all about. - bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12ralphie - my life has become worse. Bush has been so horrible that I can't even remember the petty things that used to concern me before he came along. I have a great deal of shame that I have to deal with thanks to Bush and his actions. When someone comes along and forces you to even consider questioning your own love for your own country, it's a bad thing. When people go from being proud to be an American to being embarrassed to admit it, that's a bad thing. It's bad for the psyche. Sure, all the presidents that we've had in my lifetime have done things I've disagreed with, but prior to George, they haven't gone so far as to embarrass me to my core and to make me far less safe than I ever was before. Sure, maybe 9/11 was plotted and planned through much of Clinton's presidency - but big deal, Bush has killed and maimed and downright disgraced a hell of a lot more of our own people than 9/11 ever did - and if you think we're safer now (or in any way 'better off') with George running things, then you need to proceed to your nearest mental institution and admit yourself promptly.
- ianesque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Impeachment is reserved solely for violations of law... read my lips as I say it again: violations of law. The reason you don't hear mainstream political voices clamoring for impeachment is because:
A) There is no concrete evidence that Bush has not broken ANY laws
B) This is a purely political disagreement
Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 (but not removed from office) for: obstruction of justice and perjury before a federal grand jury. If he had told the truth and cooperated with the investigation, he could not have been impeached.
No one has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Bush has committed any so-called "high crimes or misdemeanors," which are the only--I repeat--the only justification for impeachment and/or removal from office. Political differences of opinion do not qualify. Vote your opinion in the next election, people. - shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13The people of the United States simply aren't visually aware of what is going on. Do we see daily images of men women and children being shot in the streets? Do we get to see pictures of the caskets our soldiers are returning in? This war has been so sanitized that most of this country has no idea, or even really cares what is going on over there.
Blame the media blackout. - evanmyers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm in your countriez, breakin your lawz!
- VinceVolker, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13Why? Well, it's american politics. Neither of the two polarities are clean. They both have dirty laundry, and far worse some of these corrupt politicians swore an oath to their secret societies to never let your fellow man down. Clinton, Bush, etc.. All belong to the same socieities. Infront of the cameras, in public, etc.. they all wage war against each other, just to mislead the public and show them that they have options in life. When the truth is far more fictitious. People have no longer control over their country. Behind the closed doors, in the Bilderberg, and Carlyle meetings, they plan the economic, future of the world. In its entirety. So forget about making a difference, the worse kind of governments are those who rob us blindly. I would perfer one corrupt politician for a lifetime than, 100! that way atleast i know that only one of them is getting it all.
This is the NWO. Common people such as you and me no longer rule our countries, or decide who is in power. It's all decided by money, corporations, religious factions, and worse of all, those who believe they are entitled to everything. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@anthonyk28 (#6828117)
I wouldn't leave it to a conservative to judge humor. Simply put, a joke repeated 10,000 times is not funny, even if it was funny once, except perhaps to kids. A joke that was based on an intentional misinterpretation of someone's comments wasn't even funny in the first place.
For the record, what Gore said is that he was that he was the lawmaker most responsible for helping the internet come to be, from a federal, not technological perspective. And his comments have been backed up by the very technologists who built the internet. That's why it's not funny -- because it's the opposite of true.
Humor requires some semblance of truth to be funny. Or don't they teach that in Conservative Funny School? - misfit410, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Am I the only one who noticed that the entire world pretty much went to ***** after Bush was elected, and remained that way for his entire term in office?"
No, you are just the only one oblivious enough to not notice it was ***** before he was elected.
Kind of like your buddies in this thread talking about how Bush wiped his ass with the constitution (ignoring that Clinton commited every act that Bush has)..
Politicians sucks, all of them, the problem is you only like to notice when it's one you did not vote for.. - theone3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"Geez, why do liberals think that every critique of a Democrat automatically implies that the author just LOVES Republicans? Weird jump to conclusions."
I don't recall him saying he was a liberal. Weird how you jump to conclusions. - littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14Speaking of being "a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands," if the US Is Ultimately Leaving Iraq, Why Are We Building "Mega-Bases?"
As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm - theone3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No no no no no no no.. We need parties because it provides people with the ability to stereotype themselves and their beliefs without questioning them - that is, it allows people to not think. Americans have perfected the art of not thinking - it's probably the nation's greatest stregnth. Forcing people to actually think about politics would be catastrophic. Can you imagine?!
- Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Digg might as well be Kuro5hin politially, so much for balanced viewpoints...
"We don't really know all the exact offenses..."
BAHT VEE VILL FIND DEM ALL!
"But we know he lied to congress..."
Oh do we? Since when does, not having 20/20 hindsight vision constitute lying? I know you folks feel better when you say it, but it's just not true. There is an obvious difference of knowing based on current intelligence.
"And there's the illegal wiretapping and who knows what other spying on Americans. That's illegal."
No, not when you make it legal. And if he wants to personally listen in on Habib's plans to commit a terrorist act on our soil, I say, let him do it.
"And I'm sure lots of his 'signing statements' could be found to lack a proper legal basis."
Believe me, after all this time, with the press up the Left's ass, if they haven't found any evidence of this sort of thing yet - they never will.
"But I guess he never really got under oath and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" - so I guess it's all good, eh?"
So... Having sex with an intern and actually lying about it is ok with you? Impeachable? Maybe not. Ethical, give me a break. Stop hiding!
"I am all for impeachment, but in light of the notion that it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon," ...and it's not...
"...the next best hope we have is that in 2008, we'll elect a decent and respectable person who has some sense of patriotism for their country and some sense of responsibility for their actions and the well being of the people. And with any luck, that person will devise a way to revoke the then-former-president's SS detail."
With any luck, our next president will continue to be vigilant with these terrorist bastards and do something about border security, illegal immigration, and have a sound fiscal policy. Those last items should be the real concerns with G.W. - fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9"...Despite 99% disapproval rating..."
Pulling things out of your ass may be fun, but it doesn't help your argument. His real disapproval rating is bad enough. - Robopath, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8You don't have to wear a seat belt while on private property in Texas. . . He is on his ranch!
- P5ycHo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Are you actually implying that bush didn't lie in teh past several years?
- bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Yeah, if the terrorists manage to strike again on any significant scale before 2008, we're royally ROYALLY screwed.
Like many Americans, I sincerely hope with all my heart that we never see another major terrorist attack in our homeland, but if we do, then I sure as hell hope it doesn't happen while the wanna-be-dictator Bush is still in office. - laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5'Gorecal' must be Freeper-speak.
It reeks of something that the unwashed think is funny. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@bsmang (#6829660)
Bush's newest directive doesn't require a terrorist strike for him to assume control. The language is written such that only a "significant disruption in government services" would be enough. In other words, all he needs to do is call in a nuclear or bioterror threat on Washington DC, evacuate the city, and he's got the keys to the kingdom for as long as he wants. - sbader, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Then who is squeaky clean enough to jump all over Bush?
- flink405, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Yeah, and 200 died in traffic accidents, 100s of murders in the streets across the U.S., brutal gang violence in our cities, drug use is growing but everyone ignores those problems and concentrates on Paris Hilton and wars.
- moxfdg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You could make a completely logical, factual, intellectual statement replete with your sources, but if it does not agree with Digg "group think" it will be dugg down. I can understand burying something for being an opinion you don't agree with, but burying something that is factual just because you don't like it is akin to the worst kind of censorship.
- dogster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3None of the leading democrats, including Gore, will end the War in Iraq. Anti-war folks have to look to Kucinich or Ron Paul.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is