What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
90 Comments
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -9/+52What a waste of trees! I know its the thought that counts.
But Bush said "its just a god damned piece of paper" & Gonzales wrote that "the Constitution is outdated".
Also the neocons are Trotskyist fascists, so they think you're stupid children who don't get to control anything but do what they tell you, work hard, pay your taxes, die for your country, & shut the hell up!
Next year expect things to get much worse, like an attack on Iran, another 9/11 on US soil, Martial Law (no Constitution & no Congress), US detention camps for anyone who revolts, & no elections!
Halliburton concentration camps being built for "new programs" of Bush
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.c ...
HR 1585 Authorizes Plans For Martial Law
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4922
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law
http://www.thevanguardian.com/news.php?id=10
Blueprint for Dictatorship
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/index.php?articleid= ...
After the Next 9/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/after-t ...
- senorcool, on 11/17/2007, -1/+31...on"
- HunterGreen, on 11/17/2007, -3/+31Bush can't read the constitution. There aren't enough pictures.
- MercedRocks, on 11/17/2007, -0/+25Why dont we flood the classrooms of our terribly uneducated youth in this country instead.
- katiejmlb, on 11/17/2007, -2/+24I'm definitely going to do this!
- jhails, on 11/18/2007, -0/+16This would be more effective it you wrapped each copy of the Constitution around a brick and threw them through Cheney's Office window.
- hiphoc, on 11/17/2007, -1/+17Fact: If someone ***** in your mouth, do we need to prove in a court of law that this person has ***** in your mouth before we can accept it as so?
We need to start calling things as we see them. The American people need to grow some balls. I ain't waiting for a court trial. Cause the judges are political appointees of the very man thats being tried in court. Can you say conflict of interest? - londubh, on 11/17/2007, -0/+13We should also flood Nancy Pelosi's office with tables with the word IMPEACH on it.
- Tetraca, on 11/18/2007, -2/+13Let's make him a pop-up book with words he can understand.
"This is the US. {Pop out of the US. Flip page} The US is happy. {Pop out of US with smiley face on it. Flip page} The US is happy because it has a letter called the consitution. {Pop out of US with smiley face on it with a little hand holding a copy of the constution. Flip page.} The constitution is made up of lots of words. Big words. Small words. Words that seem like both. {Pop out of a big sheet of paper with words. Flip page.} The people of the US made it a very long time ago {Pop out of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin holding the consitution with smiley faces. Flip page.} so the united states could be together perfectly {Pop out of various states with smiley faces shaking hands. Flip page}, help keep the bad guys in jail {Pop out of Al Capone in prison garb behind bars. Flip page}, make sure mommy and daddy can live in peace {Picture of daddy beating up mommy with a bottle of Jack Daniels. Flip page.}, make an army so we can fight bad guys that don't like us {Pop out of a soldier with a smiley face shaking hands with a citizen. Flip page}, help mommy and daddy live a good life {Pop out of daddy digging a hole in the ground in the middle of a forest, truck behind him with a leg with a high heeled shoe sticking out of the back. Flip page}, and keep us free and our kids free {Picture of old man sleeping near a fireplace in a rocking chair with his grandchildren, too sleeping in his lap}..." etc - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+14I sent one.
Merry ***** Christmas you big piece of *****. - Christbait, on 11/18/2007, -1/+10Trees eh? Well let's print it out on recycled paper, so they get a faceful of the constitution AND a taste of going green.
- masterm1nd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9Fact: You missed the reply button.
Fact: Judging by your name and comment, you are a royal douchebag. - Travisty2012, on 11/17/2007, -0/+9Read the title...
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -0/+8***** the trees. We'll plant more.
- whymanwhy, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8At least bush now has some fuel for the White House fireplace.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8Mastermind, everybody in Chicago knew that Al Capone was guilty for years and they said so, although he had not been tried, much less convicted. Should they have just kept quiet?
Capone had the deck stacked to the point where he was sure that he couldn't be convicted, so he did whatever the hell he wanted to do. It was a very resourceful DA that arranged a surprise for Al, but if that had not happened, Capone very probably would have died a free man.
Well, here we have the same scenario. Bush has openly and frequently violated laws by using torture, by suspending habeus corpus, by allowing illegal no bid contracts to go to cronies, by illegal wiretaps, by deliberately lying to the Congress to get us into war, etc., etc.
And like Al Capone, he is sure that he has the jury rigged (in this case the jury is the US Senate). He is probably right. He won't be tried and certainly won't be convicted because he has the system rigged, not because he is innocent.
I know he's guilty and I'm going to say it. This is still a partially free country and I can still say what I think, even though it may put me on the no fly list. - humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -2/+9Sorry, but "oh no what about the trees?" is a really silly and misguided sentiment.
The paper industry doesn't cause deforestation any more than nacho chip companies are causing a national corn shortage.
They replenish all the wood they cut down. Yes, there is such a thing as a tree farm.
Take a second to think about it, and you'll realize that this is obvious. It would be a pretty weak business model if they had to keep finding new forests to chop down just to sustain a profit. Or you could look it up.
Protect our liberties. ***** the trees. - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7Why stop at 25,000? Let's group together. In Ireland and the UK about 6 years ago there were postcards for sale addressed to Tony Blair to protest something (sorry I can't remember what it was).
- Qumahlin, on 11/18/2007, -0/+6I'm pretty sure the white house gets way more then 25,000 pieces of mail without people banding together to do wasteful ***** like this. You want to get your point across GET OUT IN THE STREETS AND PROTEST
- toddcat, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7You're only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He's not in a court of law right now but he's even admitted himself that he will continue to illegally wiretap without a warrant. If he was a common criminal, he would have been thrown in the slammer right away.
- Neuticals, on 11/17/2007, -2/+7The 'flood' will never even make it to Bush and he will never care about ***** like this!
I don't know what WOULD make the ***** care, but wasting all this paper certainly won't... - williamdyer, on 11/18/2007, -1/+6We are in a disastrous war, led by a lunatic war criminal. Waterboarding has been prosecuted by the U.S. as a crime against humanity for nearly 100 years. Our president ordered these crimes. He should be in the dock.
- toddcat, on 11/17/2007, -4/+9Dude, no one's talking about Ron Paul here. Try and refrain from the Ron Paul spam as it only makes your candidate seem desperate.
- minox, on 11/18/2007, -3/+8You must know that the Bush quote is not authentic. It just appeared on a blog one day from an anonymous source.
- toddcat, on 11/18/2007, -1/+5Dude dont' put this on me. This is the reason the Congress is even less popular than Bush. The Dem base is FURIOUS that Nancy Pelosi has taken imnpeachment off the table. She is dealing with kid gloves with Bush. The last seven years I've marched, I've yelled, I've signed petitions, I've had an impeach sticker on the back of my car since Abu Ghraib, I've called congresspeople. There's only so much one person can do. But please don't put this ***** on me.
- IllBeBack, on 11/18/2007, -0/+4The title is missing the final two letters "o" and "n", you dildo.
- Christbait, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3Even better idea.
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -8/+11RON PAUL '08
- ussoldier, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3All the founding fathers were terrorists. And seditionists. And revolutionaries. The regularly tarred and feathered the tax man when he came to town, despised the English law and court system for being completely corrupt, and openly declared war upon their government.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were simply their statement of war documents. Neither was meant to be binding or foisted upon their decendents... these are not holy things... rather, they were suppose to put down the ideas onto paper, because while evil men can undermine and destroy a democracy, they can not destroy the idea of liberty. Orwell has shown us, however, that that is not true, the idea of liberty can be through successful generations removed as an idea through dumped down education and manipulation of the language.
Quite simply, its time to write a new declaration of war upon our government, and a new constituion. Ideas we consider worthwhile from the old constitution can be included, but obviously it must go much further to safeguard the liberties of the individual against the group and the state. I mean, these documents were written 200 years ago, they are nothing but pieces of paper, in different times, you can not expect them to serve as well today as they did then. The world has become a much more complicated place, and we have failed to evolve these documents. The courts stepped in and decided it was their mandate to pass law after law after law without our consent or input or vote, as if they had a right to build upon these founding principals... and quite frankly.. they don't.
The original founding fathers fought against the English law and court system, which was corrupt to the core and a way for the English crown to extend its power into the lives of all its subjects and regulate and control their behavior through internalized control and fear. The colonists despised it which is why they got the hell out of England, even if it meant roughing it like you wouldn't believe on the fringes of the New World in wild and untamed and dangerous territory. This pioneering made them study men and they despised any rule upon them. The same can not be said of Americans today. Americans today are pasty and weak and spineless consumers who wouldn't know how to set a torch to a courthouse or smash up their local county jail if their life depended on it. - arpad, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3Oooh! A bumper sticker? Quick, someone have a Congressional Medal of Honor for the bravery that must've taken?
- DarkPhoen1x, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2That was a lot of typing and work for +5 diggs...
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Building 7 did fall at near free fall, and controlled demolitions fall at near free fall. Building 7 also looked llike a classic demolition, and Silverstein said he pulled it.
Do you have any links that can suggest I'm not telling the truth? - NorCalRedNeck, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2you need 25.000 people to deliver them, that would make a point.
- AriaStar, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2I dugg this UP because the Bush administration has caused such paranoia over bombs and terrorism that a simple flashing sign landed people in jail and caused a mass panic. So up his. For once one of these ASCII pics are appropriate.
- carpespasm, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2it's not libelous, there's just not enough evidence to back up the ideas you're talking about. What evidence for the molten metal do you have? What correlation between molten metal and controlled demolition is there? Demolitions are done with explosives that do not make molten metal, and using thermite or thermate would require very large amounts of those materials compared to the amount of C4 or other high yield explosives it would take to critically weaken the buildings.
If you want to get your point across, endlessly repeating your points without concise verifiable evidence and then calling anyone who questions you "full of it" isn't the way to go. Good evidence can speak for itself, and I'm especially open to the idea that the 9/11 attacks had something fishy to them, but the claims of most truthers are quite extraordinary and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. - KloroFormd, on 11/18/2007, -0/+225,000 audio cassettes?
- Fizban140, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Take that trees!
- masterm1nd, on 11/17/2007, -2/+4That sounds highly productive.
- spucky, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Bury and report.
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Oh, and it did not collapse like a controlled demolition. You are completely wrong about that. This is why ZERO domolition experts have backed your silly accussation up.
The fact of the matter is, all modern building collapses will be SIMILAR to a controlled demolition. Why? Because a controlled demolition uses gravity for most of the work. It you gotta do is take out the main supports and let gravity take over. It doesn't matter if the supports are takern out by explosives, or by several structural damage when a 120 story building falls on top of it and starts fires.
Oh...and before you look foolish again...No, demolition crews do NOT use the phrase "pull it" to mean demolish a building.
Finally...how about you explain to me how they somehow prepaed a building for demolition SECRETLY. A building that thousand of people work in every day. Yet for WEEKS they were able to prepare this building for demolition. (It is not as easy to putting a few bombs in the basement. - zachshmack, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1I saw Bigfoot in my backyard and he took me in his spaceship on a magical trip through the galaxy.
Do you have any links that can suggest I'm not telling the truth? - inactive, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Diggers...help me out here. I honestly can' tell if bushisterrorist is a joke or not. It seems like he is mocking the troofers. But then again, the troofers really ARE like this. Posting the EXACT same crap in every thread. So, what do you think? Is he being serious, or mocking? And bushisteorrist...if you are mocking others, you are not really doing a good job. To truly mock someone, it has to be obvious that you are mocking. Usually that is by so so far over the top that there is no way you can mistake it for real. And this does not qualify.
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -2/+3It's sponsored by Democracy-in-action. That's a liberal/communist democrat group. They too should heed what the Constitution says instead of asking for more federal government control of our lives.
- toddcat, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2STFU you 25%er. You're pathetic.
- omegaant, on 11/18/2007, -1/+2Oh please, I went to the site to sign on and there's a letter that is mostly about habeus corpus - duh - what about peaceably assembling, bearing arms, unwaranted searches and seizures, not forcing religion, three branches of government checking and balancing each other, the right to vote and have it counted? Good luck, but they missed a few points, like most of the Bill of Rights! See, when Bush reads the 25,000 letters attached to the Constitutions, which will take him until 2009, he'll think he's only doing one or two things wrong! "Wow!" he will say, and Cheney will slap him. "I mean, so what?" he will say, quickly correcting himself, and Cheney will give him a cookie.
- DarkPhoen1x, on 11/18/2007, -2/+3dugg for the "Protect our liberties. ***** the trees." line...also, I agree.
- carpespasm, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1actually they're already running the whitehouse fireplaces with any copies of all emails they've had from the past several years.
- carpespasm, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1but aren't we trying to get away from stoning people? even really bad ones?
- carpespasm, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1The declaration was a statement or war in some respects, but the constitution had nothing to do with the revolutionary war, it was made after the failed Articles of Confederation. The constitution, especially what it stands for when you read it, still serves as a great general set of rules by which to run the nation. The problem lies more in the ways it's been worked against and it's spirit has been disregarded. The only problem I see with the constitution in regard to the way the world is now vs. then is in the regard of there being no amendment making an explicit right to privacy unless you willfully choose to enter a public office. Back then the right to keep your property and affects sanctioned away from whoever you chose was equivalent to a right to privacy. If the founding fathers had a system by which any information about any person or anything would be readily accessible with or without the person's consent, I'm sure they would have enacted an amendment or addition to the amendment regarding unwarranted search that allows one to keep their personal information personal at their choosing.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is