What is Digg?115 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35SO the right conciders habeous corpus a liberal idea? Damn i am for sure voting all dems this nov 7.
And I know it is very very very hard to understand, but one digg doesnt ask political affiliation. I also see these same complaints on every single socila news site.(amazing the gop wins when libs are everywhere, it almost sounds paranoid). But here is the point the presidents numbers are in the 30s, the gop congress even lower, the VP even lower than that. WEll when the president has numbers in the 30s it means 2/3 of the people(including many conservatives) are un happy with the guy. I know it is very easy to say "hey i am doing everything right but it is liberal bias getting me down" but when you numbers are this low it isnt liberal bias, it is you have totally screwed up and mainstream people are against you and your policies.
Seriously supposidly arround 50% of the people voted for bush, so i guess the conservatives are out there, you think this place is too far let, invite you frineds but for gods sake quit whining. That is far worse than fighting for ideals. Serious you sound childish and you MAKE digg worse.. all the whinners.. the dupe whinners, the Digg sucks winners, the digg is too liberal whiners.. ALL of you please grow up and maybe we could have an honest debate on the subject.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29That's what happens when things aren't rigged.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Problems Concerning The Military Commissions Act of 2006
(1) The illegal suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
(2) The definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant does not exclude American citizens.
(3) Jurisdiction of military commissions is not excluded but rather placed at the disposition of the president and/or secretary of defense in the case of Unlawful Enemy Combatants.
(4)The president can establish military commissions for Unlawful Enemy Combatants at his own discretion.
(5)The president decides what constitutes torture and what rules concerning torture, if any, commissions and/or tribunals will follow.
I don't have a blog, but I do have an explanation of all these things (with quotes) which you can see here: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ajh82fhshntp_22d3v287
I wrote it, so correct me if I'm wrong. - socket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an atrocity to our legal system, and is blatantly unconstitutional. But the Neo Con's have their meat hooks in our Supreme Court.. so don't be surprised when they uphold it in a couple years.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Because they aren't just American rights. They apply to everyone. If you don't believe that those rights apply to everyone on the planet, you don't get it.
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15In fact, section nine of the US Constitution states: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War - certainly a time of rebellion. Were we ever invaded in this situation? I guess you could certainly suspect invasion initially with 9/11, but are we currently undergoing "Rebellion of Invasion"? Only if you count the possibility of democratic victory next Tuesday as "Rebellion". - socket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17You need to read the act dummy. It gives the President the power to use it on American citizens.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@Jaymoon:
I think you should check out duggtrends and see what stories get burried the most.. i think you may be surprised bu t the rest of us arent.
and once again read my comment above, the GOP controlls the entire country.. their numbers are as low as you can go.. NOW remember math class please, when the majority of people are upset with the gop they will be dugg down when they post pro gop stories, that isnt bias, that is people being upset and your arent helping.
Get Bush's numbers up to the 90s and you would think dig was teh church of bush. Seriously it isnt some sort of agenda here (except with a small minority) it is just reality.. look in the mirror and realise the libs are destroying you, it is you that is destroying you. Many peiople say The libs have to learn to be centrists to win, well you want to know something, far right isnt in either and by definition centrist is popular... SO many if they didnt go soooo far right, their numbers would rise higher.
Thank you and please quit complaining and lets argue the points at hand. - antonio97b, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@ xGORDOx
Because you are insulting a party that is not your own (democrats). No one needs to hear that. Keep the cheap blows for MySpace. This is Digg.com.
Good day. - StantheBat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15>>Call me old fashioned, but you should be an American Citizen to receive American rights.
That's not old-fashioned- it's just wrong. Old-fashioned is what it says in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that ALL MEN are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS."
It doesn't say 'all Americans'. It says ALL MEN. And the authors aren't Lib'rul Baby-killin' Gay-marryin' Tax-an'-Spend Democrats. They're the Founding Fathers. Maybe you should read the document- there's some interesting stuff in there. - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14If supporting the constitution is a radical liberal idea we are in bigger trouble than I thought. And I'm not sure Bush and the NeoCons fit on the left or the right. The have have cut taxes for the wealthy, increased spending and the size of the government drastically, slowly eroded our civil rights, tried to interfere with our personal lives, did there best to kill Social Security, etc. It like they decided to adopt the worst ideas of both parties. They may call them selves republicans but they sure don't seam to embrace may traditional republican values like small government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility . . .
- shamgar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Well, that would be true if our system of government and underlying philosophy regarded the rights as a privilege granted by the government. However, we do not. Rather, we understand that we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights". Our Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges granted to the people. It is a specifically enumerated list of restrictions on the government, to protect rights that we hold to be pre-existant.
In fact, that is the very underlying reason that the republicans try to use to justify wars like the one we're holding in Iraq. Not just to eliminate terrorism, but to but to bring democracy and liberty which ALL people deserve.
Hence, such rights as those listed in our bill of rights apply to all people. That doesn't mean we don't recognize a special status for PoWs, and treat them differently to some extent. However, what people are complaining about in this thread is not PoWs, but "enemy combatants" which is a vague term that the president has readily demonstrated is anyone he or anyone else with sufficient authority deems to be one. No evidence is required to be presented, suspicion is enough.
That is a blatant violation of basic human rights. Further, it has frequently been committed against American Citizens. - erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@YoDiggity
you're also correct. HIGH school students I know (sisters is in high-school) learning about how our government is supposed to work.
Are slightly confused as how the president is able to get away with basically writing his own laws, interpreting his laws AND in forcing those laws.
+1 digg to you! - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I know the Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional document, but think about it for a second: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Now, I would not pose that foreigners should have the same exact rights as Americans in all situations (especially war), but continuing to hold people five years later without making public any charges against them flies in the face of our own values. Instead of trying to rectify the situation, Congress has moved to bury any chance of appeal from the gitmo prisoners. The same law has threatened rights further, including American citizens' rights. - NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12i bet the bush administration is running scared now. i hear digg is the first thing bush checks in the morning...
- compson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@jbink:
Good question.
First, it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, which provides that no branch of government shall perform the functions of another branch, because it allows the Executive Branch to create tribunals (which are the function of the judicial branch). Imagine if the Supreme Court decided to send troops to fight Canada. That would be another such violation.
Second, it violates Article I, Section 9 which says that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in wartime. We are not at war, let alone at war with the people being held in Gitmo.
Third, it rips the heart out of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. It allows the Executive (President and his men) to put anyone they want into a jail that they control, and NEVER give them access to an attorney or even a court hearing. This is plainly the most embarrassing provision of this law. It is very much like what we used to condemn in Communist countries.
So at this moment, because of this Act, the United States Government can pick someone up off the street -- American or not -- label them "enemy combatant," put them in a military prison, and never allow them to have an attorney or their day in court.
The things that make the United States superior to other nations have now been dissolved.
Scary, eh? This act is patently unconstitutional, but it will take time and money before it ever reaches a Federal court. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Bush reads? I thought he has proudly stated that he doesn't read the newspapers. Why would be suddenly start reading the internets?
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm all for saying Bush is causing alot of problems for us worldwide, stripping us of our freedoms, but don't you think it's time to start looking at ourselves for letting him and government in general, get away with it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10supporting habeus corpus is a leftist thing now? You mus be a complete moron.
- shamgar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yes, absolutely.
None of you really know me, so you don't know how positively shocking this is to hear from me, but we should all be voting against the current majority party in each house in this election.
I'm a staunch Classical Liberal [small-l libertarian of sorts], and I've never has the opportunity to live in a district where a democrat was running who was even remotely close enough to what I'm looking for to vote for him. This election I don't care much. I'm voting for putting as much deadlock in congress as possible. And of course, hoping against hope that they'll grow a spine if they retake at least one of the houses, instead of just continuing to go along with whatever the GOP says. - FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10*In my best Republican voice possible*
But, you see, this was written before the threat of terrorism, you see, hehe. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hey forget about all that Man. George Bush is "the decider!"
- shamgar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Um, xGORDOx, you wrote:
---
This is an entirely new concept and laws had to be created to deal with this situation. the Bush Admin, since capturing terrorist #1 has been working on how to deal with these people. How to give a trial, where to give a trial, these people don't fit into the Geneva Conventions. Gitmo has been a holding pen until the government can put a system in place to deal with them.
---
So, you are assuming of course that they're all guilty. This despite the information that has become known about some who have been released, often after six months or more of captivity. People who didn't do anything worse than write a parody of international situation, while simultaneously being Muslim and American.
But surely, if they weren't guilty we wouldn't be holding them right?
---
The longer the Dems oppose doing anything, the longer they can claim that Bush is holding them indefinitely. I'm not a (R) or (D), but use some common sense.
---
Um, what have the democrats opposed? The Patriot Act? The torture measures? The military act being discussed here? I haven't seen the Democrats do a single thing to oppose the bush administration where it counts. Sure they've said things, but they've done nothing significant when it comes to voting.
---
Vote Libertarian!
---
Seriously? From your statements in this post I gather that you consider yourself a libertarian...in what world? Is this some weird Bill Mahr bizzaro world? Everything you've written on this thread runs contrary to fundamental libertarian philosophy and thought.
Not liking D or R doesn't make you a libertarian. These days it just makes you human. - griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Because only the right can be taken seriously? Seriously?
- AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Gordo,
First part of the doucment basic beliefs about all people and how govenement should interact. This would apply to any country.
Second part why our Founding Fathers are rebelling against England. Applicable to only their situations.
I passed my 7th grade government class and can think at higher level than any sides talking points can you?
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton - socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wikipedia has a good break down of the act. Bush made it damn clear what he wanted, and Congress delivered. It's the Patriot Act all over again.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I thought the first thing he did was check his back for cutlery.
- potlucktechn9ne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10good stuff, see also http://digg.com/world_news/History_of_Habeas_Corpus
- IAmRoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Just because other presidents suspended habeas corpus doesn't mean it's right.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Combine the suspension of habeas corpus with the attempts to squelch terror suspects ability to testify about their treatment at the hands of the CIA. This is truly scary stuff.
http://www.digg.com/politics/U_S_seeks_to_silence_terror_suspect_tesimony_about_his_imprisonment - shamgar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Agreed, EntropyMan.
Note though that it is never in the presidents power to suspend it. It's supposed to be done by an act of Congress. Much like war is. This was what Lincoln ran up against in the merryman decision.
But given that people treat the president more like a king than the head of only one of three branches of government (including the president himself), this concept is completely lost on most people. - NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think he is making the common mistake many Conservatives make. Just because someone is NOT narrow minded and NOT willing to accept the views of the minority rich over the majority population, does not make them a Liberal. It makes them a goal to be obtained by all.
Just because someone CAN question something and doesn't take the sheep mentality, that does not mean they are a liberal. However, if that is true, then there is something truly frightening going on in the world of Conservatives. - Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm totally against the Military Commissions Act, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
But, because I'm not as informed on the subject as I probably should be I was pointed out by a friend that Lincoln actually suspended it in 1861 as well. I just thought it was surprising is all. - Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Thank you very much for pointing that out.
I can't wait to show that to my friend who is...shall we say, fine with what is going on in this country at the moment. - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Bill of rights is not actually a list of rights granted to the people rather it is a list of restrictions and clarifications on what the government can do. The V admendment does not say "No AMERICAN shall be held to answer for a capital . . ." It says "No PERSON" and the IV does simply says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" Not "the accused CITIZEN shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" For all the nit pickers out there I know the V doesn't necessarily apply to people in the military in a time of war but two points. War can only be declared by an act of Congress and while Congress did authorize the use of the military they did not declare war and they are setting up military commissions for people who are not in the military.
Even if I where to agree that the Bill of Rights is only applicable to Americans the USA is signatory, I believe, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and while it doesn't have language as clear as the Bill of Rights in my option Section 9 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." comes close to requiring Habeas Corpus. And Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." looks to me to say that laws that protect Americans must be applied to everyone within American jurisdiction. - Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"The farther Digg goes to the left, the less seriously people will take it."
Yeah, because Habeas Corpus is SUCH a radical, leftist idea. Perhaps it's not the populace shifting toward the left, but rather you, and the right, shifting towards fascism that is causing your perception of movement apart in ideals. For example, do you have any idea how insane you sound equating the defense of Habeas Corpus, a cornerstone of our society, with radicalism? - erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ AxeSwinger
wow, that's scary, I was reading that and thinking. yup, sounds like what bush as done....er wait a minute, I know that document!!!! oh SNAP! - cafzal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At least it educates people about Habeas Corpus, better than no knowledge of something so pressing to current and past society!
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Actually, I'm a moderate conservate, and I agree that this unprecedented power grab by Bush, his ongoing attacks on the constitution, and his disrespect for the rule of law is completely unacceptable in a free and open society. Bush and his cronies don't know the difference between liberty and tyranny. And the truly scary part is that his supporters don't seem to know the difference either.
There's a name for those who would put their political party's interests ahead of the their country's freedoms and liberties: "fascist retards". - TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Pretty good read, except for the typo halfway down.
- Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Another one bites the dust.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There's a difference between suspending something, as the law allows, during time of insurrection, and writing it out of the law entirely.
The problem here is that even if Bush doesn't declare himself Supreme Decider in the next two years, anyone who comes after him can now more easily abuse this law, and especially the law on Posse Comitatus, which is where it really gets bad. We know that this sort of power, once given, is very hard to get back.
And there's no good reason to give it up either. This notion that terrorists don't deserve fair trials is crazy. The whole point of the trial is to determine is they really are terrorists. If they are, lock them up for good. But what if they're not? What if they're political prisoners? How would we know?
"Trust us," doesn't cut it with an administration that lies on a daily basis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ compson - thank you for your excellent reply. I agree with you.
the US's history includes many questionable, and downright unconstitutional, laws - most of them have been rectified through the courts, and hopefully that is where this act will also end. the problem is the damage that can be caused while we wait for that to happen. - IAmRoot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even if the person in question is an enemy of the United States, they still have the right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty. Not everybody who is arrested is guilty. Also, the constitution says everybody shall given the right of habeas corpus, not just citizens.
- cafzal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How do the Dems want to get rid of the Constitution?
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did anybody else notice that not only is Habeas Corpus gone, so is Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/washington/02cnd-medicaid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
U.S. Tightens Medicaid Rules for Babies of Illegal Immigrants
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new policy, children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants with low incomes will no longer be automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, federal officials said today. - cafzal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great, inspiring call to rational arms. The moderates (whether center-right or center-left on the American political stage) need to vote on the real issues, not the partisan hack-mechine that both the Dems and GOP have built up.
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@HisLordUberdude
I now it's hard to take... but you sir, are now in the minority. Liberals, progressives, people that still have their sanity, whatever you want to call us, are now in the majority. Like Colbert says, "reality has a well known liberal bias".
We need change because the majority of people don't make a ***** million dollars a year...
...because the majority of people want to see society improve for themselves and their families, not the corporations and the richest 1%...
...because the majority of people realize Bush always wanted to go into Iraq for OIL, and now it blew up in his face...
...because the majority of the people realize that life isn't all about radical religious idealogies, it is about helping and taking care of eachother in the little time we have together on this earth...
...because the majority of convervatives realize their Republican party as they knew it in the 80s is gone and what remains is a spending machine the likes of which we have never seen in the history of this country...
...because the majority of people realize that the culture of corruption in the Republican party has hit crisis levels...
...because the majority of people love this country and realize we need an INTERVENTION to stop the psychosis of the Bush White House! - christkv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think I have ever lived in a country that's so polarized. It amazes me that there is such a deep split between the people who label themselves conservatives and liberals. I don't think I have meet anybody who falls into a category cleanly. Most people when it comes down to issues have a view that straddles both sides of the argument. The fact that political discussion has been reduced to a handful of issues that does not affect most Americans directly is a disservice to the people of the country. Gay this gay that, who cares. How about medical insurance ?, crime rates ?, poverty ?, tax ? or no tax, school ?, university ?, minimum wages ?, your retirement ?, your rights ?, your family ?. Right now it feels like Communists against Fascists. So if the Dem's win and they pursue the republicans with vigor, the republicans will exact their revenge next time they are in power. Nobody wins, everybody loses.
So take a stand against the political demagogues of both sides and vote on the issues come November 7 (use an absentee ballot if you don't trust the voting machine) - StantheBat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>>Would anyone like to explain to me why this is a problem? Committing acts of sedition and or treason against the United States of America makes you a traitor.
There are already laws against sedition and treason. This law doesn't require that you be found guilty of sedition or treason- or anything else. It deprives 'enemy combatants' of the right to due process, and gives Bush the right to decide who is an enemy combatant, without judicial review. In other words, if they say you're an enemy combatant because you protested the war, didn't vote for Bush, jaywalked, etc., you are one, and you don't get a day in court to contest it.
The reason it's a problem is that habeas corpus is the cornerstone of all democratic rights. Habeas corpus says that the king (or in this case, the president, though the distinction gets smaller every day) has to obey the law just like everybody else. He can't lock you up without charging you with something and giving you a chance to answer the charges. Without that right YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER RIGHTS. If your government can take you directly to jail without stopping in a courtroom first to have a conversation with somebody about it, *you have no rights*. -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 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