What is Digg?332 Comments
- savetheusa1, on 11/13/2007, -9/+202***** the Government
- StorytoShare, on 11/14/2007, -6/+115 "A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy."
Hmmm, why don't we keep privacy as it is and change this guy to unemployed.
Unbelievable.
We can not continue to tolerate this brazen *****. "There's something happening here......what it is, is BECOMING clear..."
Consider: rense.com infowars.som prisonplanet.tv jonesreport.com davidicke.com - Napoleone, on 11/12/2007, -1/+85In other words, all our activities must be logged. Our broadest movements must leave a trace. A receipt for every purchase. An act of registration at every gate. Perhaps we should keep the minutes of our conversations, as well?
THIS is Big Brother.
Mark these words. Nothing you ever do will ever again be a secret if this comes to pass. Government will be your overlord, and no one will have the freedom necessary to conspire against it. What the Chinese have accomplished through intimidation, our government will accomplish with our acquiescence.
But why must we be compelled to gather evidence against ourselves for potential crimes yet uncommitted? Are we all preemptive suspects now? Each a potential enemy of the state? Is the world the powerful have created for themselves so vile that the weak must be spied on and disarmed, lest they tire of suffering its side effects?
Freedom for safety. Freedom for safety. Freedom for safety. The brave die once. But the cowardly die a thousand deaths. - Look4Truth, on 11/14/2007, -11/+60They gotta protect us from the Al CIAda boogeymen.
- aki009, on 11/14/2007, -1/+50Introducing the fastest way to talk to your government: send an email to yourself. Proudly serving American citizens since 2003.
- Nexus974, on 11/13/2007, -16/+58Is this the kind of world you want to live in? If not, vote Ron Paul. No other candidate thinks this is even a problem.
- toxicityj, on 11/13/2007, -4/+44this is why i stick with AMD...
:D - SeethisPass, on 11/12/2007, -1/+33The elite must lose THEIR privacy. That's where they plot against us.
- Napoleone, on 11/14/2007, -6/+37I'll be voting for Ron Paul, but that's not true. Dennis Kucinich is equally as devoted to freedom.
- KMye, on 11/13/2007, -3/+29It's seriously time for a movement towards a privacy amendment in the constitution.
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -4/+29They should be scared of you...
- AngelicRaver, on 11/12/2007, -0/+23"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." T. Jeffersonn
- Napoleone, on 11/12/2007, -1/+24You mean the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?
I guess you feel the clear and simple language in those amendments is beyond the comprehension skills of our representatives. I don't blame you. But I'm not sure things could be made any more clear. - CrazedLeper, on 11/13/2007, -1/+23"A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy."
This is from the same government that changed it's definition of "torture" too, isn't it? - Tempest261, on 11/12/2007, -1/+22What the ***** has happened to our country? Each time I think it can't get any worse, they somehow find a way to horrify me all over again.
I don't care what political affiliation you have. Hell, I don't even care if you voted for Bush. There can't be a sane person alive who thinks any of this is good. IF YOU SACRIFICE PRIVACY FOR SECURITY, YOU LOSE BOTH! - toetagger, on 11/12/2007, -1/+20Privacy impedes control and marketing. Our government is and has been way out of line for a long time. Disgusting.
- EdgarVerona, on 11/14/2007, -0/+17"... whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these things, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."
-My man T.J. from our good ol' Declaration. - vervalsing, on 11/13/2007, -4/+21Everyone is always talking about how we have to protect our privacy from the government, but who is going to protect the dictionary from the Bush administration? For years, we thought our definitions were safe inside it's covers, but no more. First it was victory, success, then torture and privacy; what's next? Will we be looking in our 2008 Webster's to find "Vice President" defined as "Your supreme Lord and Ruler"?
- whojaybe, on 11/12/2007, -1/+17like i always said, the government are allowed to do all this ***** and get away with it... but ALL these government officials break more laws than all of us...
- galeninjapan, on 11/12/2007, -4/+17***** this guy. Most of these government agencies are just busy bodies. I have an idea. Let's not fund all these monolithic government agencies, they shut down and then we restore privacy and liberty for all.
RP08 - Himself, on 11/12/2007, -4/+17now go read the Federalist papers
- psion01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+13If the government isn't afraid of the populace who allow it to govern, it has no reason to change its policies.
- Kishoba, on 11/14/2007, -0/+13A government isn't somebody. It's a virtual entity perpetuated by it's citizens. Of course a government should be scared of it's citizens. They are supposed to be the ones calling the shots - not a government so powerful that it's the other way around.
- Graves138, on 11/13/2007, -2/+15This is what a police state looks like.
- xRand0mx, on 11/12/2007, -0/+13Remember Remember...
- Himself, on 11/12/2007, -2/+14its way past time to refresh the tree of liberty with blood!!
- richardtallent, on 11/13/2007, -5/+17Without the right to arm yourself against tyranny, no other rights matter. Kucinich is strongly anti-2nd Amendment. I'm not a gun owner, but I recognize the necessity of this basic right. He is also a strong supporter of programs that will bring only LESS privacy and MORE government intrusion, such as nationalized health care and stronger "hate crime" laws. I agree that Kucinich is the lesser of the Democratic evils at this point, but his positions are not fully aligned with the Constitution. My vote and money goes to Dr. Paul.
- BarbadoSlim, on 11/13/2007, -0/+12Oh yes yes! Now I understand WE are the problem, we need to "redefine" our privacy. We have to give them a blank check and trust them to do the right thing.
I see it now.
- fak3r, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12This is why things like EFF.org are so important, visit them http://eff.org - consider joining and making a donation. They have links to other, like-minded sites out there. I recommend http://lefttochance.com
- Xanium4332, on 11/12/2007, -3/+14V for Vendetta...
- BelXul, on 11/12/2007, -0/+10I concur. Let's break down assembly for a moment.
Assembly is listed as one of the primary freedoms in the First Ammendment. If we truly have the RIGHT to assemble, then we should not NEED a permit to assemble.
A permit is a form stating that we have PERMISSION by the government to do something. If we need permission to assemble, then the Freedom of Assembly has been abridged, or even restricted. - stephbangm, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9The 9th amendment is technically the privacy amendment---our government just doesn't give a damn.
- thetedster180, on 11/13/2007, -1/+10I cannot tell you how sick I am of the Gov't interfering with my civil right
- EdgarVerona, on 11/12/2007, -0/+9They have governments. Warlordism is a form of government.
In fact, that particular (despotic, corrupt, abusive) form of government is Somalia's problem at the moment, not a lack of government.
The question still stands, however, if a society could exist without government. There's been no real example of that in the history of mankind. - BelXul, on 11/14/2007, -1/+10I like my definition of Privacy, derived from the word "Private", which means: It's none of their damn business.
- krnldmp, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9Live free or die *****.
- secretivecoward, on 11/13/2007, -1/+101775
Patrick Henry: give me liberty or give me death.
2007
Americans: Death?! Oh God no, please don't kill me. Take my liberty, I really never used it anyway... - Napoleone, on 11/12/2007, -1/+9Unnecessary, but accepted.
- aki009, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8Constitutional amendments don't mean much if the Constitution itself is being undermined by various interest groups pursuing short-sighted "selective interpretations" of it. Such as the attempts to interpret "the people" as individuals in one place, and the state in another. Or allowing the federal government to continue grabbing ever growing power under guises of regulating intrastate commerce.
- Mikesendker, on 11/12/2007, -2/+10I always point out to people that according to the Declaration of Independence we're supposed to be in a revolution right now.
- madmonkey300, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7If the gov'ment begins to regulate the internet I say we should all meet up on capitol hill during a set time and date
- EdgarVerona, on 11/12/2007, -1/+8That's the key. We have to take the goddamn power back. We, the people, are almost unrepresented in our government compared to corporations and the wealthy minority. While times are hard for the average American, we're told that the economy is "booming" because the top 20% have seen their riches increase tenfold. While we sit by and wonder why the government isn't working for us, corporations and lobbyists are greasing our government's palms and getting exclusive tax cuts (such as the halving of the Capital Gains Tax) in exchange.
We need to start making some noise, some real noise. We need to start voting some bastards out of office, and start electing some people who haven't played a part in this power struggle.
Hell, I'm a lefty and would love to see a Green party candidate get elected for office, but I'd even swing over and vote for a Libertarian if it gave him a rat's chance in hell of getting elected. Anyone but the Republicans and Democrats, that's my current line of thought on the subject. It seems that only the so-called "extremist" parties are interested in anything other than getting paid to sell us out anymore. - KMye, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9(and apologies)
- christoast, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8so? lets rise up and stop them, isn't that what a democracy does?
- EdgarVerona, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7The solution is to continuously kick them out of office as they become corrupt and despotic.
No one should rest on their laurels in a democracy: and certainly our "leaders" shouldn't. There's ***** in the Senate who've been there for almost half a century. Same with the House of Reps. In the executive branch, you constantly see an influx of people who've been holding positions in the executive branch for decades; they leave for a term or two, but come back and we end up with the same *****.
When someone in office becomes despotic, we need to kick them out and elect someone else. When they try to come back as a "consultant", "advisor", "cabinet member" or under another position, we kick them out again or vote the person out of office who's trying to get them back into power.
And if they try some underhanded ***** to stay in power after the people have fairly elected them out, that's when we grab the rope and shotguns. Thomas Jefferson could stop rolling in his grave if we'd have the balls to vote these bastards out of office and force them out if they don't go peacefully. - D3koy, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9I know that's just terrible, but I had the same immediate reaction...
- savetheusa1, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9That time has long past. Osama never took away my rights. The administration did.
- richardtallent, on 11/13/2007, -2/+9BTW, by reading this page, your IP has been logged on some government computer along with this URL. Some government computer has already made a list of every IP that accessed this page. In a few years, your IP will be matched up with "open" ISP logs and some government computer will flag you as one of those troublesome people who should be rounded up first to protect the sheeple from "domestic terrorists."
- arbulus, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7Hasta la victoria sempron!
- vamos, on 11/13/2007, -1/+8I guess encryption is now mandatory for all Internet access. http://tor.eff.org/
-
Show 51 - 100 of 324 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is