What is Digg?68 Comments
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2802:00: shoot friend in face with shotgun
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27About time.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has clearly given up on promotion. Expect a reversal at the Circuit Court level. Gonzales is already working on the brief, entitled "101 Reasons Why The Imperial Household Is Above Scrutiny."
- megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19>"This case is about protecting the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution," attorneys wrote.
So they wipe their asses with the Constitution when it gets in the way of their ambitions and then invoke its protection when it suits them. These really are the times that try mens' souls. - icontrolthesun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18WWWWAAAAAHHHHHH! Not Fair!
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Free speech? Where in the First Amendment does it mention Digg?
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16When reps lose congress, dems are going to investigate them to no end.
I'd like to see more of these ***** behind bars. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why do you think this decision is liberal biased ??
Maybe the GOP wants to show the world how many times Santa Clause and Jesus Christ visited Cheney ? - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14As long as he wasn't meeting with Al Qaeda, why should Cheney (or the SS) care if visitor logs are released?
Perhaps private phone calls are different than logs showing which people entered a particular building at a particular time. - MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@lborchardt - are you a republican? because you've got the whole diversion thing down pat.
- sathias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The critical difference is that they have gone before a judge to get access to the logs. It is the lack of this judicial oversight that makes the wiretaps illegal. It was a good try though!
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Of course, after all, Bush and Cheney were appointed by God by their own admissions.
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I am sure I know what Dick would say to us if the situation was reversed. Why should you care if we want know about what you call private, if you don’t have anything to hide?
Of course the difference is he’s doing the publics business on public property with public monies, so the public has a right to know how their employee spends his time and with who. - MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9*sniff* *sniff* is that comeuppance I smell? Haven't enjoyed that sweet aroma in about 6 1/2 years now, about damn time. This sort of reminds me of the inquiries done on Capone and their ilk. If you can't nail them for the crazy big ***** they're doing, go for the smaller crazy *****.
- eggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'll bet the shredders are working overtime right now.
- TyRaNNOus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Popularity is something the majority chooses, if you have a problem with that, you my friend are unpopular because of it. I smell a tad bit of jealousy QQ some more.
Even if he rallies people to his digg page it is not unfair, he is simply better at it then most people that is all. And if people instantly believe everything they see on the internet(digg specifically) then surely I could investigate crime because I watch CSI.
I personally don't believe anything that I read on digg until I do my homework on it. Because I realize alot of people tend to love the smell of *****. - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Gojeda: You people always misrepresent every argument. Maybe it's because you're stupid.
No problem wiretapping terrorists. Get a warrant to prove probable cause, and tap away. That's how you enforce the laws in a free country.
Cheney is a government employee. He works for the people, and is answerable to the people. It's not "HIS" visitor's log...it's ours. That's the way oversight works in a representative democracy.
Simple enough for you? Maybe not.
Lemme put it in terms you understand....if he's doing nothing wrong he has nothing to hide. Right, jackass?
Thought so. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i wonder why? hmmmmmmmm.... perhaps the whole hate, prejudice and disturbed logic thing isn't so popular in general :P
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know, after all we have a president who "believes" that God told him to invade Iraq ...
what makes you think that Jesus Christ didn't visit the vice president too ? - BlogCruiser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The visitors log should have been open to the public already by law! We are talking a politician working for the people and paid for with public dollars. It is absurd to think this wasn't already publicly available information and someone had to take it to court to get the information.
"The Washington Post asked for two years of White House visitor logs in June but the Secret Service refused to process the request. Government attorneys called it "a fishing expedition into the most sensitive details of the vice presidency.""
This is just plain insane that they withheld information like this that is public right to know information. Anyone trying to hide this information is trying to hide something or feeling quilty.
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6it's okay to look at the vice president's visitor logs when he's under investigation for a crime, and it's not okay to tap the phones of american citizens without a warrant or probable cause. *****.
- foolishge0rge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5we now have our first 'enemy Combatant', come on down . . . U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina you are the first contestant under the new law. your parting gift is a small cell which we will never hear from you again.
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've my bet on hookers, heart doctors, hookers that ARE heart doctors, and lobbyists that he undoubtedly took countless bribes from.
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'd like to see you get your wish.
- inchrnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm so sick of the "matter of national security" defense. Every time I hear it I know I'm getting ***** over by our government.
Cheney and this whole administration is a threat to national security. - vitriolix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wait, whats this? oh, looks like a platform. strange, i almost belived you for a sec:
http://democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
"Republicans: We're the party of Bad Ideas" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6These assclowns think they're above the law. They will soon find out otherwise.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because private meetings with Satan are usually considered unethical.
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4evil
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Gojeda: Touchy. The truth hurts.
If you want to live in a country where the party officials are beyond scrutiny and the people are under limitless surveillance....you would have loved Soviet Russia. Maybe East Germany would have been more your speed. That's how they operated.
You want to recreate the same conditions for tyranny here, you lickspittle bedwetter. It's that simple. If you want to live under such a regime, there are plenty of tyrannical governments that would welcome someone with your beliefs. You'd fit right in. Feel free to leave America any time. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this will be interesting... but then, whats to say, if cheney did have any dodgy meetings, that he wouldn't find a way to conceal it?
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Excellent points all. One more thing I would like to add, it's not illegal to wiretap terrorists. No one wants it to be illegal to wiretap terrorists. However it is illegal to do it without proper oversight, and should be illegal to do it without proper oversight. Because without oversight someone might be tempted to overstep their bounds and say, oh I dunno, start wire taping innocent Americans who might just be of a different political persuasion for other purposes other than fighting terrorism.
See that's the issue here. Oversight. Anyone who says it's different is LYING. Making sure everything is on the up and up. Giving someone the power to do secret wiretaps is giving someone an amazing amount of power. Power is often abused. The only way to prevent abuse is through oversight. Get it? Now if someone wants that power without the proper oversight, who lies about oversight, who fights oversight (as the Bush administration has done) then one might be a little suspicious about their motives. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ zelig :
Do you see the irony in your statement and gojeda's? - edverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@gojeda: My grandparents escaped communist and Nazi dictators so their posterity could live in a free country, and you guys are flirting with the danger of recreating it here. I didn't see the endgame as they did, but they had an expression which translated to "resist the beginnings".
And moreover...you think that voting this way and acting this way makes you look "strong" but you could not be more wrong. What it does is make you look weak, and scared, and willing to sacrifice America's freedom on the altar of your own party power.
You think they can keep you safe from people who want to kill us? That's not their job. (and not one they're competent enough to execute anyway.) Their oath is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, to which you owe everything. I don't consider the Constitution a suicide pact as you guys do, like a barrier to be overcome. "Give me liberty or give me death." You're currently on the "course that others may take".
Lincoln said: "“The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’ The American people just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty. But in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing.
“What constitutes the bulwark of our liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts — these are not our reliance against tyranny. Our reliance is in the love of liberty, which God has planted in our bosom. Our defence is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own door.
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow?
Never.
All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer that if it ever reach us, it must spring from amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers.
As a nation of free men, we must live through our times or die by suicide."
Think about that when you advocate granting your government the unfettered power to spy on her own people without a warrant, or detaining suspects forever without ever seeing a judge. When you advocate ever more harsh "questioning" tha amounts to torture, and you remove any oversight or barriers or laws to protect the innocent. As you overturn the very American ideal of "innocent until proven guilty".
Imagine your worst nightmare with that power (not someone so benevolent as anyone named Bush or Clinton) and ask yourself if it is wise to trust anyone with that authority.
You need to take a longer view of things. What frustrates me is that you seem more concerned with the outcome of the next election than you are about what sort of world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren. My forefathers didn't fight to preserve this beacon of liberty in this world to have you piss it away out of fear. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as a user of federal protection services those are matters of public record. We the public need to see that the secret service is doing it's job, the records are contactually govt propery, not private property. Simple enough for even a libertarian to understand.
Of course, in the course of their duties they are not legally allowed to be without the secret service protection at all times, hence they're pretty much in a "glass box" for 4 years. - Markers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm… does anyone else think Kim Jong II looks like a Muppet?
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1as it currently stands, it could have happened and neither you nor anyone else would ever know about it
and what of the next president? or the one after that? what if they decide to abuse the powers, be he republican, democrat, ross perot, richard nixon, whatever? - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ gojedi
Yeah, we should all ignore what ppl say, who cares about that. Its not like you speak to communicate or something.
Idiot - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I always know the conservative or moderate posts, those are the ones you can't see
- 30 digg
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gojeda: "Read the Constitution sometimes, a lof of fascinating stuff there, especially in Article II."
OK talking point kid. Done with you. - eggo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't about wiretapping terrorists, NO ONE is against that. This is about wiretapping YOU and ME. This is about being innocent until proven guilty. This is about being stripped of the freedom that our soldiers fought and died to protect. The right to be free from government used to be a Republican ideal, what happened to that?
All the terrorist attacks in the world could not destroy our way of life, it takes a rubber-stamp congress and a morally bankrupt president to do that. And of course, the idiots who blindly support them.
It's called checks and balances. This administration has removed the Bill of Rights, destroyed the right of judicial oversight, and thumbed their noses at anyone who calls them on it. You may not, but some of us still love this country and what it was founded on. "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't just some trite, rebellious saying. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than see my freedom stripped away. I will not give up that freedom without a fight. - eggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If he isn't doing anything wrong, he should be happy to hand over his records, right? Or does that faulty axiom only apply to the general public?
- edverb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not about right and left, and never was. That is a shortsighted view.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's not about right and left, and never was. That is a shortsighted view."
That's right, its about not preventing my government from doing its job in the most efficient and expeditious manner possible. - gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gee edverb, why doesn't it surpise me that you are just one of these limpwristed alarmists that, when pressed, doesn't have a whole lot to say?
Rookie.... - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why, because Al Sharpton happens to be black?
- zelig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It applies to everybody. Including me and you.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@gojeda: My grandparents escaped communist and Nazi dictators so their posterity could live in a free country, and you guys are flirting with the danger of recreating it here. I didn't see the endgame as they did, but they had an expression which translated to "resist the beginnings".
Very good. My parents escaped from communist Cuba in 1962 because they wanted their son, that would be me, to not be born into such an enviroment. So it is because of this background of mine that I am speaking out against the likes of you who are intent on hamstringing the country against threats previously unknown.
edverb: And moreover...you think that voting this way and acting this way makes you look "strong" but you could not be more wrong. What it does is make you look weak, and scared, and willing to sacrifice America's freedom on the altar of your own party power.
Actually, the only weak ones are those who pull every desperate trick in the book to subterfuge protection of the homeland. This ranges from exposing secret programs that have to remain secret for obvious reasons (except, it seems, not to obvious to some).
Additionally, I will ask you again, what freedom's are being sacrificed exactly? You see, I have asked this question several times now, and the response ranges from silence to the usual "you are Nazi" retort. Those are not fitting responses, and the lack thereof just illustrates the indefensibility of your position.
edverb: You think they can keep you safe from people who want to kill us? That's not their job.
I expect my government to protect the homeland as best they can. Yes, I **DO** expect them to rise up to that task. And not only do I expect them to protect the country, my Constitution expects them (specifically, the President) to protect the country.
Read the Constitution sometimes, a lof of fascinating stuff there, especially in Article II.
edverb: (and not one they're competent enough to execute anyway.) Their oath is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, to which you owe everything.
Read above.....good, I am glad you see it my way then.
edverb: I don't consider the Constitution a suicide pact as you guys do, like a barrier to be overcome. "Give me liberty or give me death." You're currently on the "course that others may take".
As opposed to you guys who see the Constitution as a tool to hamstring those to who try to protect the country as best they can you mean? When someone famounsly said. "The enemy is within the palace...", they were actually talking about the likes of you, who would rather debilitate the power of our government to fight against terrorism EFFECTIVELY. You would much rather expose any and all LEGAL attempts in order to try to surveill the bad guys? Why? Because you rights are being mythically eaten away.
So what are those rights of yours being eatan away again?
edverb: All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
The insular American speaks. Now, you are quite wrong here. We do not have a God given right of superiority here. The above is true because this country works VERY HARD so that the homeland is protected. Divine province has NOTHING to do with it.
And it is because of the efforts of people like you, who are intent on weakening the tools the country has as its disposal to fight foreign threats, that we are in the situation we are in today. We got a taste of what apathy and loss of focus gave to us on 9/11. I, for one, do not wish to live through that nightmare again, especially since I knew a few who died on that fateful day.
edverb: At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer that if it ever reach us, it must spring from amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers.
Precisely the reason why surveilling terrorism must not automatically exempt Americans. Americans can be terrorists just the same, and in fact, are of the more insidious strain for they have prepertrated acts against their own country.
edverb: As a nation of free men, we must live through our times or die by suicide."
This does not mean sitting on our hands (a-la Clinton) and this does not mean hamstringing law enforcement.
edverb: Think about that when you advocate granting your government the unfettered power to spy on her own people without a warrant, or detaining suspects forever without ever seeing a judge.
A typical mischaracterization.
No one is advocating unfettered power to surveil. That is merely a smokescreen of the left to demonize conservatives.
edverb: When you advocate ever more harsh "questioning" tha amounts to torture, and you remove any oversight or barriers or laws to protect the innocent. As you overturn the very American ideal of "innocent until proven guilty".
Can you cite specific and verifiable cases of torture at, say, Gitmo? I didn't think so.
edverb: You need to take a longer view of things. What frustrates me is that you seem more concerned with the outcome of the next election than you are about what sort of world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren. My forefathers didn't fight to preserve this beacon of liberty in this world to have you piss it away out of fear.
I would say, that, in light of your and your party's incessant bashing of the administration and the Republican Congress, that the only one who is making a powergrab for seats in Congress are you and your Democrat friends. One only has to look at the desperate mudslinging over the last year or so to see that reality.
Like I have mentioned before, mudslinging is not a substitute for a party platform. Instead of coming up with an alternate plan for America, you and your Democrat friends have chosen to spend your time demonizing the opposition. That is why your party is unable to sweep the floor with a weakened Republican party.
One would think that the message would have gotten through to the leadership by now, but apparently it has not.
I, for one, will do what I can to ensure that you, and those like you, does not subterfuge the ability of my government to protect its citizenry. -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is