What is Digg?102 Comments
- nofrak1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+64Could have. Should have. Didn't.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51Gonzales cannot or will not answer questions about the basic functions of his job, and yet the jackasses give him MORE?
I despise the Repugs for their policies and politics, but some days I just want to punch Dems in the mouth for being such pussies.
This is f'n ridiculous. - canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41i want my november votes back. ***** all of you. you were put in to stop the war and restore our right to privacy, and you knew that.
i'm ready vote 3rd party in '08 no matter who it is. hitler's corpse could run and i'd feel better about it than handing over another vote to the D/R. - NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22That assumes voting actually determines the Presidency anymore. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but after what I've seen in the past six and a half years, I'm not so sure anymore.
- Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Though this Congressman says they should have voted down the bill, they did not. So it really looks bad for the Democrats. But what is interesting is what they do not tell you. Guess who was behind pushing for the passage of the bill? You guess it- the lobby groups. And not just any lobby groups- only the most powerful ones were able to influence the outcome.
You know what is so interesting, the democratic presidential contenders voted against it but you know why? Because they already knew it would pass. I can guarantee if the margins were slimmer, one or more of the candidates would have voted for it.
What absolute garbage!!! They think they are being glib and that we are stupid!!! Jerks!!! - Mitchl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Dude- lighten up. Can't you understand? Bush said they couldn't take this vacation until they passed the bill. They would have had to struggle with those 10-3 days Monday to Thursday on their $220k salaries living in mansions you are paying for. What do you expect them to do? They might have had to work an entire 8 months or so this year.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Well...Sestak did, the Senators who didn't are:
(and yes, "not voting" is complicity in my book...and worse, being complicity while trying to cover your own ass)
Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Not Voting
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Not Voting
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Not Voting
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea - bradanomics, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12too little, too late. ***** cowards.
- AustinMandi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Maybe you should have thought about that BEFORE you cast the vote, dumbass.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
- NCSUspoon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8From where I come from, 'should have' is a meaningless phrase
- barrimon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"Democrats: Always standing up for what they later realize they should have believed in." - Jon Stewart, the Daily Show
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Libertarians? Ron Paul couldn't even be bothered to show up for the debate or the vote.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's pointless to stand up for your beliefs? Did I really see that posted by a Ronbot?
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Coulda woulda shoulda. You can act as remorseful as you like, but you're still on my ***** list.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
If your represented voted yes, you should strongly consider voting him out. I'm happy to say that my representative did not.
Also:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309#state - lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5maybe you should have read the entire article BEFORE you commented, dumbass. he did think about that before hand, and thats why he voted against it. unfortunately for all of us, he was not in the majority. he was not expressing regret for his own actions, but for those with whom he works.
- Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Hi, I'm a Libertarian. I'm not money grubbing. Quite the opposite really, considering I can't even seem to find a job at the moment. I firmly believe in the non-aggression principle, the idea of not using force against others for your own personal gain. The difference between a Republican and a Libertarian is basically that. A Republican will put the dollar in front of another person's freedom and is willing to use force or even kill to help some corporation's profit margins (such as Corporate Welfare or Wars for Oil).
The real problem with American politics is it's becoming too populist, which is a problem in democracy. They pander to the voters with pork. It's all bread and Circuses. - FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Coulda' Shoulda' Woulda'
- Mitchl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You libs are such chumps for voting these Dems in if you thought they were going to do jack *****. Both parties exist for the sole purposes of growing government, growing business, keeping the masses in their cages, and lining their own pockets and keeping their power.
- paradexes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Too little too late Pussocrats. In typical form they (the politicians) flipflop. Just like most politicians on both sides do. This response is the way to say oh woops we screwed up...oh well (shurugs with a smirk). Want to make a change? Repeal the friggin bill and start impeaching the hell out of people. While you are at it show some spine and impeach yourselves for incompetence. Some of you internet savvy Senators should be reading this. IMPEACH THE WHOLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!, IMPEACH EVERYONE IN THE SENATE WHO DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS!! Keep this up and you will have a ful out rebellion. History shows that civil unrest is ALWAYS the precursor to a revolution.
The traitors to this country are in power now. They betrayed the founding fathers ideal, and their country. All for what? Money? Riches? a few extra luxuries? Next election do a write in vote to take away Senate, Executive and Judicial salaries. If enough of us they will listen. The only way to get action is to take down their pocket books. Also write in yourself as a presidential candidate. She them that the people rule this country not the Government. The government is an administration a steward, not the rulers. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS. So start Serving!! OR YOU WILL BE SERVED!!! - wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Wow, that's a mess without the line breaks...Digg, why won't you let us format our comments as we like?
- thedarkwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sestak had a good quote from Ben Franklin. The entire quote is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
That has been my away message since the bill was signed. - Ifishbein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You should have, but you didn't and now we are all going to hell.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately, third parties don't have a prayer, so the realistic option was: give the Dems a chance or continue putting up with the Republicans.
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I believe in helping which is why I donate to the Salvation Army. Why don't you give me my tax money back so I can give it to people that really help the poor, and not do the crap that the government does. If the Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity had the money FEMA had New Orleans would have been taken care of.
So this caring Libertarian says that charities do it better than the government does it. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Mexican-American War, The Civil War, WW I & II, Korea and Viet Nam. Other than those the Democrats haven't gotten us in to a war.
- stormshadow777, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well you didn't. You and the Democrats that were elected have had plenty of opportunities to facilitate change. What have you done? Raise the minimum wage. Don't act like your shocked and surprised. We'll see if your asses are still in their seats in 08
- THEMACGOD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Then. Why. Didn't. You.
- paradexes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I am a republican. Or was. You live in fear so much that you are willing to relinquish the rights CLEARLY outlined in the constitution for privacy. I can promise you this. The next President in power will most likley be a Democrat (which really means nothing since both these days operate in the same manner just with different ways of pandering) And that President in the name of National Security WILL take away our right to bear arms. All because some very likley to happen (read orchastrated) terrorist attack will happen that will cause this nation to further fear.
I sincerely believe that the first Attack on the WTC was real terrorists. Hell i was 2 blocks from the towers when it happened. The second one seemed legit at first, but with all the capitolization and things that so rapidly happened since it makes me question who really was behind 9/11. Was it a conspiracy by our Govt? Possibly not the first time a Government has made something like this happen. 1939 Germany is an example of this.
We need to get rid of the people in power allowing our civil liberties to go away. "Those who prefer a little security at the cost of liberty will gain neither and will lose both". -Ben Franklin If you are gonna argue with a founding father then you my friend are out of your mind. They saw this they lived it first hand with the British being the tyrants in their case.
- - wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I thought conservatives were for small gov't with minimal intrusion into our lives. How does surveillance of citizens without a court order fit in with that?
- razorswc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "It takes great courage to know something is wrong, and do nothing about it until it's too late" >_> I probably butchered that.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes, it's annoying as hell that 16 Democratic senators voted for this crap, but let's not forget that NONE of the Repugnicans opposed it.
- Rsardinia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6This is always such good reason for a third party that does not have the stench of republican or democrat bullsh*t. Libertarians all the way. Support the constitution, support the people. Even if you are independent that shows you support the constitution since neither of the 2 major parties seem to give a sh*t about that "Damned piece of paper."
- spawnfree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you shall not crucify humanity on a cross of gold.....ah what the hell, just this once.
- iella, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't regret it. Repeal it. Right now. Go!
- disparue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There is a thing called mission creep. You give tools and capabilities to an organization and they will always find more purposes for them.
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if you're not part of the solution...
bout time we had a hangin! - cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, its a little late for shoulda's
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Like when Bill and Hillary Clinton were using FBI files and the IRS to intimidate and silence people opposed to them.
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The "Damned piece of paper" comment is so thoroughly discredited by now that you shouldn't be using it.
- dr-steve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh...
Joe Sestak is my congressman. I met him around 6 months before the '06 election and have been supporting him since.
He is a decent person, one of the few in Congress. (I've known one other, Rush Holt, for many years.)
He spoke against it. He voted against it. He continues to speak against it. He supports most of the causes I believe in (moderate/liberal). If you listen to what he says, you'll know where he's coming from. Running carrier groups in war. Seeing the impact of full education, health, and support systems upon the growth and development of people working for him. "With unlimited educational opportunity, our sailors achieved and grew. When we limited it, they didn't."
I wrote to Joe after the vote, supporting his effort. You can write to your congressperson and senators as well. No, they don't read your messages. Yes, they get summaries and trends. That's how the congressional email-your-rep systems work. But they do hear from you.
IF YOU ARE AFRAID TO STAND UP TO BAD GOVERNMENT, IF YOU ARE AFRAID TO TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES WHAT YOU THINK, THEN YOU DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT YOU GET.
-Steve - LeeMaple, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Time for a system wide reboot...
- indicas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i watched this speech last night, didn't change my opinion much. very disappointed that the democrats are not doing what the ***** country brought them in to do. we did not vote them in to roll over time after time.
- vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He's in Iowa campaigning right now. Still disappointing though.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Then 100% of Republicans voting for this Stasi ***** is WHAT? Republican leadership? Well, congratulations.
- oneiroi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's because people expect this from Republicans. But part of the reason they lost power, was that Democrats were supposed to go against this crap.
I mean, look at the presidential candidates, they have all spoken up against wiretapping...and you'd figure that would be representative of what the democratic party stood for. Instead they pass this without a fight. - somberlaine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I am burying this cause it is meaningless now. Other than the fact that their pussies, Democrats did not want a debate to stand between them and their vacations. LAME.
- haggie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This vote is the best example of why the two party system is failing America that I have yet to see.
- johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually we don't elect the president, the Electoral College does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
Democrats were screaming about it when Bush lost the popular vote, but still won the election. they did not seem to be serious enough to eliminate the thing though. it serves the status quo. in this day and age, we can manage to vote our own president. the Electoral College made sense 200 years ago when some people (rural people, farmers etc) could not easily make it to vote. same way the country is a Representative Republic and not a Direct Democracy. in theory one day we will be voting online. if that is the case, then a lot more votes on issues could easily be done by the people. ok, that's maybe cloud talk? - thedarkwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am keeping that list. Although I am happy to say that my representative voted against this bill, I will remember not to give my vote to anyone who voted for it.
If any of them want my vote for anything in the future, they better do something pretty damn impressive to win back my support. -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is