What is Digg?209 Comments
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -11/+147They aren't undermining the troops, they're undermining the president. They don't want the president to do whatever he damn well pleases, and after 5 years of watching that happen they've decided that it would be in their best interest to stop it.
When will you stop turning a blinde eye to this presidents rediculous line of thinking? - zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -6/+87President Bush is the Commander in Chief.
But who is supposed to have the power to determine with whom we war? Oh, is that congress? I'll be damned... - ThndrShk2k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55"Marked as inaccurate: Vetoing isn't "Defying" or "not abiding". It's every president's right, period."
It's also the Senate/House's right to override a president's veto, lest we forget that in our three teired system, not one cog can stop the whole process.
IF it comes to that and still passes, and the president does not abide to it... big trouble. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+51undermining the troops?
America has spoken in last Novembers vote, Democrats are the voice of the American people at the moment - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49I think the legislation is just a way for the democrats to 'test the waters'. If bush doesnt even bother to abide by it, the next set of legislation will probably start pulling funding for the war until a comprimise is reached.
Bush: "I aint gunna listen to no sissy pants democrats"
Congress: "Ok. Then you pay for your war yourself then" - Arahka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45He's commander and cheif, not King and Dictator. It's called democracy which includes checks and balances! This type of government is not supposed to give him the right to just do whatever the hell he feels like.
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47100% expected. I'd be surprised if Bush ever read a law, much less followed one.
- Flummoxer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Haven't you heard of a little concept called "checks and balances?"
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -12/+46Good point but no big surprise. When has Bush ever thought it important to "abide by legislation?"
Don't ya know the Decider is above the Law? He has his signing statements to prove it. - aaronkarp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38On the contrary, they're supporting the troops by trying to get them out of there. It's not a matter of voting to send the troops into battle underequipped or underfunded. It's a matter of the democrats trying to save their lives.
Since when does "send into battle" equate to "support"? - dotjones, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Undermining the troops! WTF! Bush has been sending them death warrants for the past six years. What fu(|(1ng rock do you live under!
Must be from Texas... where all Bush servants live. - akilleen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34"Bush: "I aint gunna listen to no sissy pants democrats"
Congress: "Ok. Then you pay for your war yourself then""
Unfortunately what is going to happen then is....
Bush: "You are taking funding away from the troops! The Democrats don't care about the troops!" - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Haven't you guys heard?
Laws are only binding to little people, Bush gets to pick & choose which laws he wants to obey. He's been doing exactly that throughout his presidency. Google "signing statement". - Ngai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32This man would would defy troop withdrawal legislation to kill as many people as he pleases to get some oil.... oil = money and money = greed.
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39I know i'll probably get dugg down becuase this is wayyy off topic, but this is exactly why I like Obama. He was a constitutional lawyer for 10 years, i think that qualifies him.
- AboveBeyond, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Impeach Clinton for sexual relationship...ok but no impeachment for a President that does whatever the hell he wants--including scandals, lying about the Iraq war, and implementing legislations that undermines civil liberties--WOW!
- kirbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24we dont support the dumb ***** our administration is doing
i totally support the troops and their families.. hell give them a pay raise and a parade - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Our coke-head, drunk-driving fiscally-fraudulent president has been living by his own destructive rules for a lot longer than his presidency...
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@sonofdy
A constitutional crisis? Oh, heaven forbid! I mean, I know two thirds of the population disapprove of Bush, most people think he has made, is making, and will continue to make ***** horrible decisions on everything from the war in Iraq to environmental policy, and that for all the world it looks like the only people benefiting from these decisions are Haliburton and friends. I know that people are dying (quite literally) by the busload every day, I know that habeus corpus no longer applies on US soil and that off US soil the CIA has torture facilities all over the globe. I know that American government is seen around the world as a corrupt, morally bankrupt, bureaucratic behemoth, and I know that the US economy is crashing and burning and about the only thing anyone's done about it is to discontinue the M3 report, which shows how much money the federal reserve is printing.
I know health care is *****, the education system is failing fast, New Orleans is still a wreck, and corporations spend more money on lawsuits than they do on R&D. I know the US patent office believes that the US patent office is totally incapable of doing the job it's supposed to do. I know that the US incarcerates more of it's population than any other nation in the world and yet still most convicts are back behind bars within a year or two of being released because the prison system just doesn't work.
But a constitutional crisis? Civil unrest? Oh god, no! We wouldn't want to cause any trouble now, surely? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"support the troops" is a completely useless jingoist phrase which really is supposed to translate to:
"support the war"
They have intentionally engraved it in americans heads that if you dont support the war, you dont support the troops. In reality, "support the troops" would mean do whatever it takes to make the troops safe. In the current case of the troops fighting for and against all 3 sides of a civil war leaving them there to continue do do so and supporting the war is NOT supporting the troops.
"suppport the troops" came from the fallacy that viet nam troops were spat upon after returning from viet nam. In fact, this is historically inaccurate. However, it was purposely engraved into society at that point that you cant blame the troops for being there, so you must support them by all means necessary. It was important to give the war a human face in order to show that if you are not in favor of war, you are hurting this face that you see an image of on the news. This was done intentionally.. ask anyone who carries a support the troops bumpersticker what it actually means.. you will find that they cannot boil the argument down to anything BUT support the war. - nawitus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22You Americans have a funny definition of democracy.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"Apparently you missed it...those missing buildings, and thousands dead, in NYC? When would it be necessary?"
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so tell me, how is that related at all? It would be great to go after the people who were behind the attacks... that's not what the war in Iraq is doing. - BigPapa1974, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21But they are not brave enough to cut funding for the war. They have the power to do it but don't do it.
- bicyclethief, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@jetboyterp:
And how strange it is that some people don't understand the idea of only risking our uniformed men and women's lives only when absolutely necessary. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19They didn't vote to send the troops to war, they voted to allow the president to defend the country against international law breakers... a subtle but HUGE difference. Iraq is not a declared war. Congress is the only one that can declare war on another country.. they can also declare an end to war as they see fit. They allowed the president some freedom to continue battles against us as needed, but they did not declare war... even if they did, they can declare a war over... That is percicesly how the framers meet the law to be. Heck even FDR couldn't get away with starting WW2 without congress' permission. We've come a long way DOWN from there.
- founderofpork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17This would all make a lot of sense...if we were actually at war. Since Bush is over in Iraq basically at the whim of congress they can, and should revoke his play-time privileges as soon as possible.
- understudy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@ruoneofus
Just because you have a problem with management doesn't mean you have a problem with the workforce.
The President is not the same as the troops; for example, if the President were acting to place the troops in harm's way unnecessarily and for reasons unrelated to true democratic behavior, it would be the President's actions and directives that led to the harm of the troops, the instability of the Armed Forces in general, and the global negative sentiment toward Americans as a whole.
_ - robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@jetboyterp: "All these Democrats voted to give the President the authority to go to war with Iraq."
Wrong. 1) Not all the Dems that were in congress authorized military action. 2) A lot of the Dems that are currently in congress were not in congress when military action was authorized.
"they need to STAY OUT OF IT, and let the President, and the military, do the job."
Wrong. I give you permission to wash my car. You pull out a tire iron and start smashing my car to bits. With great permission comes great responsibility. Not a blank check.
"How strange it is, that liberals wont fund our men and women in uniform, but then say "we support the troops"...."
...and how many Goopers are standing up along side them? Party liners like you are the real problem with America. Look at the problem objectively, listen to "the other side's" argument, and reasonably consider it. Everyone has their opinion, but it should be educated at the very least, unlike your's. - jefferygomer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14That's probably because most of we Americans think we live in a democracy.
It's a Democratic Republic that we Americans live in folks. We don't say what happens. We choose the people that say what happens. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Clinton was impeached for committing PERJERY, a Federal Offense...Why don't you liberals try rooting for our side in this war for a change?"
Bush has committed PERJERY 1,000 times. Most presidents lie. Why don't you open yourself to a reasoned discussion instead of attacking the other side without trying to understand their point of view? Try to realize that just because we have a different way of trying to protect our country doesn't mean you have to start calling us traitors. - keitho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"where did he lie exactly?"
Where are those WMDs? Where is the nuclear weapons stash? Wheres the real evidence that Saddam was working with Bin Laden? He Cheney, and Powell all claimed to have that yet once we got into the war and nothing showed up, "oh, I guess we were wrong." - omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@ jetboyterp
stop breathing my air, please. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13We never declared war. The American people don't want a war. The American people didn't elect Bush.
- draebor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10He's disregarded all other US legislation so far... why stop now?
- Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The Dude abides. It would only be logical that Bush, the anti-Dude, will not abide.
- terribly1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Cuz lying to the whole world about a war isn't that big a deal or nothin'.
- alllie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Bush acts like he thinks he is king. Or God.
But Congress is suppose to hold the power of the purse. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You know that you can swear on digg, right?
- robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Bamont
Last I checked, Digg is on a public forum on the Internet. How exactly is "the Left" using their "pull" to influence Digg? OHHH, it must be high-paid operatives working for George Soros.
So who's stupid? - airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13King George cares not for the mewling of the masses! He shall do as god has ordained him to do!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This is not a war. We have no enemy. We have a president who illegally sent our soldiers to die for his business interests.
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I can't wait for the day when I see Cheney and Bush locked behind bars.
- kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10so impeach him
problem solved - keitho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10England is pulling their troops out and its being considered "cut and run" but a "sign of success" according to Cheney. People need to learn to not take talking points from these divisive people and encourage Iraq to start defending their own country as opposed to us doing the work for them. I'd rather have a safe and secure America than a safe and secure Iraq.
- charityjustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"will not abide"? Who talks like that? The Bush administration is starting to sound like comicbook supervillains, I'm expecting a "curses, foiled again!" or "you'll rue the day!" press release any time now.
Exclusive to Fox News, of course. - martynda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12So... the finally said outright that they don't follow the law? Shouldn't I be hearing about impeachment proceedings sometime soon?
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12lol "troups"
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -22/+30@CraigB12
ridiculous
/sry, pedantic (but it is spelt wrong so often on here) - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What law hasn't he followed? 18 USC 371.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That's the game plan... to call him out!!! Like all good people drunk on power, he won't be able to make the rational choice to back down and he'll push the matter to be the law of Congress or his. The resolutions are the first step... start small.. tell him you think he should change strategy. That will enrage him so he's not paying attention as you pass actual legal rules he MUST follow. Then he responds and the Democrats will Box him into a corner with something small and focused. Black and White. A simple law that even Republicans will back that will have to back on the principle of checks and balances and not about Bush. That's what Congress did to Johnson when they impeached him. He was acting much like Bush, undermining Congresses laws with directly conflicting orders to his generals in charge of reconstruction.. Congress was somewhat split until they could get the prez to flat out refuse to follow a simple, legal order. Then the whole group had to nail him...on principal of their jobs. Funny Johnson was a Republican too!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is