What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
115 Comments
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -4/+47Ah... more of those 5-4 decisions we have come to know and love!
Anybody that ever told you a single vote never made a difference didn't sit on the Supreme Court! - whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -7/+40They're not conservative, they're neo-conservative. Quit insulting real conservatives.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+47Ah, the right wing ***** on the American citizen again.
Nothing like a Supreme Court under orders from the Bush regime. - jonthebishop, on 10/11/2007, -8/+35This country is going downhill fast
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+275-4
Think about that. They just ruled on constitutional issues and at least four of them were wrong. - Mewchu11, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23Something terrible is about to happen, I can just feel it.
- airencracken, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23Oh so now ordinary taxpayers can't challenge the faith based initiatives? So my money goes to support programs that endorse a magical sky fairy and I have no say? We've ceased to be a democracy.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15At least in your second citing, the one about faith-based initiatives, it allows any president via executive order to support religious or anti-religious groups to whatever extent he wants using federal funds. Give the Christians more cash? It's legal now. Fund some Scientology e-gram festivals? Go nuts, mister President. It opens up a can of worms that I don't think the founding fathers would have agreed with, given their stances on keeping state sponsorship of religion out of the picture.
And as far as #3 is concerned, there seems to be little difference between so called "free speech" and a "quid pro quo." - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Blackwater = armed corporation. Now what do we do?
- aukxsona, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
By funding religion, it is there fore helping to establish that religion. NOT ONE Pagan charity has received a single federal dollar, although many are 501(c)(3) and many are deserving. By making a law funnelling dollars into faith based agencies, we now have discrimination based on religion. Did you know MOST adoption agencies in the US will deny you the ability to adopt based on your religion? Many many loving Pagan parents are denied the right to parent based only on their religion. By giving religion money you are giving religion power to establish itself. That is a law respecting the establishment of religion if I EVER saw one. - Turdmoe, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Why do all the sensible comments get buried along with the spam while all the senseless radical left wing comments are thrust in the readers face without any opposition? It's Digg.com that is going downhill!
- Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Bad liberals. Bad conservatives.
Bad liberals. Bad conservatives.
Bad liberals. Bad conservatives.
Bad liberals. Bad conservatives.
Bad liberals. Bad conservatives.
Hey, watch my left hand, not my right. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -16/+23"In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the federal government can avoid its responsibility to protect species under the Endangered Species Act by handing off authority to the states. "
- Isn't this a State issue under the 10th amendment?
"In a 5-4 decision, the Court “barred ordinary taxpayers from challenging a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.” "
- This neither establishes an official religion. This doesn't prohibit the free practice of religion, it in fact encourages it. This is constitutional.
"In a 5-4 decision, the Court loosened restrictions on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, “weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.” "
- Isn't this what you would call freedom of speech?
These all look like sensible decisions, at least when taken at face value. - kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7they get treated like humans but without the liability. Whilst corporate crime does more harm and kills more people than street crime yet almost always goes unpunished. If punished it is very lenient.
- goffy59, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6agreed (I'm American). King bush is an *****. So is our whole government system. They are all *****. And they all dont give a ***** ***** about us.
- clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6How come the neo-cons always forget about the concept of federalism when it pertains to drug laws (i.e., medicinal marijuana in California)? I'm not a pot smoker, or a conservative, but they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Yesterday's conservatives, like Barry Goldwater, are today's libertarians. They believed less government was better government, and that it should stay out of our checkbooks and our bedrooms. They also strongly believed in the separation of church and state.
With the current administration, not only would Barry be a flaming liberal, but he'd probably be on a subversives watch list. - abxy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5And where might you be living? — I'm looking for a new country to live in; I'd like to watch Rome crash and burn from afar rather than be right in the middle of it all.
- Habemus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6To all those claiming this is more evidence of a fascist Amerikkka and Bush is destroying democracy, and all that.
WTF???
The Supreme Court just overturned a law that prohibited you from criticizing incumbent Republicans in the 30 days before an election and you think that is a BAD decision that was wrongly decided??? You WANT the government to prohibit criticism of incumbent Senators and Congressmen? That's you idea of a liberal democracy? Again: WTF??? Seriously now -- WTF??? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5the church money ruling leaves way too much room for cronyism. who is going to get money. wait. stop. it is utterly perversre. churches are not government funded charity. churches are above gov. in one move they are destroying: churches, gov, and charity. it is like an idiot's blender. I think the top neocons get a kick out of destroying the country. any legal person anywhere in the world would read the Constitution and tell you this SCOTUS is subverting it. Trouble is, outside the USA, they are happy to watch us go to hell, just like if we saw political corruption in ITALY - so what ha ha ha etc. etc. No one is coming to save us, but the Germans told Scientology to keep it out of their country.
- GhostFreeman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8It's going to take a long time to undo the damage Bush has done.
- clyde2801, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Your tax dollars are going to fund the initiatives of one religious sect, and not to another. That seems like it would violate the establishment clause. What would be necessary, in your view, to violate it? Would governmental employees have to go out and start the "Church of the Shrub"?
Yes, there may be valid and compelling reasons for funding a faith based initiative. But I disagree with the Court not allowing citizens oversight using the federal courts. This shows a disturbing trend for the government to place itself above the law. - Latentk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Far to busy denying he was in any way involved in the death of his unborn child and mistress.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Digg is the liberal's idea of how a community should work.
Apparently, suppression of thought, bullying, threats of violence, death wishes, compulsive obsession and omission of facts is some sort of "progressive" vision. - razor150, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Why should corporations have the freedom of speech? They aren't a person, so why the hell are they granted rights as if they are a person? Sorry, but there is no reason for it.
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Pro-Lifers made a deal with the Devil. ( Corporations ) Now we're all going to suffer the consequences.
- lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Except, of course, when Justic Scalia cites the TV show "24" as basis for his legal reasoning.... If you want, I can find you the link...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3AKA Project for the New American Century
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3i don't have the money to be armed. did you read the article about the guy who killed a bear by hurling a piece of firewood? hey- i've got some news for you- when the ulcer gets worse, it cause vision problems. that's how angry I am. first it was cheney giving his own company huge no-bid contracts. now the SCOTUS is giving my earned money paid into tax dollars, to church. I don't even have money to give to church but they are going to take my money and give it to church. It's the Church of Bill Kristol is what it is.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Souter made that comment in the minority opinion on the Campaign Finance case -- the one where a gag is placed on third parties from running their own political ads in the two months before an election.
Since when does it undermine our legal system to support and defend the freedom of speech? - capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@random4
but the doctors say that's bad for my schizophrenia - DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3As for the campaign ads:
1) While the specific case helped an anti-abortion group, anybody on the other side of the fence can be helped by it as well.
2) Even in the specific case, the source linked in Think Progress's article clarifies:
"The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. ... Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision."
The ads were about a separate issue and the campaign happened to be going on at the same time. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -17/+20"The Court released a series of decisions today, affirming the conservative bent of the new court"
So, you're saying it was liberal before? :) - Hananda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Classify them as mercenaries, and existing laws should at least drive PMCs out of the country.
- tehbishop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I guess the trees need to be watered again soon ...
- nogami, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9Hope you Americans are enjoying life under the rule of King Bush...
Thank goodness I live in a country that's not collapsing under itself. It's like watching the fall of a modern-day Rome... - CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -10/+12"It's as if a few thousand rabid activists cried WAAAAAH......and were suddenly silenced."
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let a radical left wing blog interpret the law for me. Buried as lame. - lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You obviously are not familiar with the concept of common law, which this country's legal system is based on, and the constitution is part of...
Every time a judge makes a decision, of any sort, it is creating law... if that decision is upheld on appeal, that decision becomes precedent.. which means it is legally binding, and the courts should treat precedent the same way that they would treat any other law.
That's the way the system has been for over 200 years in the states, and another 600 years prior to that in England. It is the way we do law here, and the Supreme Court is supposed to abide by our legal system, not destroy it. - zweben, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Hill? More like a cliff.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3From the 1st Amendment we get "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That surely applies to unions, but how do corporations fit in?
- joshuabowers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So, would that make Bush Nero?
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Ny money goes to support street corner drug dealers in Detroit and I can't challenge it either..
Welcome to the effects of Big Government, whine boy.
Did you have a point? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2GW Bush could't play a violin even if Dick Cheney was pheasant hunting right in front of him.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2took you long enough.
- sodade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Planned Parenthood is not a religious org and they have been providing great service to this country in aborting unwanted babies and reducing the crime rate.
- sathias, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Nah that would make him actually useful, you'd be able to use him to burn a CD. Then the RIAA would have something else to sue him about, apart from his daughters' mix tape they made him.
- bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It doesn't have to be liberal for the new court to be said to have a conservative bent. It could be moderate and then become conservative and moderate it was. You had 3 and 3 and O'Connor who was centrist. Now you have 5-4 conservative.
- prgrmmr736, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1To borrow some information from George Carlin. That logic applied when we all had muskets, now the government has napalm and cruise missiles. If they want to come in, they're coming in
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So, lordmike obviously believes that any SCOTUS rulings in the early 19th century that upheld slavery should stand today because precedent shouldn't be overturned.
- hanmik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1kills more people than street crime? I'm not a big fan of corporations, but more than street crime?
- pegasusdba, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you're saying that other economies will suffer, you're right. But if the country falls in on itself due to its immense debt and deteriorating education system, other countries may feel a bit free of the big brother pressure. China is growing in stability and economic might. When they stop buying US bonds, which help sustain this consumer-driven economy, we're going to be in a world of hurt.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 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