What is Digg?101 Comments
- mcaaronice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56NSA spying? "Not the right time."
Gay marriage? "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Republican Sen. David Vitter.
Thanks Government! - Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34its because the right time for them is when bush is out of office, the GOP can put all the blame on a no longer in power administration and act like nothing ever happened.. the GOP strategy of choice.. I
- mc900ftjesus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Don't forget baseball, that was a hot button issue for a while that really impacted us all.
Ignore the fact that our VP is outing CIA operatives and shooting people in the face and has corporate ties to the company that we give all of the foreign oil contrancts to. Not to mention the president... - Chipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"Lincoln jailed reporters, listened in on telegraph conversations, everything Bush has done and more."
That others broke the law and trampled the constitution doesn't make Bush's actions right. But, it should be noted that Lincoln and Roosevelt were fighting *real* wars in response to hostile actions of other. But for a token bombing on selected targets in Afghanistan, Bush's "war" is something he created to the detriment of this great nation. And his reasons are unclear and always changing. Lincoln and Roosevelt did what they did, though possibly Machiavellian, for one reason: to win. Bush, I would hazard, does it for personal gain and glory and misguided principles. - didymus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Land of the free......
- kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Perfect time to keep them gays from marrying, those flags from burning, and those kids from going undrafted however...
Out of touch? Naw... - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The Biggest difference between Lincoln, Roosevelt compared to Bush is that they didn't implement policy that made it completely legal to do it and trample over everyone's civil liberties.
The Bush Administration and everyone currently tied to them not to mention the people they have put into positions of power have been creating new policy that completely squashes over the US Constitution and our personal civil liberties all in the guise of 'Protecting us from Terrorism'.
I'm telling you, the people who have died for this country over the years are turning over in their graves over the insanity that is being put into place 'For our own good'. Hell, now respectable Medical Organizations are saying that they don't trust the FDA and government sources any longer because they are no longer practicing science and medicine but are instead practicing Politics and 'Moral Obligation' because of lobbying from large religious groups. - glsunder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@TheRonald
Just because respected people did certain things in the past doesn't mean that it's ok to do them now. Actions have to be judged in their own context. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Yup the telecoms are free to give your private information to the government
The government is free to ignore the consitution and it's citizens rights
And the citizens are free to go ***** themselves (as far at the telecoms and government is concerned.) - jaymzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies from the State Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that my sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Is there any way we can lock the bunkers from the outside and elect a new, sane government???? - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Seriously, these ***** are dragging their feet on the dumbest ***** before their undeserved vacation. Don't forget the immigration bill from the Senate the house needs compromise on, that obviously won't get done.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"Lincoln jailed reporters, listened in on telegraph conversations, everything Bush has done and more."
So basically you're saying Bush hasn't learned from past mistakes. Honestly, nobody's perfect. Just because Lincoln did it doesn't meant it was right. And even if it were right THEN, that doesn't make it right NOW. Saying "So and so did this a hundred years ago" is NOT a valid argument, you're just making noise. - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Draft will never happen for either side. Democrats are 100% against it and for the Republicans, it would be political suicide to reconstitute the draft for this paticular war.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Unfortunately we cant vote for their pay
we cant vote for a term limit
we cant vote for the numbers of days they work a year
we cant vote them out of office until voting day
And they call us their boss. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Now's not the right time... We want to wait until this is an established institution in America, then question it when it is so firmly entrenched that it can't be touched, so it looks like we tried to do something to the people who care, and the people who don't care won't know the difference."
- Chipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And this is a "real war"
Really? Can you show me the declaration of war? If you wish to refer to any congressional action, can you affirm the information provided to congress by the executive branch was accurate?
Sould we declare "war" on any group, regardless if representative of a soverign nation? How about a soverign nation from which the group was not from?
Perhaps they are they just criminals and need to be delt with as such without my compromising my civil liberties.
Are you implying it was ok for Lincoln to, "violate the Constitution, and abusing executive power." Therefore, if Lincoln did it, Bush can? - robelanator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"I don't know what would be served by issuing a subpoena here," she said. "It seems to me that the Intelligence Committee, having reviewed that program, knows what questions to ask, and they cannot be asked in open session."
She did suggest, however, that the Intelligence Committee bring in the telecom company representatives for its own private round of questioning. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"Of the four Democrats present, only Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein--an Intelligence Committee member who said she'd been briefed "very thoroughly" on the program--said she agreed with Specter's decision."
As we all know Feinstein is a neo-con and a great friend of George Bush. - kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12That or she has a Senatorial election to win in November...
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9TheRonald- "to protect the United States?" I'm more negatively affected (with regard to my personal freedoms) by Bush and his administration than *anything* that's been done by the terrorists. I certainly support *measured* responses that are *directed* at *specific* threats or terrorist groups. A blanket pass to take away civil liberties as this administration sees fit just on the *off chance* they might *stumble* onto something nasty (since they have no actual plan to deal with any of it), however, is TOTALLY unacceptable.
..to Protect the United States?! What we need is protection from the Bush Administration's foolhardy policies! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I DO BLAME bush for allowing cheney to have his NSA program he desired.
I blame congress for being a bunch of corrupted whimps, who the only thing they really care about is corporate money and all the 'nice" laws they pass are just designed to keep their jobs so they can take more corporate money.
People talk about regulations adding to the price of commerse. I wonder how many cents of my phone bill is used to lobby against my wishs, - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Maybe they should postpone their summer vacation instead. Overpaid and underworked incompetent morons, they are.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'm recommending the following strategy for the Nov elections:
Since the repubs are hopelessly corrupt at this point and have shifting so far right as to be borderline fascists, I'm not voting for *any* repubs this November (and btw, I'm a repub -- or was until all this nonsense started). This means I'll be voting for a lot of democrats this time unless the democrat is an incumbent. The reason is that the democrats are just as bad as the repubs for the simple reason that they sat on their collective cowardly asses and allowed the repubs to get away with all this ***** over the last 5 years. So if neither repub or democrat is available under these rules, then I'll vote for the most viable 3rd party candidate or withhold my vote altogether.
As Americans, we can't allow this crap to continue under the premise that this behavior is acceptable. So long as these turds keep getting re-elected in spite their corruption, they're going to continue to be corrupt. Punish the bastards. Throw them all out. - Skuba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"And this is a "real war" terrorists just tried to behead the prime minister of Canada, they've attempted to blow up the national monuments, kill millions of civilians, that sounds like a war to me."
So what you're saying is that a small group of people wanted to kill people and destroy some buildings? That sounds like any number of American street gangs to me. Where do we draw the line between terrorist and gang-banger, between "a war on terrorism" and "prosecuting criminals?"
3000 people died on 9/11 and as terrible as that was, the figure is dwarfed by the number of people killed each year by gang-related activities.
I don't understand this fear of terrorism that most Americans possess. Do you really walk through a city every day of your life and think "OMG, some terrorist is going to blow me up here!"?
Now how often do you walk through a bad part of town and think "I hope I don't get robbed and shot!"?
Maybe we should try doing something about the threat which actually poses a danger to us.
Nahhhh, that would be far too logical. Let's just "go to war" against the boogieman. - tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@TheRonald
"The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if the personal security is threatened."
-Josef Stalin-
So, flame me on. I'm just trying to put your comment "...and in times of war you must be willing to do what is necessary to protect the United States." into some context. To show you that your are giving up on your own freedoms because someone who wants to control every aspect of your liberties has convinced you that it was your idea. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9However...they arranged those wiretaps legally and were court-authorized based on evidence of suspicious activity....not a general "Let's monitor everything".
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, question the NSA, but don't leave the Telco CEO's out of this. Remember that they didn't say no to the NSA spying without warrent, where as other telco companies like Qwest did.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Nah I am still too busy blaming Carter for everything..
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@TubaTechno
The term "law enforcement" implies due process. That is, if there is a reason to acquire specific data on specific individuals, it will be stated in a subpoena. The problem here is that there is no subpoena, no process, and hence, no oversight. It's just one, hugely invasive fishing expedition. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Marked as inaccurate...not because of the content, but because the title say "Senate WON"T quiz..." , and the article clearly says that its postponed....
- tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"And this is a "real war" terrorists just tried to behead the prime minister of Canada, they've attempted to blow up the national monuments, kill millions of civilians, that sounds like a war to me."
BTW I'm from the area in question here. Central Ontario. I have ZERO fear of any acts of terrorism. They are so few and far between that I am more likely to be killed in a bizarre dishwasher accident. They didn't attempt to behead the PM, they got caught thinking about it. They are all being charged with conspiring, not acts. And, MILLIONS of civilians? Wow, It took Hitler 10 years of building a (fascist) Ultra-Conservative, Christian, Communist hating, Socialist party, years of garnering national support, staging community violence (terrorist acts), and six years of total war to kill millions of Jews. Are you implying that 17 terrorists figured out a better way?
If anything, the excellent actions of my government and CSIS prove that we are in NO NEED of any additional security measures. I applaud them. Canada is doing just fine without a fear campaign. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6everyone is law enforcement is now his own judge.. it is called stream lining.. need a warrent, just ask yourself for it.. no more waiting or asking them judges that might tell the enemy what we are doing.
I also love the little complained "sharing clause". Why do we have soooo many intelligence agencies? because some are allowed to do something and others arent. NSA isnt supposed to spy or have info on americans but it doesnt matter if the FBI gives them all their files. Thank god we have HS to protect us from stupid ideas liek protection from the government.
I also like everytime hey go to discuss this, something happens that made it useful.. like the canadian bust..believe it or not they are touting that as an NSA win. - shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@TheRonald
Yeah Lincoln should have been taken to task for violating FISA....oh snap...FISA wasn't passed until 1978, shoot, that's only like 100 years off, but who's counting little things like that. While we're at it, why don't we dig up other things presidents did that violated laws that were passed a century after they died? I mean crap Thomas Jefferson owned slaves man, he broke the 13th amendment, if they didn't throw him in jail then why should Bush be punished either, right? - catalupus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Once again they pull out the gay marriage issue. Not likely to happen, but it does act as a distraction. It worked for them before, and will probably work again.
On one hand you've got the NSA spying, which effects just about everyone. On the other had you've got gay marriage and immigrant workers, which are easy for the government to be seen taking action on and can be portrayed as being a threat to the "decent citizen".
Don't be fooled people - it's all smoke and mirrors. - Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The sooner the American public clues in to the fact that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats the better. I know they give different lip service, but they are just the tools that the real masters use to divide and conquer.
- lidflipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Every "geek" needs to make it their mission to teach everyone how to use powerful encryption. I would love use PGP for every single email I sent just for the sake of protesting. Unfortunately, anyone I try to explain public key encryption too can't figure it out.
- DROB003, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Can we specifically blame Bush for this too? Please?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://www.hushmail.com/
- Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So you're saying that right now, 4-5 months before the elections that neither side, Democrats and Republicans wouldn't want to bring up social issues they know will polarise the political parties and gain from a debate that devides and angers so many rather then through true political and persuasive discourse ? I'm not saying either party does it better or worse just that it reduces the discourse and understanding in our society to complete horse *****.
Do you really see anything but partisan politics here? - robelanator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What good would it do to bring the execs before the Committee if no questions can be answered without breaking the law (despite it being infamous, the program *is* still classified)? It'd be grandstanding and posturing and nothing else.
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I wish people would bribe me, then again the way things are going it could have been threats too.
- tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@TubaTechno
Where did I find that info? How about on the ***** privacy statement that my telco sends along with my ***** phone bill. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6why vote party lines?! Vote for the person that think will do a good job, no matter what party they're in.....
- Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@TheRonald
Of course the Judge said he didn't violate it. He'd be risking his own position. You forget that currently Bush has explicit control over a number of areas in government. With the passing of laws for Homeland Security and the renewing of laws that were supposed to be short term powers so they could 'Stem the Tide of Terrorism' within the US, Bush and the Current administration have a terrifying array of powers. They have secret courts that are not accountable to anyone that can take people in as 'Material Witnesses' and effectively make those people disappear for months on end without lawyers and without say. Can you explain how that even remotely is protecting out freedoms?
These along with his agenda for the large religious groups in the US and the pushing of personal interests as if they were intended to be federal policy is one of the biggest concerns I have for the future of this country. Don't get my wrong. I do think when 9/11 happened that he was the one I wanted in office. I agreed with the going after the groups who did those terrible things and I approve with most of the actions that have been done on foreign soil. Unfortunately almost all of the domestic policies that he's implemented have totally destroyed personal liberties and put more energy in protecting the people putting money in his pocket and less about the actual people of this country. Hell, RIAA and MPAA have been going on a rampage, suing people blindly without having any definitive proof of anything, but he's worried about gay marriages? Sure. That's a serious concern for the future of the country. - liquidoc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yes, don't hold major corporations responsible for violating the constitution, let's just all throw it on the ground and piss on it. I wish I were president, but I still have to wait 18 years. But then again, I guess I could get away with anything as long as I said we needed to do it or the "terrorists" will win.
- gandhii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You are saying then that all this telephone traffic information is freely available to the public? If it is not, then it is not "public" information, and therefore it would be appropriate to call it "private" information. Whether any particular government wants to spin that in another way for their own gain is a whole other issue. But based on common sense and common semantics, I think most would consider that information to be private. The only way I can see this being truly constitutionally legal is if this information was freely available for all to see on the company's web site or something. Information is not truly "public" if it is not available to the public. Saying that it is, because its available to "public" organizations like the government, is not the same thing.
- Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good point Hubris. While I don't agree with FISA courts, the fact that NOT EVEN these secret courts were used, even though they can be used after the fact.
In effect, they just ignored a system that already gave them extreme power. - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I feel sorry for all the Yanks. Yer all royally buggered.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 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