What is Digg?77 Comments
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Patriot Act = Privacy Issue, Privacy Issues have HUGE implications with technology. Anything related to privacy and freedom should be of high importance to people concerned with technology. The more they justify wiretapping and subpoenas of search engine results the more it directly affects the tech world.
Direct Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/ - matthiasgoodman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I think the idea is to not submit things that are on blogs unless it originated on a blog. This did not originate on this blog.
- hadem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Direct link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
- tony23, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Where are these Digg rules?
- mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12So basically, he outrightedly said he's above the law. I remember an earlier president who did far less that was illegal and nearly got impeached for it, but Bush keeps getting away with flouting the law. Oh, for the days of yore.
- jonohull, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin - andyman1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9to play devil's advocate, or whatever appropriate term applies:
If he hasn't done anything wrong, he should have nothing to fear. - Smeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Never give your freedoms away in times of war, you will never get them back. This is a prime example.
- drunkJerkface, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is definitely a tough one, but my Douche Bag of the Week Award is going to either George W Bush or Tom Cruise.
* The guy who linked to the blog is safe for now... - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Obviously the constitution and the democratic idea of oversight from the two other branches of government means nothing to this man and his administration.
- jwa131, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Regardless of whether or not Bush is exempt, The Patriot Act is blatantly against the Constitution and our Rights to privacy. This is just another Orwellian tactic put out by an overly paranoid administration. They obviously have never read those laws. This is not about partisan politics, this is just simply about our Rights! And if you think for one instant that they should not be held accountable, then you must have missed that day in class when we went over THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and THE BILL OF RIGHTS
- jonohull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, but I still believe the statement. Franklin did say this though:"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
- billyliberty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dismissing this as political and therefore automatically irrelevant is simplistic and shortsighted.
Political parties aren't teams that deserved to be cheered through wins and losses.
These are decisions that affect our lives. This is not consistent with the Constitution and is not open to interpretation or spin and is absolutely tied to privacy issues and tangentially to technology. - diafel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Why do people insist on downvoting comments like this? I think it's a perfectly acceptable reason.
Digg is not the place to show the world how much you despise George Bu$h, you unique snowflake, you. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7HAHA, who doesn't love a good constitutional crisis in the making. I actually had a course in civics in highschool, and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of this ''signing statement." How is this any different from a line item veto that Clinton got but was declared unconstitutional?
I mean this is how I see what just happened:
"Law # xxxxxxxx
The executive shall give the House quarterly reports of exactly how the Patriot Act is used.
Passed the Congress x/x/x
Passed the Senate x/x/x
Signed, GWB x/x/x
Signing Statement by GWB:
The executive shall not give the House quarterly updates of how the Patriot act is being used
Signed, GWB x/x/x" - chevyorange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It looks more and more like it, unfortunately. Just what we need, a ruler.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+23NO BLOG LINKS.
Digg rule #1 - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It doesn't matter who said it. I pity those who would try be safe by giving up freedom. Everyone dies it''s part of being human, the only thing that changes is when and how a person goes.
- C00001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Signing statements don't amend the law. I don't know who started the practice, but whoever it was made it up, and it has no bearing. It's kind of ridiculous that he is trying to use it in such a bold way.
In his 2006 State of the Union Address, Bush did ask for congress to give him the power to line-item veto, and they haven't yet (they would have a hard time, considering it was declared unconstitutional in 1998). Apparently, he's trying a different means to the same end.
This could actually get interesting if Bush acts based on his signing statement, and it is called into question. I don't remember what they said, but I don remember the recent Supreme Court nominees (specifically John Roberts) being asked whether or not they believed signing statements were constitutional. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor"
- Project for a New American Century (2000)
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
- Adolf Hitler - fac3less, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Blog spam.
Denied. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6*takes your comments and puts them into the spin machine*
Hmm...are you a terrorist!? If you don't care about protecting the American people, then I guess you are with the terrortists.
And damn all you Democrats and third-party voters for voting in an election year!! You almost gave America to the terrorists!! - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@tony23, on the Digg Submit a story page here are the rules
"submit a new link, step 1 of 3
Please follow a few simple guidelines to make digg a better place:
* Quality Technology Content: Is your story technology related?
* Link Directly to the Source: Save people time by linking directly to the original news story.
* Search First: Avoid duplication of submissions by searching to make sure someone else hasn't submitted the story already.
* Be Descriptive: You're the story's editor, so explain what it is and why it's cool."
I believe the second one falls under this rule, but now that I look at it, NO ONE follows any of these rules anymore. - dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Anyone remember old tricky dick?
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
2) Franklin didn't say it
3) Franklin would have disagreed. For insight as to why, actually read your constitution, as well as look over early legislation passed between 1780 and 1810. - mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2uh correction Clinton DID get impeached. impeachment doesnt mean he got removed from office, it means charges were pressed against him
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aimpeached&btnG=Google+Search - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So you're saying a line item veto is constitutional?
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I understand why people hate politics so much, but ignore politicians at you own risk because politicians certainly won't ignore technology. Ever hear of the Clipper Chip? That was the Democrats, patriot act is from the Republicans neither give a ***** about the common man. Keep on ignoring them while listening to your Ipod and drinking your Mocha Frappuchinos because a consumer is all you'll be when they are done.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So johndi, if that world makes sense to you, why aren't you campaigning to close down all prisons? You're stripping people of their essential liberties. Of course, these people might very well use these liberties to outright kill you, but hey, everyone dies, right?
OR
I guess you're not one for wearing a helmet, a seat belt, or drunk driving checkpoints. You're depriving people of their rights, so what if you go flying through a windshield, or get t-boned by some drunk trucker, we all die anyway, right?
See, that's why the argument falls apart. A society built around absolute personal freedom for everyone doesn't work, and Franklin understood and agreed with that, as did all of our founding fathers. There are anarchists in this world who disagree, but thank god they're few and far in between. Read your constitution closely to see an example of what I'm talking about, Section 9, to be exact. It isn't very long, so you should be able to pick out what line I'm referring to when I talk about the Founding Fathers opinions on limiting rights completely or temporarily. - Smoov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The country is heavily divided right now and it shows in the reactions to posts like this one.
It seems to me that a lot of people just haven't clued in yet. This is not the cold war any more. As long as there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who value life so little (including their own) that they are willing to fly planes into buildings, bomb trains and subways--and when they get the chance do far worse--as long as that is the case then it can never be "business as usual". - b04155, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4how about a rating for blog links. a huge negative rating and the user can't post anything for a period of time
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's because it is made up by presidents to place themselves above the law. Just like the Supreme Court likes to intentionally misinterpret the constitution.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Probably Calvin Coolidge or Warren Harding. That guy gambled away government property. :-)
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting theory, but the Constitution disagrees.
Artictle 1 Section 8 (last line)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The president's only recourse is his veto power, that's why he isn't called king. - ishmael5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're referring to andrew jackson...right?
- maxhrk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hear. hear.
- xodex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You get them back after a country goes into cival war or overthrows a government.
USA will go under soon enough. - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Blogs are good. They are one of the last bastions of FREE information in the world.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Why do you have to get so political about it? LoL Why don't you go and live with the Chinese if you don't want to deal with politics? There they will be happy to suppress all voices of opinion, including yours.
- Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7This isn't the six degrees of separation for technology.
- TheGalacticFork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Just preparing to make the FBI the new SS.
- DEFSMAC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yeah real clever. they can't just make another account or anything.
- aelfrice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2as what?
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just because some blogs suck doesn't mean they all suck. Cnet blogs are very informative. Hell, you can even call any news site a blog now.
- SuperJdynamite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. If the president's illegal activities become public, we'll have a huge crisis on our hands, just like Watergate, where we unfairly busted Nixon's chops for dabbling in illegal activities, like, just a few times.
Purview into the workings of our government is an un-American idea. If you look in your revised history texts you'll see this country was founded on unwavering support for the opaque and absolute power of England's monarchy. We should hold high the American idea of never ever questioning our government, ever. - yohojones, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5It's off the main page.
and now it's back...
This should be reported... - mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6its called national security. we cant have the Presidents phone calls wiretapped. what happens if they become public? thats a crisis waiting to happen
- praxcelis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Bush does not refer to himself in his writing. He is referring to the Executive branch of the federal government, which is a lot more than just himself."
President Bush is one of the largest proponents of the "Unitary Executive" concept, and his legal team and newly-minted Supreme Court Justices are all in favor of unitary executive powers. In the case of these signing documents, he is in fact referring to himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive
Note that the wiki article says "the neutrality of the article is disputed". As well it should be--unilateral force wielded unchecked and unbalanced should be disputed, no matter who sits in the big chair. - SuperJdynamite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Don't get me wrong -- I love that Franklin quote. It's just that it's become cliche to pull out that chestnut every time something about the current administration is posted. I think we should borrow some code from fark.com and replace that quote with the word "Boobies".
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is