Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly Too!
blog.wired.com — If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.
NealCrosby- 2740 diggs
- digg it
- NealCrosby, on 06/03/2008, -14/+199This is so ridiculous! Why would they actually release a statement on this??
- sjug, on 06/04/2008, -6/+70Apparently privacy is not needed/wanted/respected if you're Republican.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -6/+41^^^ You mean Neo-con.
- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -30/+10McCain isn't a Neo-con, and he's not the nominee of the "Neo-con" party. He's a Republican and the nominee of the Republican party.
- macweirdo42, on 06/04/2008, -4/+73Whatever man, neocons ARE the Republican party now. Conservatism in this country is dead, and even as an ultra-liberal hippie douchebag, I mourn its passing.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -3/+20@dentalpirate: that works too.
@swrostmore: sjug tried to make a blanket statement generalization about ALL Republicans as if there is one monolith. I am making the point that big-government, big-war Neo-cons are what he is describing and not true limited government Republicans. McCain is a Neo-con member of the Republican Party but not all Republicans are Neo-cons. Get the logic?
@macweirdo: Ron Paul has consistently been pulling over 15% of votes at the recent primaries in spite of the fact that it is a forgone conclusion that he is not winning. There are many others who do not like McCain but vote behind him because they see it as a "lesser-of-two-evils" versus the big government Dems. I think there are more true limited government conservatives out there than you may think, although it is sad how little power they have in the current process. - swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -4/+42For every big-government big-war Neo-con, there are a dozen small-government conservative Republicans who vote identically to him 99% of the time.
Where were these so-called "true conservatives" during Bush's 8 years of unprecedented big-government expansion? Oh yeah, they were in Congress unanimously rubber-stamping every neocon policy. - pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -11/+6ron paul wasn't rubber-stamping every neocon policy. he was busy passing his own religious policies, like the sanctity of life act.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -4/+6@swrostmore: sure were a lot of dupes no doubt. The light switch is coming back on though.
@pintomp3: the OB/GYN who has delivered 4,000 children has a problem with killing unborn babies, boo-*****-hoo. I honestly, have no strong position on the subject, but I know one thing, you rabid abortion defenders are a trip. - sodade, on 06/04/2008, -6/+6"you rabid abortion defenders are a trip" oh yeah that's so trippy to think that an american has the right to do whatever the ***** they want to do with their body. Way more trippy than people believing in a "soul" o_O
The only thing that makes pro-choice people "rabid" is having to defend themselves against wackjob christians who will always be way more "rabid"
WTB a libertarian without the wacky christian crap. - locojones, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Our founding fathers were sage enough to recognize and caution against this very problem way back in 1787 when they were writing the Federalist papers. Hamilton, especially, noted the problems of a constant state of defense by mentioning the end result is to "strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which, their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of legislative authority." He goes on to say, "We should in a little time see established in ever part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the old world." In other words, a constant state of war threatens the very nature of the system of checks and balances, and presents a scourge to our most basic concept....liberty.
- pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1kemp34: there are a lot of doctors who do support a woman's right to choose. if he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to get an abortion or perform them. why does everyone have to live according to his religious beliefs? outside of christianity, no other religion defines life as beginning at conception. in judaism it is considered a life at birth, in islam when the bones form. ron paul may believe that the founding fathers envisioned a christian nation, but he's wrong. he even defended texas's right to ban sodomy. dr. freedom only supports the freedom to tell others what they can or cannot do with their bodies and in the bedroom.
- MonexFRAUD, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0You should probably think about investing in gold and silver in these troubled times. Gold and silver can be a good hedge against economic volatility as long as you're not doing a leveraged trade. http://www.monexfraud.com/investment-strategies/bu ... You may wish to invest in the gold ETF (GLD) or the silver ETF (SLV) in a non-margin account. This is the least expensive way to invest. If you feel a need to to take delivery of your metals be extra cautious about who you buy from. Check the Better Business Bureau for complaints, ratings, and adviseries. Also check RipoffReport.com for complaints and read how or if they were handled. At http://www.monexfraud.com all the information you need about Monex Deposit Company is conveniently gathered in one place. Monex is the worst company you can buy precious metals from so do yourself a favor and don't do it. Go to http://www.monexfraud.com and you'll see what I mean!
---------------------------------------------
http://www.monexfraud.com
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/04/2008, -13/+2more bad sensationalized reporting once again ... lol really? 'against America'.. hey buddy don't you mean.. 'against terrorist cells'?
- sodade, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7You see america? This douchebag just summed up what idiot america thinks. Every day I read this kind of childish nonsense. It is getting to the point where I think we'd be much better off just letting these idiots succeed. That is one border wall I'd support.
- Bulletbillx, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2@sodade do you mean http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede ? Surely you don't want them to succeed and win.
- MonexFRAUD, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0You should probably think about investing in gold and silver in these troubled times. Gold and silver can be a good hedge against economic volatility as long as you're not doing a leveraged trade. http://www.monexfraud.com/investment-strategies/bu ... You may wish to invest in the gold ETF (GLD) or the silver ETF (SLV) in a non-margin account. This is the least expensive way to invest. If you feel a need to to take delivery of your metals be extra cautious about who you buy from. Check the Better Business Bureau for complaints, ratings, and adviseries. Also check RipoffReport.com for complaints and read how or if they were handled. At http://www.monexfraud.com all the information you need about Monex Deposit Company is conveniently gathered in one place. Monex is the worst company you can buy precious metals from so do yourself a favor and don't do it. Go to http://www.monexfraud.com and you'll see what I mean!
---------------------------------------------
http://www.monexfraud.com
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -6/+41^^^ You mean Neo-con.
- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -6/+34Because thats what the small-government conservative Republican party base DEMANDS from their nominee - leadership that is willing to break laws to spy on them.
- rutle015, on 06/04/2008, -6/+10that doesn't make any sense
- Terrk, on 06/04/2008, -0/+23I think you got the point.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7Well, large numbers of voters don't have any sense in the first place, so McCain appeals to them
- DDayDawg, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Welcome to the Republican Party. "That Doesn't Make Sense" is our motto.
- rutle015, on 06/04/2008, -6/+10that doesn't make any sense
- ClosedCaption, on 06/04/2008, -2/+31In December while talking to the Boston Globe McCain actually..wait for it...said the complete opposite. Shocking, I know so unlike him.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/ ...
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
more stories like thisThere are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.
2. Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?
I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law.
Apparently its not flip flopping if the National Review agrees with your flip floppiness.- MWeather, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6That's not the opposite. He just said that the president should obey the law when it applies to him.
It was a non-answer.- sealbeater, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4When does the law not apply to a citizen of the United States? President or not, the law is supposed to apply equally to all. That's why the statue of Justice is blindfolded. Of course, this isn't how it works in real life, but it should and nobody but the people can make it so.
- jp12380, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2What?! It is like he is flip flopping on the issue or something.
- MWeather, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6That's not the opposite. He just said that the president should obey the law when it applies to him.
- TheUngod, on 06/04/2008, -1/+15For many republicans, the philosophy is "if I didn't do anything wrong, I have nothing to be afraid of." While that's true, it's still not a precedent you want to set.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/04/2008, -2/+13And yet they still use curtains in their homes. How odd.
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/04/2008, -9/+3dumb analogy
- MonexFRAUD, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0You should probably think about investing in gold and silver in these troubled times. Gold and silver can be a good hedge against economic volatility as long as you're not doing a leveraged trade. http://www.monexfraud.com/investment-strategies/bu ... You may wish to invest in the gold ETF (GLD) or the silver ETF (SLV) in a non-margin account. This is the least expensive way to invest. If you feel a need to to take delivery of your metals be extra cautious about who you buy from. Check the Better Business Bureau for complaints, ratings, and adviseries. Also check RipoffReport.com for complaints and read how or if they were handled. At http://www.monexfraud.com all the information you need about Monex Deposit Company is conveniently gathered in one place. Monex is the worst company you can buy precious metals from so do yourself a favor and don't do it. Go to http://www.monexfraud.com and you'll see what I mean!
---------------------------------------------
http://www.monexfraud.com
- Hypersapien, on 06/04/2008, -0/+14The problem is, it isn't true. Even if you haven't done anything wrong, you still have cause to be afraid.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+12Agreed. There are horror stories all the time that make the news about innocents being locked away in GITMO for years before being released, or getting shot in drug raids when they weren't, in fact, drug dealers. I remember a story here on Digg not too long ago about a man who was shot by drug raiders. They burst down his door with no warning, and he reached for a weapon before realising who they were. As soon as he saw they were uniformed police, he stopped, but it was too late; they opened fire and shot him dead. Turns out, they were at the wrong house.
Still not afraid of warrantless abuses of power? Then you're an idiot. - sodade, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4"Still not afraid of warrantless abuses of power? Then you're an idiot."
and that's exactly who McSame appeals to. - TheUngod, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1In the example you gave however, that was fully warranted. Mistakes will be made either way unfortunately, there's just more of a chance of them happening in a warrantless situation.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+12Agreed. There are horror stories all the time that make the news about innocents being locked away in GITMO for years before being released, or getting shot in drug raids when they weren't, in fact, drug dealers. I remember a story here on Digg not too long ago about a man who was shot by drug raiders. They burst down his door with no warning, and he reached for a weapon before realising who they were. As soon as he saw they were uniformed police, he stopped, but it was too late; they opened fire and shot him dead. Turns out, they were at the wrong house.
- KneadedEraser, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3its amazing that they do this for right to privacy but go ***** over the second amendment. Someone needs to start preaching that "Well, murder is illegal so what need do you have for a gun?" until these people see how idiotic this argument is. Its not about hiding what youre doing wrong, its a matter of having a right that is written down but being taken away.
- oldgal, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4The potential for abuse is astronomical. Just look at the FBI violations of the national security letters.
- morcheeba, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1It seems like, after Bill Clinton, the philosophy has been "don't testify under oath so you can't get caught with perjury". They don't seem to mind getting caught, as long as there are no legal consequences.
Example: The CEOs of Exxon/Mobil and Conoco/Philips blatantly lied when they told the senate they hadn't been to the energy task force meeting... but they weren't under oath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/04/2008, -2/+13And yet they still use curtains in their homes. How odd.
- diggthis123, on 06/04/2008, -2/+31The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- mrraven200, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Give credit to Thomas Jefferson and some quote marks please. Dugg it anyway because it's such an important idea.
- diggthis123, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Ben Franklin - mrraven200, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Correct diggthis! I misremembered and dugg you up. it's important to be able to admit mistakes, I'd never want to be like a certain woman who won't admit she's no longer running for President.
It still needs quotes though or it's plagiarism of an admittedly minor sort, but still...
- diggthis123, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- mrraven200, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Give credit to Thomas Jefferson and some quote marks please. Dugg it anyway because it's such an important idea.
- fani, on 06/04/2008, -1/+11He didn't release it. It was spied on and released by the current administration. LOL.
Just kidding...
But he is a seriously a doofus if he thinks people are going to clap with this statement. - sodoh, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5No the funny part will be that McCain wins the election and becomes president. A few years ago I would of scoffed but now seeing how messed up the US government is it really wouldn't surprise me at all.
- jp12380, on 06/04/2008, -2/+7I can only hope you're wrong but I feel there are a lot of stupid Americans out there that don't see the big picture and don't care if what the president will do will screw up the economy, he is a good old boy, he's a republican and thats what matters.
- vexingmodstwo, on 06/04/2008, -9/+1Oh, the irony. Someone with horrible grammar and usage calling ANYONE a "stupid American".
- jp12380, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6Yeah, I don't pay attention to grammar while using this site. Are you a McCain supporter? You think he will lead this country out of the debt that we have? I will tell you what I expect, I expect him to continue to spend enormous amounts of money in Iraq as well as any other wars he might be planning on starting. In the end we will have a broken nation that will be forced into becoming The North American Union where a new set a rules will be laid down and I do not believe they will be better then the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is of course if he gets elected.
- jp12380, on 06/04/2008, -2/+7I can only hope you're wrong but I feel there are a lot of stupid Americans out there that don't see the big picture and don't care if what the president will do will screw up the economy, he is a good old boy, he's a republican and thats what matters.
- Sogui, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5If you were paying attention you'd realize that this isn't a Campaign statement, it's a LETTER from a McCain adviser to some far-right blogger on The Corner. Just like another McCain surrogate misstated his position last week, now another adviser is at it again. I'd guess there's at least a 50% chance that he will be "corrected" if this news ever make headway.
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4Oh, ok then. Thank goodness horribly organized campaigns never turn into horribly organized persidential administrations! Whew!
- huertanix, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5Because old people think that if he doesn't the terruriss wins!
- CougarDavis, on 06/04/2008, -6/+0I fully support the government using wire tapping and whatever spy techniques they can come up with to defend our country. I fail to see why there would be any opposition to it. It's not like they are going to be listening to your everyday conversations on the phone, and even if they did, who cares? The only people that should be bothered by it are people who have something to hide, and if they do have something to hide, I would be glad that law enforcement knew about it. If it is going to lead to the capture of a terrorist, or save a life, it is worth it.
- zomglolcats, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0Because the government only ever does things in the best interest of its citizens, and nobody in government has ever abused their position of power!
What is so wrong by forcing the government to abide by constitutional law?
- zomglolcats, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0Because the government only ever does things in the best interest of its citizens, and nobody in government has ever abused their position of power!
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -4/+4YOU ARE RIGHT
THEY DIDNT RELEASE A STATEMENT SAYING THEY ENDORSED WIRE TAPPINGS!!
In fact - the statement wanted accountability and wanted to review all the warrantless wire tappings that telecom companies assisted with.
Did anyone read the article and look for sources of what was said and then realize there were missing sources of what Mccain allegedly said ?!! - fool13, on 06/04/2008, -7/+1I'm just curious as to why this is such a big deal to people. Is it just on the principle that you dont want the government to be involved in your life? Even if it could possibly help prevent a terror attack? It's not like they are going to broadcast what you are saying or lock you up because you were talking to your dealer of the phone.. If you look at it NOT from principle but on the practicality of the issue I just cannot understand people.
- Pawlzors, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Ever heard of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven ? Meh ?
- fool13, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1If memory serves, they were convicted of being involved in a bombing and later overturned so are you saying that by listening to people they can wrongfully convict them? If they hear you say you are going to blow something up or kill someone then they would most likely look into it. I also think that during a wiretap they are only allowed to indict for whatever the warrant allows for and not other things. ie: investigating someone making threats and they buy some drugs they aren't going to arrest you.
- kreneskyp, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2principle is a big thing. its also about not making it easier for someone who WILL abuse the power. i stress WILL because sooner or later someone will take advantage of the freedom you so easily gave up out of cowardice.
if was just about saving peoples lives why aren't you advocating removing all the other things that kill people like guns, cars, and tornadoes, all cutlery except for plastic spoons, 2 story houses (you can fall out a window or down the stairs better get rid of basements too), etc.
- Pawlzors, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Ever heard of the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven ? Meh ?
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1To let us know we are safe from freedom. We are literally witnessing a shift in the dynamic of politics in America, the party that used to prize personal liberty over control is shifting from the republicans to the democrats.
- B08ama, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Hey, at least he's honest! If I would have found out later that Bush has been spying on me for years without him telling me, well, that would have just ruined my day.
- sjug, on 06/04/2008, -6/+70Apparently privacy is not needed/wanted/respected if you're Republican.
- oceandigital, on 06/04/2008, -18/+227this guys nuts, he should be in a nursing home.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 06/04/2008, -2/+28You misspelled nut house
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -13/+2"If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday."
Monday statement said nothing of the sort!
No sources, BS article, why are people digging this?
And yes the quote was that Mccain wanted to have hearings of the telecom companies that DID have warrantless tapings to explain themselves. This is bad?
So basically a good thing, and then adding in BS that doesnt exist....
Obamatards strike again?- lamiaconfitor, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6sure, whatever, McCaintard.
- Allender, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I'm a die hard conservative but not so much so that i ignore facts. digg is clearly bias against republicans so come on digg we all know republicans make an idiot of themselves on there own so lets let them do that instead of taking things out of context
- webkami, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What do you have against nurses?
- mllawso, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1No, he should be taken out back and shot.
/Excuse me, there's someone at the door.
- angrykeyboarder, on 06/04/2008, -8/+32Pathetic eh?
- whiterice0, on 06/04/2008, -18/+1Actually, not at all.
- mechnoch, on 06/04/2008, -0/+11Explain.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3seriously, tell us why you are better off living in a police state, tell us why the government should approach their citizens as guilty until proven innocent? Are you one of those assholes who thinks that Habeas Corpus, and Posse Comitatus are bizarre 'ferign wurds' that are just stopping the government from keeping you safe?
- unreg, on 06/04/2008, -21/+1At least he's upfront and honest. Which is more than we can say for other potential candidates.
Do Diggers actually believe the goverment is going to be running around listening to your every phones call, checking you email, watching you through the window.
Grab a hold of reality, take a deep breath and get on with life.- wendelgee2, on 06/04/2008, -0/+10You gotta be pretty flexible to get your head that far up your ass.
- sqwirl, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3So, yeah, just in case you missed it while your head was buried in the sand, a former AT&T exec. has already admitted that ALL of our information is being sifted through, and not just that of 'suspected terror cells'.
Take your own advice, and grab a hold of reality.- powlol, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1no offense to you or anything, but could you link to that quote. I'm aware that this IS at&t so i'm not doubting you, i'm just curious as to what exactly was said... my head was in the sand
- Rally603, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I don't understand how you can be that stupid and still manage to breathe.
- whiterice0, on 06/04/2008, -18/+1Actually, not at all.
- sjug, on 06/04/2008, -12/+167Great.. The next Bush.
Since when did being a republican mean that you're an idiot? (2000?)- dinsy, on 06/04/2008, -2/+41'88
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/04/2008, -20/+5Ya I want to work harder for other people. I was put on this earth to be a slave of my own taxation.
- mechnoch, on 06/04/2008, -5/+22Me, me, me. Mine, mine, mine. Suck it up, pay your taxes, and contribute to the whole of American society. That's how America works. Would you rather we just continue buying ***** to keep our country running on credit issued by China and other foreign countries? How long do you think it will be until they decide to call in our debt? I'd prefer to pay pre-2000 tax levels, myself. Slave? Hardly. I can leave anytime I want. I just love America too much.
- buba1243, on 06/04/2008, -12/+6@mechnoch - you can pay whatever tax you want over the required number feel free to pay for mine while you are at it. I for one don't trust the government with a dime.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/04/2008, -2/+16Then give up your government maintained roads, water, fire departments, libraries and schools, you blithering caveman.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+9Work harder for other people? Do you realise how utterly impossible your standard of living would be to maintain without things like roads and infrastructure, the Federal Reserve, the international credit system and all the other awful things you hate the guv'mint for doing? Take a page from the Ayn Rand playbook, take all your other 'superior' assholes who 'pay too much in taxes' and go move into a mountain somewhere. Don't come back to us when you realise you can't fund a first world standard of living solely on private enterprise. You know what the highway system, most of the internet, most major medical breakthroughs, the space program and many other great things have in common? They wouldn't exist if ignorant ***** like you got your way.
Oh, and if you're paying much in taxes in the US, you're either middle class or not very bright. The proportion of earnings that the super rich actually end up paying in taxes is astonishingly low. If you can hire a good tax attorney, you can write off and loophole your way out of 90% of your tax burden. How do you think people become that wealthy, anyway? I guarantee it's not because they produce millions of dollars' of actual value with their labor. The average construction worker contributes far more productivity to the economy than the average upper management walking suit. - PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -3/+3"Then give up your government maintained roads, water, fire departments, libraries and schools, you blithering caveman."
We can keep those actually, we just need to slash welfare, social security, and similar entitlement programs, along with wasteful and needless government departments. DHS comes to mind, first and foremost. - republicker, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3@Solistus The gas tax pays for roads. Income tax pay for interest on the national debt. Now what would make sense, a consumption tax perhaps? Lower taxes is what everyone needs, stealing from hard working Americans is no way to feed an out of control federal government. Stop the war, stop the bleeding, let people keep more of THEIR money, quit wasting it, and watch the economy grow.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Republicker: What does income tax have to do with anything? The OP was bitching about tax in general. I am defending tax in general. I didn't specify a tax.
Consumption taxes are bad. They hit the people who can least afford it the hardest. Working and middle class people spend most of their income. They have to, if they want to have any stuff. The upper class saves a good portion of its wealth (Bill Gates would run out of consumer products he wanted to buy long before he ran out of money). Consumption tax is literally regressive; the poorer you are, the higher the proportion of your income goes to taxation. This is one of the main reasons things like a flat sales tax are terrible ideas to fund the government.
STOP CALLING TAXATION THEFT, you little Randtard. Theft is a criminal activity that is defined by the government. Nobody is stealing anything when you pay your taxes; it's understood that, in order to live and work in this country, you agree to follow the rules, including paying your taxes. It's not YOUR money until you pay your taxes. Money doesn't just pop into the world magically when people do things of value; it is a complex institution that (notice a theme) is constructed by the government. The very fact that there IS money for you to have necessarily implies a system of taxation.
Being for small government and a balanced budget is fine. Being an ideologue who calls tax stealing is not. Yes, the federal government should spend less money, and yes, the tax burden on the middle class is excessive. Spouting vaguely libertarian ideology about taxation and money does not contribute in the slightest way to formulating better tax policy. There's a lot more to it than "let people keep more money" (silly ideological possessive omitted). You have to understand how the current system functions and have a goal in mind for how to change it - for example, shifting tax burden from the middle to upper class by closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code.
Even the most ostensibly 'fair' system will inevitably favour the rich if it remains nearly as complicated as our current tax code, because only the rich can afford tax attorneys, and only tax attorneys have the knowledge and experience to wade through all the archaic provisions to find the ones that benefit the client. - republicker, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1@ Solstis
FYI Taking another person's property is stealing, so if I dont want to give the government my income taxes(I agree with paying other "legal" taxes) they will STEAL them at gunpoint. I guess one might say its more of a form of extortion or blackmail against your freedom or life. It must take an act of god to get your head so far up your ass. Again.... IF YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT YOUR MONEY THEY WILL PUT YOU IN A CAGE OR EXECUTE YOU!!!!!
"Even the most ostensibly 'fair' system will inevitably favour the rich if it remains nearly as complicated as our current tax code, because only the rich can afford tax attorneys, and only tax attorneys have the knowledge and experience to wade through all the archaic provisions to find the ones that benefit the client."
ABOLISH THE IRS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know you dance the jig and goose step to the sound of electric Uncle Sam but free men really shouldnt - mechnoch, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1@republicker
Too bad Ron Paul did not win the Republican nomination. Then we could actually focus the general election debate on these issues. McCain is not about to abolish the IRS, so unfortunately, the argument is fairly moot.
And for the record, I don't dance or goose step. I bang on my own drum, and it just so happens that Obama's spoken-word arrangement seems to fit in with the beat quite nicely. - AROZ, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Why would you cut welfare? Sure, some abuse the system, but it's necessary so that those temporarily without work aren't tempted to resort to crime. It also gives the government an idea of how many people are unemployed.
- pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -2/+29'80. don't exclude reagan (war on drugs, support for apartheid, star wars, increased national debt, iran-contra, etc).
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Don't forget about the Vietnam & Korean Wars as examples of horrible misuse of public funds.
- eggsovereasy, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4@PolishLogic
While we did go to Vietnam while a Republican was president (Eisenhower), it escalated and got out of hand with Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) and was ended by a Republican (Nixon).
So, I think pintomp3 had it right... the Republicans started going bad in 1980. - sodade, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U
(Bill Hicks on the subject) - PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3@eggsovereasy
Actually, I'll admit that I misread the context of pintomp3's comment.
In retrospect, I'd say that Nixon could be considered as the start of the slide. Especially considering some of the "concerns" of the Administration, as evidenced by his secret tapes.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/04/2008, -20/+5Ya I want to work harder for other people. I was put on this earth to be a slave of my own taxation.
- Pritchard, on 06/04/2008, -0/+11Unfortunately, the way I see it, the only time being a Republican didn't mean you were an idiot was when Thomas Jefferson was in office. Everyone else seemed like such a big leap below that man...
Here's a problem with small government - It requires learning. It requires that people care. These wonderful ideas rely on having faith in humanity. Believing that people don't need to have the legal system breathe down their neck simply to function in society. I must say, to my regret, that small government leaders have for too long failed to educate the public.
The public doesn't understand these ideals, and the only time they seem to are when you promote them how Obama does it - Policies clearly listed on the site, speeches full of this talk of "change". We need more Ron Pauls - People who's entire campaign is run on their policies, not vague terms and cheap methods of getting people's attention.
You guys might not support Ron Paul as I do, but I hope most of you would agree that his campaign is more policy and history-focused than any other out there.- republicker, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4I like Ron Paul, but unfortunately the government has already been tainted with a fascism/dictatorship/socialist/authoritarian combo and at this point free men should be worried about their families future and not about what a politician could potentially give them(ever seen a politician give someone more freedom, no you havent). Sometime I feel like Ron Paul is just another creepy old man politician who is only out to keep his families inheritence growing. If Paul really beleived in the things he spoke of he would be spending his campaign money on ads warning people of the pending economic collapse and possible hardships that will follow. I read his newsletter and while I agree with what he says I think everyone should quit waiting for a politician to save them and start saving themselves, at least you can still buy food and ammo, right?
- Greengoo, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I'd vote for Teddy Roosevelt today.
But really, he was a Bull Moose, not a Republican. - Pritchard, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Heh. Thanks for the interesting responses. (For those of you who were wondering if I posted 3 paragraphs only to run off and never come back)
- mkachmer, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Lets be clear... Jefferson was a Democratic Republican. The Republican party as we know it would not be established for many many years. However they did stand for a lot of the same ideas, states rights being the greatest as well as a very weak Federal gov't.
- stillasleep00, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2...Lincoln?
- hivoltage815, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0But wait a minute, Ron Paul has no chance at all and Obama is the strongest candidate spending most of this time talking about "change" and "hope" and not listing actual issues. Obviously American's can't handle the issues, they are inspired by candidates telling them they will fix all of their problems.
- jessehadden, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Ever since they realized they could hire charismatic actors to sell self-destructive policies.
- richmomz, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah, former Republican here. Anyone supporting the Republican party up to 2000 could probably be forgiven, but afterwards the hijacking of the party by neo-cons was so obvious that the only supporters left must be completely brainwashed, either by consumerism or the MSM.
- hivoltage815, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0I'm a strong conservative and miss having a candidate to choose. Bush certainly did sabotage the Republican party.
- hivoltage815, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0I also don't understand why supposedly conservatives are supporting all these big government measures. You would think it would be Democrats saying this.
- dinsy, on 06/04/2008, -2/+41'88
- xtremesniper, on 06/04/2008, -16/+29Oh you just KNOW this is going to hit front page.
- sjug, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6It should..?
- DesignNerd, on 06/04/2008, -1/+19yeah, god forbid Diggers want to inform people of ridiculous tactics, fear/warmongering, and asinine ways of thinking. Man, they LOVE scandal here at DIGG.
- xtremesniper, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Not saying I disagree. Just saying it's a guarantee for a story like this to hit front page.
And looks like I was right. 958 diggs and counting. - revwolfe, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Unless Obama is the source of the scandal, of course.
- xtremesniper, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Not saying I disagree. Just saying it's a guarantee for a story like this to hit front page.
- jmdisme, on 06/04/2008, -0/+8Yeah, maybe for a day or two before it becomes replaced with something along the lines of "Man sticks metal rod in ass. Hilarious!"
- breckinshire, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Two stories about McCain on the front page?
- HossBud, on 06/04/2008, -10/+99This guy is disgusting. I think the problem now is that Americans don't even understand their own rights. I don't have the highest hopes for the country if McCain wins the election.
- sodade, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2I agree. Seriously thinking of hedging against it: http://www.intrade.com/
- dirkniblick, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3How the heck did you get through the last 7+ years with any hope in the first place? Another 4-8 more with Dubya 2.0 and it's a round of zoloft for everyone!
- diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1i don't have the highest hopes for my life, with all the wars he could potentially provoke. as long as he can manipulate the media to make it appear he is winning the wars, and that the people we are fighting against are actually bad guys, he can incite a sort of nationalistic fear and everyone will be on his side. that is how many wartime leaders consolidate their power. The only problem with the Iraq war is that we're not winning. So all McCain has to do is start a war that will last a long time and that we can win. It's incredibly easy for him to do, as long as he maintains a certain degree of moral flexibility.
- CPMan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Americans have rights? Sweet.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -13/+107Anti-American idiot.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -19/+10Much like Lincoln when he used his wartime powers.
- pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -3/+20habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion. we are going through neither.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -9/+2Damn, I'll have to read the headlines again today. I missed the one about the Iraq war ending.
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6@ PolishLogic: how fitting your member name is...I think they meant invasion or rebellion amongst Americans, on our home soil. Good god...an illegal and amoral war being waged half a world away doesn't merit suspension of habeas corpus here.
- fyngyrz, on 06/04/2008, -1/+14...except there is no war.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -8/+1See above
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6PolishLogic: you might want to read that pesky 'Constitution' thing. War has a very specific meaning; it means Congress passes a declaration of war. We never declared war against Iraq, just like we never declared against Vietnam or Korea. What Congress did was authorise the use of military force, which is not the same thing as a war. Ergo, Bush has been a lying, unconstitutional sack of ***** every time he's invoked "wartime" powers.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4There must be some internet law that says that if you call yourself 'mastermind' or 'elite-win' or 'logic man' or something, your statements always turn out to be the exact opposite of that. Like your statements are always an utter black hole of stupidity.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -6/+1"Like your statements are always an utter black hole of stupidity."
What does Michelle have to do with this?
/rimshot (sorry, just couldn't resist that meatball you served up) - solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1"lol he said black hole I should mention a famous black woman."
Ignorant, sexist, racist prick. Reported.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -6/+1"Like your statements are always an utter black hole of stupidity."
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5When did Congress declare war?
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -7/+1The minute they started funding it.
- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2they haven't declared war... but then again, they haven't declared war since world war II
however, they did agree to the military action in Iraq with House Joint Resolution 114, passed on October 16, 2002 - kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2So, we're not in "war time" as there has been no war declared and therefore there is no basis for "wartime powers". Declare war and perhaps there would be better justification. Either that, or you just could care less about the Constitution.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2By your logic, we are now at war with farms because we funded the Farm Bill?
Your 'argument' is utterly incoherent. Congress has funded a military operation, not a war. For someone who arrogantly spouts off misconceptions of 19th century history, you don't seem to know a damned thing about our Constitution or system of government. Do yourself a favour and STFU.
- pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -3/+20habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion. we are going through neither.
- whiterice0, on 06/04/2008, -23/+2Yeah. That anti-American, senior senator, war hero. They're the worst aren't they? (Didn't your mother teach you to think before you write?)
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6Government policy does not = America.
- papipablo, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6McCain is as much a war hero as Reverend Wright is.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7Oh, yeah! How could I have forgotten? Anyone who has fought in a war is an unquestionable hero of their country, who can do no wrong.
Hitler fought in WWI. I guess you consider him a German hero? If you were around in the late 30's, would you angrily defend him because he wore a uniform at one point? The respect one gains from taking an oath to fight for one's country and its ideals is lost when one decides to ***** all over those ideals.
- Chassit, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7Like all neo cons.
- sunnyday451, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7what's scary is people think him doing that is "being American"
- bwdd, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Well, I didn't like that album much either... Can't say I'm against it, though.
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -7/+1IDIOTS are those that dont read the entire article and dont see the missing sources that are not there that claim Mccain said something that he did not.
Leftwing tards strike again. - geneticlone, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1***** it im going to sweden...
http://digg.com/comedy/Swedish_vs_British_Night_Cl ...
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -19/+10Much like Lincoln when he used his wartime powers.
- dinsy, on 06/04/2008, -9/+69"Constitutional and appropriate" my ass
- TheUngod, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7No no constitutional and appropriate HIS ass...because thats exactly where he's putting the constitution.
- phoenixshard, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Have to agree. I thought that the Constituion also said that we needed Congress to declare war. I don't remember war being declared on anyone for that supposed war to give him powers like that. I remember they gave approval for attacks on Iraq, but they never declared war on anyone.
I actually did have some respect for McCain, but that appears to be slipping more and more away each day.
- theNazz, on 06/04/2008, -11/+66McCain doesn't give a damn about the Constitution which makes him the perfect candidate to continue the destruction of the USA.
- IJstickI, on 06/04/2008, -7/+2haha and Obama really follows the constitution....
- humperdinck, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5How does he not?
- TemplarCrosland, on 06/04/2008, -3/+5I will attempt to answer that:
The Constitution does not give the Federal Govt the ability to create a National Health care System. Which he supports: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
The Constitution Does not give the Federal Govt the ability to utilize tax revenue to bail out people who are looking at Home Foreclosures. Sept. 17, 2007, Obama at the NASDAQ MarketSite
When the Constitution is silent on an issue, the Tenth Amendment delegates the decision-making power to state and local governments, not to the whims of the federal govt. It contains no "follow your heart" clause to justify Obama's Views.- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4The Constitution also has the elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause. If you had studied Constitutional Law, you would understand that these are interpreted to justify a broad range of policies. At any rate, every single major politician in modern history has supported things that make strict Constitutionalists cringe. It's asinine to say Obama doesn't follow the Constitution because he doesn't follow your extremist stance on Constitutional interpretation. The Constitution _explicitly forbids_ things like warrantless wiretapping. If you can't see the difference, you're not worth explaining it to.
- randumbusername, on 06/04/2008, -3/+0The Constitution also has the elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause. If you had BEEN INDOCTRINATED BY PROFESSORS IN Constitutional Law, you would understand that these are interpreted to justify a broad range of policies. At any rate, every single major politician in modern history has supported things that make strict Constitutionalists cringe. It's asinine to say Obama doesn't follow the Constitution because he doesn't follow your extremist stance on Constitutional interpretation. The Constitution _explicitly forbids_ things like warrantless wiretapping. If you can't see the difference, you're not worth explaining it to.
if obama can willynilly interpret the constitution why not bush.
- sodade, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5Obama was a constitutional scholar.
- TemplarCrosland, on 06/04/2008, -3/+3That does not mean anything in and of itself. For example I can be a Scholar of Religion and still deny the existence of God. Just because I studied religion in no way means I am forced to follow it. Same applies to the Constitution
- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -4/+1ummm... i knew many professors who didn't know their subject matter perfectly... One had a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering... and could never figure out the electrical flow when diodes were present, without having to look it up again
so not good enough - sodade, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4I didn't say it was good enough, but it does mean that Obama actually knows what it is and has some measure of respect for it unlike the neocons.
- IJstickI, on 06/04/2008, -7/+2haha and Obama really follows the constitution....
- zebco, on 06/04/2008, -8/+25This statement alone should be enough to shoot this guy down (no pun intended) from becoming president.
- DesignNerd, on 06/04/2008, -1/+10Man, having him as president would be torture.
P residents should respect their citizens.
O ur kind and gently way of life
W hy does McCain hate people so much? - isgk, on 06/04/2008, -4/+1If only it was actually TRUE. Read the source wired links to as his source. He says that he'd follow the FISA guidelines. If you actually would *READ* the article and then use your brain you might actually find some things out.
- solistus, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1If YOU had read the article instead of just following the links, you would see that it details yet another case of McCain being utterly inconsistent on an important issue. He has said he supports the FISA guidelines, but he has also said he supports telecom immunity and other aspects of the current program (which does not meet FISA guidelines). The McCain campaign has refused to comment on this, just like the dozens of other examples of McCain not having a damn clue what he stands for.
- DesignNerd, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1well good, as long as someone wiretaps my phone while following the guidelines...
ARE YOU ***** KIDDING ME?
Plus, I was just having fun with puns. I do use my brain. If I didn't I wouldn't recognize how to write and acknowledge the joys of puns, and WHILE I write puns, I use my brain to read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and all subsequent amendments as well as related Acts (TSA 2006, Protect Amerrika '07)
and guess what? I STILL THINK THEY ARE *****.
- DesignNerd, on 06/04/2008, -1/+10Man, having him as president would be torture.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -13/+18Well, I'd be interested to hear why Obama didn't show up for the FISA Modernization Bill's vote. Oddly enough, neither did Clinton.
That's some smooth political gamesmanship if you ask me. Don't cast a vote so you can't be questioned on why you voted yes or no.
As for his comments on the powers of the President, maybe we should...oh I don't know....fix the ambiguous holes in the Constitution that are so often taken advantage of. Seems like a step in the right direction. Bring some clarity to the vagueness. Otherwise, there's no point in being upset when people capitalize on the vagueness.
Then again, I do find it amusing that the politicians are so ridiculously scared about the possibility of being attacked again. We've lost our balls as a nation.- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+16McCain is #1 in the Senate for missed votes, with 60%. Granted Obama is #4, with 42%.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/se ...
Note that one of those percentages is a majority, and one is not. Not an argument McCain wants to start.
Also your comment about "ambiguous holes in the Constitution" that allow the president to break the law is *****. There are no such holes, according to John McCain.
McCain: "...presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is."
Q: "Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?"
McCain:"I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -5/+1So because it happens all the time that makes it ok? (took that page out of your debate book)
"Also your comment about "ambiguous holes in the Constitution" that allow the president to break the law is *****.There are no such holes, according to John McCain."
So you're siding with McCain in claiming that there are no holes in the Constitution? Wow, I don't think I've ever heard you agree with McCain before.- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4It is correct that I am siding with 2007 John McCain against 2008 John McCain.
Are you siding with McCain in claiming there are holes in the Constitution that allow the President to break laws? Wow, I don't think I've ever heard you disagree with McCain before. - PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1Frankly, I'm shocked that you would side with anything or anyone on the right.
Me personally, I tend to side with June 23rd, 1983 (between 11:48AM & 12:14PM only) John McCain. - mechnoch, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4The problem is, McCain talks out both sides of his mouth. McCain doesn't even agree with McCain sometimes.
McCain thinks it's perfectly alright to say both "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law" and also that it's also OK for the President to disobey FISA. - swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4I'm shocked that you would disagree with anything or anyone on the right.. Then again, some of McCain's positions which he has since conveniently abandoned due to his presidential run could hardly be described as "on the right."
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1"The problem is, McCain talks out both sides of his mouth. McCain doesn't even agree with McCain sometimes."
He's not the only Presidential candidate that does this.
"I'm shocked that you would disagree with anything or anyone on the right.. "
Shocked? You must have missed my comments calling both the Iraq war and Saddam's removal completely unnecessary. As well as the massive overreaction that led to the reactionary agenda we've adopted because we were effectively caught with our pants down in 2001. - swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2"He's not the only Presidential candidate that does this."
So because it happens all the time that makes it ok? (took that page out of your debate book)
lol - PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Good try, however I wasn't giving him a pass on it. I was merely pointing out that Obama is not a saint when it comes to double-talk.
"A" for effort though.
- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4It is correct that I am siding with 2007 John McCain against 2008 John McCain.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -5/+1So because it happens all the time that makes it ok? (took that page out of your debate book)
- elhaf, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1As if it would help anyway. The opponent will then spin it any way they desire. "My opponent did not vote against x." or "My opponent did not vote for x." depending.
- TamerzIsMe, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4There is no ambiguous hole in this case. War was never declared by Congress (which it clearly needs to be in the Constitution). Therefore his argument is void.
Yes, I know Congress voted to hand that power to the President, but that is not allowed by the Constitution. The problem isn't holes in the Constitution, it is that these politicians are just ignoring it.- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1What constitutes a declaration of war according to the Constitution?
- TamerzIsMe, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1The method is not in the Constitution, however it is very clear in Article I that it is only reserved to be declared by Congress. They are not allowed to just pass around powers to other branches. There would be no point to the checks and balances system if they were. They need to declare it (by whatever method) and take responsibility for the action. Then we can decide if we want to vote for them again.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1So couldn't you make the case that by authorizing the funding for a war, Congress is making a declaration?
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1What constitutes a declaration of war according to the Constitution?
- Andrwmorph, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2The constitution is intentionally vague to permit for modern interpretations to override old ones..
- phoenixshard, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0What vagueness do you refer to? The part about it taking Congress to declare war? I personally don't remember Congress declaring war on anyone. That could just be me though.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1As I asked above:
What constitutes a declaration of war according to the Constitution?- phoenixshard, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0The President coming to Congress asking them to declare war and then Congress voting to authorize the US to go to war. Kind of like FDR did after Pearl Harbor was bombed by Japan.
- PolishLogic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1As I asked above:
- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+16McCain is #1 in the Senate for missed votes, with 60%. Granted Obama is #4, with 42%.
- jeanine22, on 06/04/2008, -20/+42smash the military industrial complex
Ron Paul/Jessie Ventura 2008- invisiblehat, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6I wish. Those two would be awesome running mates and a great team. It's too bad they have no chance in hell of actually winning.
- Arcueid01, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3That would be so awesome!
- mvlazysusan, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4are you going to G.O.P. convention ? Is Min. Jessie's home state?sea ya there I'll be wearing a Ron Poul shirt so you can tell It's me
- BradBrown, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1...and their slogan would be "Snap Into a Slim Jim!" (picture Ventura with Paul in a headlock)
- compu73rg33k, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Don't Start the Revolution without Me (either!)
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/04/2008, -39/+4You guys are crazy to think that just because your an American you are good. Check your reality at the door. Wiretapping and other "spy" techniques have been around for a long time. It is extremely advanced technology. I know for a fact that because of things like this we were quickly able to determine where the 9/11 attacks originated from. back tracking cell phone logs listening in to conversations. The writing is on the wall this stopped us from attacking the wrong person. We could have easily gone after any country in a knee jerk reaction. Can you imagine if something like this happened during the cold war?
This stuff is real, its importance is far greater than you can imagine. The fact is they people using this technology don't have the bandwidth or authority to tap individuals calls to get information to profit or for other dubious reasonings. They have to pick and choose where they can use this technology and how to best use it to defend the country.
How do you think law enforcement can track down rapists? Child molesters, Murderers? The cell phone has become the greatest crime fighting tool since the invention of the gun. It leaves a paper trail a mile long with little bread crumbs all the way.
You keep screaming for freedom but I have yet to hear one person tell me what they are so scared of?- elhaf, on 06/04/2008, -3/+26I'm scared that politicians will use this to spy on their political opponents. They will tap records that have to do with campaign strategy, etc. Don't think they won't. They already did (Nixon). They will also tap into peaceful groups who are opposed to their policies, for example the Quakers were spied upon because they were anti-war. Don't tell me the Quakers are a threat to national security. This is bad, because it stifles dissent against horrible policies, such as the run-up to and early days of the Iraq war. Dissent, in this case, would have been a good thing, but between media manipulation (Pentagon insiders, so-called ex military, have and are still spouting propaganda on newscasts daily) and infiltrating and spying on anti-war groups, dissent was crushed for a long time. I'm scared of preemptive war, mainly for its destabilizing properties, but also because it is morally repugnant and by the definition of the Nuremburg trials, a war crime. All these things are what has already happened, but look at the precedent it sets if not set right and allowed for another administration.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/04/2008, -18/+1So you are scared about political strategy coming under fire?
If things were actually more transparent than things would be much better off. No more hiding.
And it is all or none, you don't discriminate and assume in the name of quaker rights... Thats when things really start to hit the fan. Assumptions are the mother of all screw ups.
I'm glad your worried about quaker rights and politicians over the general public including children! - XxSRMxX, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Of course they had the phone logs from 9/11...they were there personal logs...Can you hear me now? Yeah Don't fly today. Also call in sick.
- possiblyneil, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I wish we could have a once a week +10 digg for comments like this.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/04/2008, -18/+1So you are scared about political strategy coming under fire?
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4"Wiretapping and other "spy" techniques have been around for a long time. It is extremely advanced technology."
Ummm, what?!?!
- elhaf, on 06/04/2008, -3/+26I'm scared that politicians will use this to spy on their political opponents. They will tap records that have to do with campaign strategy, etc. Don't think they won't. They already did (Nixon). They will also tap into peaceful groups who are opposed to their policies, for example the Quakers were spied upon because they were anti-war. Don't tell me the Quakers are a threat to national security. This is bad, because it stifles dissent against horrible policies, such as the run-up to and early days of the Iraq war. Dissent, in this case, would have been a good thing, but between media manipulation (Pentagon insiders, so-called ex military, have and are still spouting propaganda on newscasts daily) and infiltrating and spying on anti-war groups, dissent was crushed for a long time. I'm scared of preemptive war, mainly for its destabilizing properties, but also because it is morally repugnant and by the definition of the Nuremburg trials, a war crime. All these things are what has already happened, but look at the precedent it sets if not set right and allowed for another administration.
- tkstock, on 06/04/2008, -10/+4He fully supports the FISA modernization bill, which was passed by the Senate earlier this year. What's wrong with that?
- sqwirl, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Everything.
- swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -6/+15McCain: "...presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is."
Q: "Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?"
McCain:"I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2OMFG someone that actually read the article !!!
Only had to go through about 50 diggs down ! - swrostmore, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6I should clarify that this quote is from 2007 McCain. 2008 McCain sez federal statutes permit the president to break the law in wartime.
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2OMFG someone that actually read the article !!!
- whiterice0, on 06/04/2008, -28/+7The worst part about Obama winning the nomination: five months of idiots bashing McCain like they did Hillary -- mindlessly. But remember folks, the super delegates haven't voted yet. Obama's win is a soft one. And, you can still write in Hillary's name at the ballot.
- ryan83189, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1kinda like a "soft" 21 in blackjack?
- MACady, on 06/04/2008, -5/+18All Senators swear an oath of office to defend the Constitution. How many Senators are oath breakers and what are you going to do about it?
- isparadiselost, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1All of them.
Stock up on ammo.
- isparadiselost, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1All of them.
- openj, on 06/04/2008, -28/+2I don't understand. When you learn that God monitors everything you do, say, dream, think, wish, and fantasize about, you praise Him. When you find out that He's using all of that to decide whether to send you to Heaven or Hell, you give Him glory. But when your country decides to monitor you to decide whether you deserve rendition or not, you get all whiny and complain about rights and freedoms. Why would you be so happy about God monitoring you but not your government? If privacy is so important, why hasn't the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Heaven?
http://www.openjesus.org/2008/youll-be-monitored-a ...- coldpockets, on 06/04/2008, -0/+12I'll completely ignore how crazy this post is and just ask since when is the government given the same rules as god?
- mCanada, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4Well I use PGP so ***** him
- richnojutsu, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5LOL.
- sqwirl, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Wow. That is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever read.
- getabrain, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5The government isn't God. Duh. I hope that post wasn't actually written by a Christian.
- Zippo, on 06/04/2008, -7/+17Good ol' McSame. Thank god Obama won the Democratic vote... America would be completely ***** if it had a choice of McCain and Clinton.
- mightyslick, on 06/04/2008, -3/+11we are still *****, just not as bad
- soulkitchen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3Hate to tell you, Obama signed the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. He's not perfect but is definitely better than McCain or Clinton.
- savetheusa1, on 06/04/2008, -7/+2We're f'ed
- monkeyrodeo, on 06/04/2008, -8/+20McBush
- ThinkIcouldburn, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3Sounds like a terrible fast food salad.
- bot001220, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2McSame.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Two Old Beef patties, Special Privilege, let us see all your communications on a sesame street level educated public.....
- someone173406, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1With oil on the side.
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Did you READ the article?
He wants to review all the telcom companies - he's actually going AGAINST BUSH.
Please re-read article.
How retarded is this going to get?
- ThinkIcouldburn, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3Sounds like a terrible fast food salad.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/04/2008, -21/+7Americans calling foreign enemies deserve to be wiretapped. Not doing so would be like allowing people to call Berlin during WW2.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8If congress declared war, perhaps those measures would be justifiable. Right now, we have hazy endless "war" yet no declaration has been made so it is not officially war time.
- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1but neither was vietnam or korea, or the first gulf war
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I'd advocate the same rules then. What's your point?
- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1but neither was vietnam or korea, or the first gulf war
- ImperialRome, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0One, it is officially wartime. AUMF, Authorization to use Military Force granted the President the authority to send troops into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also authorized the President to take measures to protect the safety of Americans everywhere.
Second, the President doesn't need a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance of foreign agents. The FISA act prevents the President from using the NSA + CIA to spy on domestic electronic communication. It does NOT prohibit the NSA + CIA from listening in on electronic communication if the source or the destination is in a foreign country. McCain clearly stated this was his opinion back in the Boston Globe interview : "There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications."
FISA doesn't apply. FISA is only invoked when the person under surveillance is a US citizen or resident alien and there is suspicion that they may be engaged in criminal activity. In order to preserve the rights of such person, a FISA warrant must be obtained with the usual affadavits before the FISA court.
McCain may be Bush light, but even he understands that this was a necessary program and he will preserve it.
- kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8If congress declared war, perhaps those measures would be justifiable. Right now, we have hazy endless "war" yet no declaration has been made so it is not officially war time.
- peticsu, on 06/04/2008, -4/+10and this guys trying to act like hes not joined at the hips with Bush...
- KingVegas702, on 06/04/2008, -5/+9Alzheimer's?
- CoskuT, on 06/04/2008, -4/+7Long live the King!
Oh wait...- Joepoag, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0 know, lets elect a different king every 4 years
- areric, on 06/04/2008, -4/+11I'm starting to wonder if McCain is secretly a democrat. I mean it does seem like he's doing everything he can to make sure they win in November.
- Snyder81, on 06/04/2008, -6/+2He is a Democrat. He considered being Kerry's VP in 2004 and cusses out his fellow Republicans, drafts anti-Republican legislation with Democrats, etc. The guy is a dirtbag. I don't even like Obama, but it sounds like this country needs a move toward socialism so we WAKE UP AND START TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK! I fought as hard as I could for an honest man in the Oval office named Dr. Ron Paul. It just that so many are still asleep and don't care as long as they know who got voted off Amerikan Idol last night.
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2LOL! The notion that one president or one person in any actionable position can fix this, be it Obama, Ron Paul, whoever, is absurd! You fought as hard as you could to get YOUR guy in is all. /*****-to-English-translator
Besides, how do you and all the other "disciples of Paul" know that blanket conservatism is the be-all, end-all solution, vs. Liberalism or neo-conservatism?!?!
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2LOL! The notion that one president or one person in any actionable position can fix this, be it Obama, Ron Paul, whoever, is absurd! You fought as hard as you could to get YOUR guy in is all. /*****-to-English-translator
- getabrain, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1BINGO! You win the prize for being the smartest person of the decade.
- Snyder81, on 06/04/2008, -6/+2He is a Democrat. He considered being Kerry's VP in 2004 and cusses out his fellow Republicans, drafts anti-Republican legislation with Democrats, etc. The guy is a dirtbag. I don't even like Obama, but it sounds like this country needs a move toward socialism so we WAKE UP AND START TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK! I fought as hard as I could for an honest man in the Oval office named Dr. Ron Paul. It just that so many are still asleep and don't care as long as they know who got voted off Amerikan Idol last night.
- cadmiumpaint, on 06/04/2008, -7/+29Of course he would. McCain = Bush 3.0
McCain still doesn't understand that when he says things to 100 people, 100 billion will hear it on the internet.- Boarhead, on 07/18/2008, -7/+3There are only 6 Billion people on earth....so where are the other 94 billion people from?
- bonds, on 06/04/2008, -2/+24Your mom's house
- Boarhead, on 07/18/2008, -3/+0Its really sad that these two get to vote.....
- ThinkIcouldburn, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Colorado Alien Planet?
- Greengoo, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Obviously we're on the internet, moron.
- DeFex, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7the extra votes will come from planet diebold, as usual.
- cadmiumpaint, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2what the hell is wrong with you captain literal? it was an exageration to prove a point.
- Seth024, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Spam bots
- Boarhead, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0I think you mean exaggeration
- Boarhead, on 07/18/2008, -7/+3There are only 6 Billion people on earth....so where are the other 94 billion people from?
- mrdeathgod, on 06/04/2008, -6/+12Oh, I didn't realize that all you had to do was apologize in order to get off the hook for breaking the law!
- apec766, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6I killed that hooker... Sorry, my bad.
- uptown, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1It's the "I have my own lobbyist" discount...
- LenBaird, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1What happens if a felon who is not the president or a corporation that committed felonies with the president tries to get off the hook by apologizing? This is insanity.
- ImperialRome, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0Exactly what law was broken? Not FISA.
I still don't see what felonies you are talking about. The phone companies cooperated with the NSA and followed the President's Executive Order allowing for the surveillance of foreign electronic communication.
It's not illegal for that to be done. It's illegal to do that to US citizens making domestic calls without a court order. That does not apply to calls made or received overseas. Since many of those foreign calls are carried across through the US phone companies data networks, its all there for us to scan.- LenBaird, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1The President instructed the phone companies to commit felonies by tapping communications without warrants. If the President orders a hit on someone, and you do it, it is still murder.
- Chahrlie5, on 06/04/2008, -25/+6Bring on the mindless McCain bashing.
If someone is calling Islamabad I don't give a ***** if they're being taped, hell please do so. People fail to realize they're tapping international phone calls, not everybody's domestic phone calls about American Idol and other asinine *****.
At least you won't know you're being spied on, as opposed to being openly ripped off by higher liberal taxes slapping you in the face.
You people call conservatives alarmists, what the hell are you doing now.- InetRoadkill, on 06/04/2008, -1/+21Umm, it's not the foreign monitoring that got Bush in trouble. It was the domestic spying which is unconstitutional and illegal.
- mightyslick, on 06/04/2008, -0/+13"At least you won't know you're being spied on, as opposed to being openly ripped off my higher liberal taxes slapping you in the face."
that is the dumbest logic I have heard in a long time.
And being liberal has nothing to do with taxes . Only your perception of liberals has to do with higher taxes. They both tax us as much on way or another.
I would rather know what I am being taxed on then have someone spy on me in secrecy. - Cybrwolf, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7There is nothing alarmist about it, The warrentless wiretapping isn't international, it is domestic!
- papipablo, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I'd rather pay higher taxes than be spied on by my own government. Oh, and taxes are going up no matter who wins this election.
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2@Chahrlie5: Lets see if you feel the same way, when your "asinine" phone calls start getting monitored for no good reason AND you're paying some mysterious "Warrant-less communications surveillance tax". Or did you really think that this wouldn't affect the "harmless, god-fearing, rich and white righties"? C'mon, man, its good for the country, everyone else is doing it...?
- Optimus, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1One of my friends has family in Islamabad. I've known him and his family for 20 years and they've been nothing but upstanding citizens and kind-hearted people. You're under some paranoid assumption that "those Pakistanis/Muslims/Whatever label you choose are bad". Fact is, there are no more bad Pakistanis than there are bad Americans. People are people. Terrorism is a criminal matter to be dealt with through regular legal channels, proper treatment and diplomacy with other nations (so as to not ***** up their country to the point of breeding revenge seekers and the like), etc. Not through stripping your own people's rights away.
That being said, automatically spying on every American's phone calls opens the door to horrible errors in judgement and personal vendettas being followed through. The founding fathers knew this, why don't you? Again, people are people and -power corrupts-. If you don't understand this, I don't know what to say. I feel sorry for you.
- ScoobyG, on 06/04/2008, -7/+28No, no, this is actually good. They're actually making it harder for themselves to deny the fact that a McCain presidency will be anything other than a 3rd Bush term. An angle that Obama's already using.
- revwolfe, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1And an angle that Obama needs to be careful not to pound into the ground before Americans see it as a joke. I'm thinking of Al Gore's lock-box as a minor example.
- Joepoag, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0Obama doesn't have to use that angle, McCain is doing a fine job of proving it all by himself.
- DefendThyself, on 06/04/2008, -14/+21So that's the best we can do this election cycle? A hard core Socialist that will ignore his Constitutional restrictions and is a CFR card carrying, global elitist that tax us to oblivion and take away our guns, vs. an idiotic war pig who doesn't even know what the Constitution is.
Sigh, I am reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy tired of having to choose between crap and garbage. Anyone else care???- papipablo, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1No.
- austin63, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Take away my rights
or
Take away my rights
Does it matter if you do it for security or socialism?
- RandoTheKing, on 06/04/2008, -8/+32Wake the ***** up, America. Quit electing idiots.
- ndepalma, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1What do you propose we do? Not vote? Vote for someone who definately won't get elected? There are too many people who has made the calculation that they'd rather have the lesser of two evils.
- LeopardGirl420, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5Dont look at me, I'll vote Ron Paul
- richmomz, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1You're about 100 years too late my friend.
- InetRoadkill, on 06/04/2008, -2/+13Wait, who are we at war with again? I thought Iraq and Afghanistan had US-installed friendly govts now.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/04/2008, -0/+9The War on Critical Thinking.
- xt0ph3r, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but this is the War on Terror...
"We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."
So, as long as there are terrorists, it's wartime. :/
- skoles, on 06/04/2008, -3/+23The fact that the country's approval rating of Bush is in the mid-twenties and McCain is all about staying the same path makes me wonder how he's even the only frontrunner at this point.
Is everyone else that ***** retarded to think the past 8 years have been real gems for this country? Enough so to warrant at least another 4 more?
If he ends up winning we'll at least have a good idea of why the world will end in 2012.- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4no... the problem is that we only have a couple of senators running... and the total approval rate of congress is less than that of Bush... so if as a whole we feel that congress has been worse than the president... and these are some of the visual leaders of the Senate... then we really do have problems.
personally i thought all the choices for president were horrible ones... but then again, i voted for Huckabee in the primary... just because i wanted the media to constantly say President Huckabee... i thought it had a very cartoonish ring to it- skoles, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Thank you for proving my theory.
- jedicurt, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1wait... what theory????
- skoles, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Thank you for proving my theory.
- jedicurt, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4no... the problem is that we only have a couple of senators running... and the total approval rate of congress is less than that of Bush... so if as a whole we feel that congress has been worse than the president... and these are some of the visual leaders of the Senate... then we really do have problems.
- rahamm, on 06/04/2008, -3/+9I do not like McCain thought you should all know.
- richmomz, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Thanks for sharing; you're not the only one.
- evo8ftw, on 06/04/2008, -14/+2"telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against FOREIGN threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution."
Give it up peeps. Obama doesn't stand a bat chance in hell. I think you would be surprised if you actually looked at McCain's track record instead of just bashing him because he is a republican.
Remember in 2000 McCain want to switch to the democratic party. How differently you all would be talking about this same man if he was the democratic nominee and say Romney was his opponent.- sqwirl, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2If all you Repubs can say against Obama is that he "doesn't stand a bat chance in hell", then I think you may be in for a rude awakening in November.
Keep in mind, that up until yesterday, your party's mantra was that Obama doesn't stand a bat chance in hell of being the Democratic nominee. I'd say that went pretty well, eh? - jmpavlec, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1McCain would never have won the nomination for Democrats today so it would never have been an issue. He only makes it easier for Obama to take the white house
- evo8ftw, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1...............................................right........................................... I have a feeling you'd all be lovey dubby over him if he was a dem.
- jmpavlec, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0Hillary would have beaten him out and I would gladly have voted for her instead of McCain. Gotta love generalizations
- evo8ftw, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1...............................................right........................................... I have a feeling you'd all be lovey dubby over him if he was a dem.
- sqwirl, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2If all you Repubs can say against Obama is that he "doesn't stand a bat chance in hell", then I think you may be in for a rude awakening in November.
- battleangel7, on 06/04/2008, -11/+23"McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly Too!"
Obama: I voted Yes one the Patriot Act Too!
Morons.- mightyslick, on 06/04/2008, -3/+16yeah its funny how people think Obama walks around smelling like roses. Goes to show people only hear what they want to.
- IJstickI, on 06/04/2008, -4/+6exactly
- kirk89, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1if it doesn't look, smell, or sound like obama it just can't be right!
- mightyslick, on 06/04/2008, -3/+16yeah its funny how people think Obama walks around smelling like roses. Goes to show people only hear what they want to.
- Sogui, on 06/04/2008, -5/+9This is just another McCain adviser, just like the first one... and nothing he says indicates that
(1) This is actually what McCain told him to say
(2) McCain actually supports warrant less wiretapping, that assumption was generated by the Wired blog
(3) Advisers and surrogates have distorted his position in the past based on who they're talking to.
(4) If you read the chain of letters, the advisor's letter that Wired is reporting is actually in reply to a very conservative piece here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjg1NDM2N ...
So it's clear that the adviser might be trying to appeal to the far-right but there's absolutely no indication that McCain actually shares the adviser's beliefs, especially when it's someone in a more minor campaign position.
Sorry I'm not breaking out the torch and pitchfork quite yet. - juicycutlets, on 06/04/2008, -9/+8McBush.
- Stingr, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6"We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists..."
I have a pretty good idea if McCain is elected and it has to do with the sixth word of that quote. - lovezapp, on 06/04/2008, -5/+4John's back to his old flip-flopping. Ah McCain, you've done it again.
- santaliqueur, on 06/04/2008, -4/+3We all know they aren't going to be interested in the average idiot's conversation, they are looking for people doing illegal things. Why assume you are important enough to be cared about?
I don't care about this one bit. I know the only thing the government is interested in is how to get more of my money.- TamerzIsMe, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2There is a reason it was specifically forbidden in the Constitution. Powers like these get abused. You have no idea what they are doing with the information. The point is that they have no right to be listening in on our conversations or the data we transfer. I don't think the White House would be too happy if we did it to them. I mean, if they aren't doing anything illegal then who cares right?
- EricSchC1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1What happens when your idiotic conversations start getting taped in the name of monetary gains for the government? What about the taxes that would potentially be levied against the American people to finance this needless surveillance? Contradict yourself much?
- moxley, on 06/04/2008, -9/+14Americans: ***** you John Mc Cain, you ***** brain damaged manchurian candidate radioactive geritol eatin *****. Go back to the sanitarium and leave us alone.
- prahareturns, on 06/05/2008, -0/+0Excellent comment, please vote in November. We need people like you, our best and brightest, to elect the next leader of our nation. You appear to be a critical thinker who will critique both Republicans and Democrats to ensure our freedoms are protected.
- Lodus411, on 06/04/2008, -5/+8What a world class dip***t
- mweflen, on 06/04/2008, -2/+9Well, that tears it! I was about to vote for McCain, enlist to go over to Iraq because he said it's much better now, contribute to his campaign over the legal limit, and get a tattoo of the picture of he and Bush hugging on the small of my back.
But now, after this completely unexpected reversal of principles and betrayal, ***** YOU, JOHN McCAIN!- l034me, on 06/04/2008, -2/+0Rofl! that's a nice tramp-stamp target for your partner to aim at.
- mweflen, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Umm, I don't know what that means. Apparently I'm not as up on my 'alternative lifestyle' subculture lingo as you are...
- l034me, on 06/04/2008, -2/+0Rofl! that's a nice tramp-stamp target for your partner to aim at.
- soinie, on 06/04/2008, -7/+2The most prominent thing about Adolf McCain is his liver spots.
- osrevad, on 06/04/2008, -5/+6Where can I find the actual words used in the headline? I've read the article and looked other places too. Did he really say those exact words, or is this just another example of exageration that I'm finding more and more on the internet.
If you can find the quote in the title in it's original context, then you can digg me down.- osrevad, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5I did a Google search and looked at the results. There is no place that has this in context that I can find. I'm forced to believe this is an extreme paraphrase of the things he said in the article.
The inexcusable problem is that it's in FIRST PERSON. I feel better about it if it said "McCain says that he would spy on Americans secretly too!" But the way it is written breaks fundamental laws of journalism.
Please check your facts before submitting something to Digg. Please. - mweflen, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Can I Digg you down for grammar and spelling?
- jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3FACTS? This is Digg !!
All you need is a headline that is exactly the opposite of what Mccain says, and a bunch of Obamatads...
and WHALA - you get a dugg up article!
- osrevad, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5I did a Google search and looked at the results. There is no place that has this in context that I can find. I'm forced to believe this is an extreme paraphrase of the things he said in the article.
- dupswapdrop, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5Four more years of the GOP running our country into the ground I don't think so! Just say NO to Charlie Brown and his GOP crooks!
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/04/2008, -5/+11McCain will never be President of the United States.
He will make sure of that in the coming months.- andrew522, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2yeah honestly, since its him vs. Obama, its a sure thing for Obama when people actually step back and compare the two. I can't wait for the debates!
- Andrwmorph, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1More like McFlipflopper, amirite?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is