digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.

thinkprogress.org — By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • KidDynamo0, on 10/10/2007, -25/+341WTF, The Senate is full of complete ***** ups...***** those one voted for this *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • DavyRockett, on 10/10/2007, -7/+44It's time to clean house in 2008! If somebody gets a list of the Senators, who voted yes for this list them , pleazzzz.
      The People need to know who not to vote for in 2008.
      • lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -12/+12Haven't you learned that there are no decent politicians out there. Stop wasting your time, money, and breath.
        • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -8/+45Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (sp?), Mike Gravel. Good enough for me.
          • TheRemoteViewer, on 10/10/2007, -32/+16Yeah, Ron Paul, the guy that thinks the separation of church and state is a myth, and who voted against even forming a commission to look into how we might possibly stop the human slave trade in Sudan. Not to mention being photographed shaking hands with a white supremacist leader. He also doesn't like the civil rights act. ***** Ron Paul.
          • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Those 3 things don't go together.
          • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12What's wrong with shaking Senator Byrd's hands?
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19@TheRemoteViewer

            (1) It's not our business to deal with happenings in Sudan.
            (2) Shaking hands is just being polite, I'm sure you've shaken hands with a racist before.
            (3) Nobody supports civil rights and personal freedoms more than Ron Paul. I don't know what you're talking about.
        • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Double Post.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Ron Paul you damn Lazy Russian!
        • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Mike Gravel seems honest.
      • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+542008? Look what's happened in the few months since primary election campaigns have began, and you're telling me to wait an entire year? Please, everyone, read the Declaration of Independence.

        When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
        [...]
        That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
      • berb, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6You may be even dumber than Bush if you think the senate is getting reelected in '08.
        • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7That's currently irrelevant. You know why? Well, let me help anyone out who's interested: This is all happening *Right Now*.
        • berb, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Lol why the ***** is this dugg down? There will NOT be a senate election in '08. Learn politics before you bitch on digg.
          • TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+181/3 of senators are up for election every 2 years

            Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution
            ===============
            Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year
            ===============
            Learn politics before you bitch on digg.
          • diggitydoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1get a clue moran!
      • fuzzynavel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I thought the senate was an elected body supposed to air the views of the American people!! Do the American people really want this amendment in a ratio of 76:22
        • diggitydoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7hahahaha you must not be an Amurican. the senate is an elected body that airs the views of the corporate citizens of America.
        • brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1ABSOLUTELY. Digg is not even close to a representative sample.
          • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even Fox (pseudo)News can't poll numbers in a ratio close to 76:22 in favor of this *****. Most sources poll closer to 22:76.
    • Niallgriff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39PROTECT IT FROM WHAT?
      • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12The Phantom "Insert Boogie Man Here" Menace.
    • niqhil, on 10/10/2007, -6/+166Not Voting - 2
      McCain (R-AZ) Obama (D-IL)
      WTF! .. You are running for President. Take a stand assholes !
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -22/+59Obama's a fence-sitting piece of pandering pol *****.
      • munen123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+54and Mc Cain is lying piece of crap
        • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+44 years ago I thought he was one of the few decent Republicans in office... since then he's proved otherwise :(
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'no vote' the same thing as voting no?

        Meaning, if they need 3/5ths majority to pass, and Obama didn't contribute a 'yea' to that 3/5ths, doesn't that mean he did good, just not officially?
        • shadeOgrey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Good question. It depends on if it's 3/5ths of the total members of the senate, or 3/5ths of the total number that voted. I'm not sure of the answer, but my guess would be the former of the two, in which case it would be the same as voting no. But either way, it's still pretty sad for someone running for president to refuse to define their stance on such an important issue.
        • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Stop being blind about it: Obama never promised to get all the troops back in the US. He is not fighting to impeach Bush, unlike Kucinich. Politicians like Clinton and Obama are into marketing, they tip-tap around serious issues hoping voters will see that in an optimist way, never taking any firm radical stance. They are not sincere politicians like Paul, Gravel, Kucinich. They have absolutely no courage. They are wasting your time.
          • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And unfortunately, they're very good at what they do. People eat it up like candy.
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well I know that, but that doesn't answer the question.
        • geniusj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8'No Vote' means .. he didn't vote. It does not count as him voting no. They only need >50% of the senators present to vote yes/no. If less than 50% of the total number of senators are present, then the Senate has not reached a quorum and it is possible that legislation can't be passed. However, someone in the Senate has to call for a quorum call or roll call, so technically if only 3 senators were present and none of them called for a roll call, legislation could still be passed unanimously. This has happened in the past as well.
        • geniusj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2'No Vote' means .. he didn't vote. It does not count as him voting no. They only need >50% of the senators present to vote yes/no. If less than 50% of the total number of senators are present, then the Senate has not reached a quorum and it is possible that legislation can't be passed. However, someone in the Senate has to call for a quorum call or roll call, so technically if only 3 senators were present and none of them called for a roll call, legislation could still be passed unanimously. This has happened in the past as well.
      • sathias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Does this mean that Clinton voted for it?
        • geniusj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It means the Clinton voted on the issue, you'd have to check to see if she voted for or against it.
          • sathias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But... the article list the people who voted no, and who didn't vote. That leaves one category of voter unnamed.
        • lateralus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Yes, diet Bush voted for it.
        • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Yes, she voted for the resolution, and rightly so.
          • diggitydoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1look, if Iran made any sort of threat towards us, OK fine, kick some ass.... since they haven't and we have no proof of nuclear weapons or any sort of aggression towards us, leave those ***** alone!!!
            their domestic policies are so ***** up that eventually Ahmadinejad (sp?) will get the boot. I can only hope that "supreme leader" gets killed too.
          • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And just think, all this could have never happened if the CIA just left President Mossadig alone back in 1953...
      • elk1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I guess Obama's hoping that this will allow him to use the I didn't vote for it line he's been using with the Iraq invasion. what a fraud.
    • ukickmydog, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1GG
    • CheezIt9109, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29Politicians are a shady bunch. I say shoot the politicians, not the "terrorists". Hell, they're responsible for far more deaths.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Though the language appears to have been somewhat cleansed of its most dangerous provisions, this is still not the kind of thing the Senate needs to be doing. We need to focus, as a nation, on undoing this mess we've made. Keizer's suggestion of a general strike on Electiion Day is the best I've heard so far. I even threw up a blog to do what I can, which is admittedly not much on my own, to help make it happen - http://electionday2007.blogspot.com

    • MontyZooma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I can't believe anyone is honestly surprised. Has no one been paying attention for the past 4 years?
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22GOD DAMNIT! We seriously need to get rid of these morons... they are all incapable of running our country... -_-
      • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Republicans: We hate government. Government doesn't work.
        Then they get elected and ***** up the government and say "See we told you so".
        • Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep, you can't lose with a strategy like that. Well, the country can of course.
    • WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Apparently they took out those paragraphs from the passed bill.
      • owenleej, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly. The article is completely misleading and trying to make something out of nothing. The part that said "combat, contain, and stop," via "military instruments" was taken out. The only action in the bill is designating the Iranian revolutionary guard as terrorists. People need to stop only reading headlines and actually read the bill.
        • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hmmm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard are actually pretty bad. Very unpopular with normal Iranians. Too bad there's no way to take them out without a full invasion. Our new "smart" bombs are actually just as dumb as the old ones...they just try to tell us that they're more precise so that we won't be as reluctant to use them.
          • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to military technology.
          • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Spending millions in R&D doesn't guarantee accuracy, but branding them "Smart Bombs" and promoting them the way they did made it worth every penny in terms of PR. The undeniable truth is that they've killed a lot of innocent people by missing their targets.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here's the problem with that: Never in the history of the world has the official army of a nation (with membership in the UN, no less) been labeled a terrorist organization by any other member of the UN. This sets a new precedent, for which I can imagine that may one day return to bite the US in the ass.
    • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT THIS BILL ACTUALLY MEANS GODDAMNIT! ARE WE GOING TO WAR OR NOT.
      • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8No, as much as people here would like you to think that we are not going to war with Iran. This bill authorises the military to combat Iranians IN IRAQ who are trying to help kill our troops. These peopel are upset because they think it could be a back door to declaring war, and it may be, but these days, what isn't?
        • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11yeah, cause Iran is just going to sit there and take it when we start killing their citizens.

          Wake up... they pass a bill that says we can kill Iranians in Iraq so it provokes them into war. this is just setting the stage for it.
          • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We can't already kill them there?
        • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So we should just sit there while they kill ours? I'm opposed to the idea of the language, but your argument lacks any sense. We aren't on going to invade Iran, because the country doesn't want it. And i know what you are saying "most of the country doesn't want to be in Iraq" and that's true, but most of the country did support going there when we went. And i believe most of the country still says they don't want to "loose" over there (even if there seems to be little we can do to stop that) which is why we are still there.
          oh, and also...
          Stop telling people to "wake up" its about the most self righteous thing you can do.
          • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They also haven't turned the propaganda machine up yet. They're starting to, and when they're ready to invade Iran, most of the country will agree.
      • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Iranian revolutionary guard is now to be treated as terrorists. As you may or may not know the US has declared a GLOBAL war on terror (well, Bush did, to be exact). The revolutionary guard's main role is in national security, responsible for internal and BORDER SECURITY, as well as law enforcement. It is also responsible for Iran's MISSILE FORCES. Therefore this provides an excuse to bomb the ***** out of the revolutionary guard, bomb the nuclear facilities (for possibly supplying a terrorist body with nuclear material) and is also an excuse to combat and take over "terrorist camps" on the Iran-Iraq border (in other words the revolutionary guard's border security forces.)
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14One comment of the linked article said this: "Ralph Nader was right all along."
      I agree! All those who harshly condemned Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 should apologize. The democratic party supported the war, is not seriously trying to impeach Bush at all, is not really opposing another war, and condemned MoveOn for the "General BetrayUs ad", and is corrupt, in bed with corporations...Besides Kucinich and Gravel, it is essentially a party not worth your support. Those who voted Nader were right. Maybe you should join the Green party or Nader or any other party if neither Kucinich nor Gravel become the presidential candidate.
      And do not forget to fight to get rid of voting machines: with them your vote will not count anyway.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm still don't think we'd be in Iraq had Gore won. Even if we were, he would have at least spent more time building a coalition force and getting UN approval. That makes all the difference.
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If there's any consolation, I voted for Nader. I almost voted for Bush in 2000, but thought better of it reflecting on the reports of him getting bailed out of combat duty in Vietnam when his number came up. I thought to myself, "If he bailed out of that responsibility, then what could keep him from making a mess of the presidency and bailing out of accountibility for that, too?"
    • adpopulum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You're naive if you think this is some sort of accident.
      • cholerae, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Democracy just doesn't work.
    • Foghlai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Senator ____,

      I am writing to express my deepest disgust for the last measure you voted for. I am utterly appalled by your stance on the past few issues pertaining to Iran, but none more so than this last, "sense of the senate on Iran". I am sad to say that I helped vote you into office only to have you turn around and ***** all over everything I hold dear as an American.
      We have no right to be in the Middle East, and this medieval attitude towards Iraq and Iran is costing our country greatly. Not only are our troops losing their lives daily while you and your fellow Democrats in the senate do nothing, but thousands of civilians as well. If you continue this pathway, I fear we will branch off into another hopeless war that will last years, and from which we may never economically recover. We will be facing a determined enemy on two fronts, and I can easily imagine even the great American Army being broken on those foreign shores. Sadly, while I would beg you to consider your votes on this most serious of topics with this in mind, I fear you will do nothing as our country slips further and further from its dream.
      Please know that I will never vote for you again. I will do everything in my power to make sure no one in ___, and whomever I may influence, will vote for you either.

      Regretfully, Your Constituent,
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -14/+292*****!
    • boobees, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30wait for it... waaaaaait for it..... *****!!!
    • trisquithere, on 10/10/2007, -23/+4um are my eyes misleading or did Ron Paul vote for this?
      • theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Ron Paul is not in the Senate, kthx.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Senate is part of Congress, right?

          But yes, that guys idiot eyes did decieve him. Ron Paul didn't vote for it. RETARD
        • Aldrenean, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's a part of congress, but this deals only with the Senate, not the House.
      • positron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Your eyes are deceiving you. Ron Paul is a Representative, not a Senator.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5*****!

      double-plus
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What tha fokk ees that *****?! It's like one in a million!
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -4/+66The talk and news yesterday that the amendment was changed by Reed and others any word on that?
    If not, game over and welcome to Cheney's new war before the election, because it allows any pretense for war with Iran.

    • KidDynamo0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I have not heard whether or not they made any changes to the bill, God I hope so.
      • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Keep in mind, this isn't a bill... this is a "sense of the senate". even though this passed nothing here becomes law. This doesn't give any power to anyone to do anything.

        Now that being said, it appears all the original text was still in there.
    • primetime485, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Doesn't the update on the article site address the changes? It appears to me that the two aggressive paragraphs were removed.
      • iching, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The comments were done on the fly as it was happening, it still sucks in the final analysis in my opinion.
    • orangerust, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Talk about not being represented, I realized a long time ago I disagreed with everything the republicans stood for, so I decided to start doing my research on democrats. On paper they looked good to me 7 years ago, (2000 is when i started really getting involved) but they back off their principals real fast. I ask them, start representing your party and more importantly START REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR YOU. assholes.
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -8/+50They’re desperate. Everything they touch is in ruins. Under these circumstances, they’re unpredictable. They might go for broke, and hope they can salvage something from the wreckage.
    • manixrock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19at the risk of sounding a bit paranoid, and with the hope I will sound informed, I must say you don't wage 2 wars on 2 countries out of stupidity. This was all planed, and there is more to come. The war with Iran was predicted long before the war with Irak even began. And the same sources predict expansions of wars after. Please do not take my word for it, search information on the internet, read multiple sources for confirmation.

      It takes much more than a few unpredictable/scared/misguided politicians to start a war. There are bigger powers at play.
      • rootstyle, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Don't worry, when you spell Iraq with a k you always sound well informed.
        • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14It spells Irak in many countries. What if he is not American? It makes it more likely that he is better informed than most here! Anyway, his comment is intelligent and forces us not to be naive. The real power is not in the Senate. Most senators are puppets of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, of big oil, big pharma, big banks,...
        • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Oh please, like just being from another country makes you more informed than an American, who has low self esteem?
        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Knowing that Iraq is often spelled "Irak" in other countries does make you more informed. I do have a map that says "Iraq/Irak" on the front.
    • peregrine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Dude look at the stocks. as soon as we entered Iraq Haliburton increased 5 fold. Blackwater increased 5 fold, all of the ***** that cheney owned part in or all of the people who were buddy buddy with cheney made out like bandits.

      What we all should do tomarrow. Find who is getting the contracts. Find out who owns what.

      Buy what they buy alot of it. If we go in you stand to make money. No matter what.
      • texxmexx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah, cause profiting off the mass murder of innocent people is good because.....? ***** YOU.
    • YuriSakazaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Who's desperate, though? It's funny how this will probably be blamed on Bush again by morons who don't understand how the Government works, but it's clear to see that both parties are guilty of selling us out. ***** American politics, it really is just a bunch of crooks out to make some extra money.
      • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Except Kucinich, Gravel and Paul. And Nader.
        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Who will get a combined 1% of the vote, maybe. Don't blame the politicians. Blame the public. The US has the government it deserves.
  • orelses, on 10/10/2007, -15/+189*****!!
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37Some hope from TPM

    It appears that much but not all of the offending language was removed, particularly the part that more or less authorized war against Iran and all its proxies. (they said there will be an update)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054274.php
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Yeah, only because it would be too obvious what their motives are. Stop this ***** from the source. Stuff like this, even if not giving full power to attack Iran, is the gateway for further amendments. STOP IT NOW! Do something. God damnit. Protesters are protesting until someone tells them to stop and the police break it up. These guys are the police. They're above the police. This is BS. We can't go to war with Iran. We should not and will not threaten them with military action. We can't allow this to happen.
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -3/+80UP date: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/kyllieberman ...

    The bill's backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

    Also removed from the measure was a provision "to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments" in support of the above.

    One leading critic, Jim Webb, however, still opposed the bill because it designates the Iran guard a terrorist organization. Nonetheless, it was able to pass overwhelmingly.

    We'll bring you the exact language of the amendment when it's available.
    • SoyJames, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thanks iching --- Everybody READ that post before commenting.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't usually spam (then again I don't usually submit). But the truth will likely be buried in the deluge of diggers here, digg up http://digg.com/politics/Senate_DID_NOT_Approve_Ir ... to try and get the truth to the front page.

      The situation may not be much better but it IS different than what this article states and we need to follow the truth.
    • kahunaburger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That really put the Iching on the cake.
  • KidDynamo0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+92Here is the listing for the people who voted for and against this.

    http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ ...
    • boobees, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I often wonder which scenario is more likely, that Congress is in Bush's pocket and its all a very well orchestrated scheme for corporate profit, or if elected representatives in congress are just ***** MORONS. I really don't know what to think
      • manixrock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The problem with morons is they tend to be unorganized, or at best following the most obvious choice, which would be the choice of the people, which is to stop, not further and expand the war. In you former scenario, the votes should be split 50%/50% or leaning towards rejection of the bill. But as iching points out, the bill "was able to pass overwhelmingly". This suggest heavily towards the prime scenario.
    • eqisow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Both of my senators (NC) voted for this.

      Fan-*****-tastic!

      (check your sarcasm meter before you digg me down please)
      • Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5They're mine as well, and they're fascist morons. We must try to replace them next election.
    • UberMattMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7GO FEINGOLD!! REPRESENT!! (me of course, I live in WI)
      • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Never ever lick a politician's ass based on one vote! Go check the whole career before on independent sites...and come back disgusted. Most of them are puppets of the military-industrial-intelligence complex, of big oil, big pharma, big banks,...
        Investigate Feingold's career and come back with an honest report, please!
        • Ghazi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Care to show us?
        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Feingold is one of the better ones. I looked into it when there were rumors of him running for President.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Feingold voted against aggressive operations in Iraq, he voted against the Patriot Act, he voted against the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Looks good to me. I don't agree with him on everything, but he supports the big issues that I'm most concerned with.
      • inhibit0r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Too bad he is too big of a maverick to ever be president.....
    • jze17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea
      Clinton (D-NY), Yea

      Did any1 miss that? Hillary has raised more money that any other candidate in history. Lots of people (left and right wing) already says she will win. Are we ***** or not?
    • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thanks alot Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez (Florida). I wrote you both emails telling you not to vote to pass any legislation that would support any war in Iran, but you both still voted yes. You fail at representing me.
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4California: Feinstein (D-CA), Yea :(
      • lateralus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your typical status quo democrat who has a close relative that stands to profit from war.
        There's truly no use voting republican or democrat. I will 'waste' my vote Independent until it means something.
    • Thefatheroftime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Feingold (D-WI), Nay!
      Thank you Russ Feingold. Why aren't you running next year for president, again?!?
    • trotskyist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Edit: Digg Me Down.
  • Junkjungle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+116This government is a source of national embarrassment.
    • lys3rgic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+38*international
    • Thefatheroftime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The will of the people means nothing anymore. Why is the Democraticly run Congress allowing anything like this to pass, when the people's mandate was clear in voting them in in the first place. Out of Iraq now! That doesn't mean move on to the next Middle East country!
  • dagnabbit, on 10/10/2007, -9/+125Hillary Clinton apparently didn't learn her lesson for authorizing the Iraq war. Also, Obama didn't vote because yesterday Reid said there wouldn't be a vote on this amendment today, then today he brought it to the floor anyway (and voted yay). Before people jump all over Obama, let's get that straight.
    • insomnious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Yeah, it would be horrible to jump all over Obama or McCain for not being at their job today to vote. I wonder why the other 98 Senators including other presidential candidates bothered showing up for work? Is it not possible that these two men who are running for president actually felt it would be safer to not vote at all then to have to justify their vote?
      • eqisow, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Because your attendance record at your job is 100%, right?
        • insomnious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Yes, it is. And I don't get nearly as much vacation as they do.
          • eqisow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13OK OK, fair enough. I salute you sir.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Is Obama trying to impeach Bush? Is Obama fighting to bring back all US soldiers and mercenaries back home? Please stop trying to save his ass, it is not worth it. He has no courage. He is into marketing, not into honest politics. Campaign for Kucinich or Gravel instead of supporting the least worst of the candidates made population by greedy corporations owning the mass media. Any candidate they make popular is a puppet and a member of the establishment, not someone willing to put the interests of the people first.
    • Bahimiron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's terrible. It's just like in High School Musical when Sharpay got the callbacks changed and Troy and Gabrielle nearly missed them! Except instead of being about trying out for the school musical, it's about whether or not we're going to send our nation on a death spiral toward nuclear oblivion! I hate Harry Reid and I hate Ashley Tisdale! FOOEY!
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -4/+280I'm afraid for the future of America. I'm 57 years old and I never thought I would have to say that. The terrorists don't scare me - My own government does.
    • jbaez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36i agree...its a sad truth
    • eqisow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35Sheila? Are you a 57 year old woman on digg? That's ***** awesome.

      Also, it's nice to hear that from somebody who's not in their teens or 20s. It makes me feel a little less crazy.
    • gingerboyiv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11that's because your government are terrorists, so yea you actually do fear terrorists
    • cmost, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4To use a cliche: "Be afraid...be very afraid." I've long predicted the downfall of America and all of human civilization eventually. We're flawed creatures who can't seem to put our egos aside long enough to realize we're destroying our planet and each other through constant consumption, waste, bickering, and war. Rest assured, it will all be over in about 50 years. Hopefully key elements of nature will survive to reclaim the earth and heal it in time. Perhaps a new, more intelligent humanoid race will evolve that appreciates the planet enough to take care of it in harmony with nature. :-)
    • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm 18, and most of the people my age that I ask say they wouldn't be completely surprised if they saw the fall of America as a super power in their lifetime. Proof that the younger generations are afraid too. Is this government representing anyone?
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't worry, it won't fall in your lifetime. China might rise to become another superpower, but America will just slowly decline to where England is now compared to the 1920's. At least then everyone else can stop hating us, and start hating China.
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think Russia will rise to the top, with China a close second, and the EU in third.
    • vileS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Terrorism... Government... Synonyms, it would seem.
  • smartsingh24, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19FRAK!
  • xvazquej, on 10/10/2007, -19/+20WTF...Stupid Democrats and Republicans....Enough is enough! Pleas vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President!
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6He is a Republican you fool. We need a socialist candidate who really cares about the people. Chavez is taken. Kucinich is the closest and least offensive.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4afraid to have personal responsibility huh?
        • VirindiER, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Socialism or Anarcho-Com..... Either is better than this *****.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nah, vote for Paul. After Paul gets rid of everything we have currently, then bring in Kucinich. That way he can start out fresh.
  • shampoovta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63"Feinstein (D-CA), Yea" WTF?!!!
    • Ellipsys, on 10/10/2007, -4/+38Say it again. Feinstein. Why could a Feinstein want to get rid of a country who's none too fond of Israel.... why indeed..

      /sarcasm
      • Shirleycakes, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1That threw me for a loop. Feinstein yea, Boxer nay?
      • ChefGroovy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Look at the last name :)
      • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bigot!
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why wouldn't a Feingold? The only name that's more Jewish is "Rabbi Goldman Jewenthalstein"
    • spookyttws, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I was happy to see Boxer in the Nays, but yeah, I'm with you. For 2 senators who've I've always been proud of, this takes me back. She certainly, doesn't represent me. But then again I live in Orange County, so my Representative doesn't either, ***** Dana Rohrabacher.
    • Namakemono, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3She's going to receive a nasty letter from me.
      • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yea! You should totally pee all over it!
    • leaknoil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Feinstein is very conservative. She is one breath away from a Lieberman on the 'really more a republican then democrat' scale. She was a terrible mayor here in San Francisco that got into office on the death of Moscone. She was a very conservative member of the board of supervisors here, a very conservative mayor, and she's a conservative senator. No surprise really.

      There is just nobody able to take her on so far. Many groups refuse to endorse anyone in her senate races even when the only other choice is a republican. She's hardly a democrat.
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11***** ***** *****! well i guess it doesn't matter what people say on the internet. government will do its own damn thing. we're all screwed, the world will end, baby jesus will cry.
    • gehmflor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I prefer to believe that this violent world will end and the Prince of Peace will return! (But beware of impostors.)
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fulfillment of prophecy is not the result of divine will, but of human mandate. There are people who do want world-wide genocide (fortunately they are a minority, but sadly they are extremely rich) and what better way of getting away with it than making people believe it is according to divine will? If people think that, then they will less likely do something to stop it (after all, how can anyone fight a god?), and the real culprits will not receive the blame they deserve.
        Do you believe the existence of Israel is god's will? If so, then you should read the Balfour Declaration of 1917, where plans were discussed to create an independant jewish state in Palestine, which at the time was owned by the Ottoman Empire. Many people believe that Israel needs to exist in order for the events in Revalation to happen. Well, it came to pass, but the hands that brought it into being were all human hands, and ones loaded with money, no less.
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6976-22 is not even remotely close. WOW!!
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yes, and let's be very clear on this and let the record show, THIS WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN RAILROAD. If you people fear this is the door opening to war with Iran, and it happens, you can not blame this one on Republicans!
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, but you can blame it on a president who was empowered by republicans. Twice.
        • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3you mean empowered by democrats and republicans.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Republican Railroad?! I used to have all their albums.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can definitely blame it on Republicans, but now I can also blame it on Democrats as well.
      • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And I thought having a Democrat Congress will finally curb Bush's crazy agenda. Either they are selling us out or most of them are pussies......or both. I'm going with the last option. Now our politics is such a joke you can't even pin the blame on just Bush and Cheney and the formerly Republican Congress anymore. The entire government is a piece of crap. I think it's time to revolt before it's too late.
  • SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -5/+56*****!
  • SeethisPass, on 10/10/2007, -3/+62NO MORE WAR !
    It's been proven that our current war's are the product of criminality.
  • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51So much for democracy.
    • mrfunktastic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Regarding hope for the U.S.... safe to note that history has never witnessed a single nation being both democracy and empire. This one underwent the conflicting stresses for a long while before going entirely over to empire, military of course, a form of government that very rarely long endures.

      Perhaps not a bad idea to keep some of your savings in Euros, if you can work out a legal way to gather a decent rate of interest on them.
    • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How so? You guys voted in these ***** didn't you?
  • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37We're fighting a "war on terror", and Iran's army has now been declared a terrorist organization. That adds up to only one thing. War.

    How is a capitulating Congress better than a Rubberstamp Congress, again?
    • physphd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Agreed. The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning. How are uniformed members of a sovereign nation's armed forces terrorists? Enemies, maybe. But terrorists?
    • Memitim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The rubberstamp Congress uses their hands while the capitulating Congress uses their mouths.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The capitulating Congress is better because it makes people remember that the problem isn't just Republicans. They thought getting rid of the Republicans would solve their problems, and they thought wrong. We've been down this road before, and it always leads to the conclusion that both parties are almost equally bad.
  • theNazz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+45No further proof is needed that the White House does not reflect the will of the people they are supposed to be serving. ***** the White House!
    • rft3rd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Im sorry, If I can remember back to civics class, the LEGISLATIVE Branch (ie CONGRESS) not the EXECUTIVE Branch (ie WHITE HOUSE) passes amendments. Its a republican White House and a Democratic Legislature. Get pissy if you like but get pissy with the right people. The Congress is who represents the people.
    • ChefGroovy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Ha, blame Bush first. This was congress. the Democratic controlled congress! Bush MAY veto it. What would you say then? Let me guess, you would still blame Bush for hating jews and not invading Iran
  • VacaN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+76They told me vote democrat to end this war, so I did. Now this? Looks like I was tricked again, shame on me. Wait better yet shame on all of us.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37Left wing. Right wing. Same *****.

      Vote for an independant next time.
      • ThatGeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13i dugg you up, but basically all politicians are the same. they want to be reelected, and if helping some war profiteering industry to do it and sacrifice some lives, they will.
      • bib4tuna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1even better, don't vote.
        • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes, not voting is certainly a way to solve the problem
          /sarcasm
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Democrats are NOT left wing. The only left wing Senator is Bernie Sanders. I haven't looked, but I think I know how he voted.
    • notoneofus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And how did Lieberman vote again? Not that he's really independent.
  • Lane, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28are they all high?
    • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14People who are high wouldn't be this stupid.
      • Mark6569, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Totally agree. In fact, if members of our Government celebrated with herbs instead of alcohol, we'd be in a better situation overall. Pass the Bong.
      • brutalentropy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Or this eager to go to war.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Wow... just... wow. At least my Senators voted against it (Kennedy and Kerry), but still... ugh.
    • Shirleycakes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Word to Massachusetts. I miss it.
    • swgc5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This just in, Massachusetts succeeds from the union!
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1After performing an anti-boston tea party? They start taxing the ***** out of starbucks?
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Come on, it's not like having Kennedy and Kerry are anything to be proud of besides getting away with murder.
    • gabeh73, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if they thought it needed there support to pass they woukld have voted for it too....the CFR controls 95% of these guys....they helped create this war and they help perpetuate it....kerry and kennedy are cfr scum just like the rest of them...they are all war criminals
  • franklymister, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7FTA: "Before the vote today, changes were made to the original amendment, with paragraphs three and four taken out completely."

    Paragraphs three and four were the offending paragraphs which would have effectively authorized war. They are gone now. Keep that in mind before you complain about this bill.
    • bqw371, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./tem ...
      SEC. 401. ADDITIONS TO TERRORISM AND OTHER LISTS.
      (a) Determinations and Report- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall--
      (1) determine whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps should be--
      (A) designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189);
      (B) placed on the list of specially designated global terrorists; and
      (C) placed on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;
  • hydrosmak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37What would this government do if everyone in the military just refused to do what they said...
    • zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Or if they just marched on Washington? o.O
    • artanis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Most of our military is happy to be killing in iraq because they think its revenge for 9/11. Sad but true! Who knows what they'll say about being redeployed to Iran? Maybe they'll finally throw in the towel.
    • DjLoTi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The military is losing their enthusiasm. Believe me on this.
    • gehmflor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They'd hire Blackwater to put all dissenters in secret prisons.
    • SagaLhan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1However unlikely, a military coup is always possible with the army general seizing power. It happens a lot in the middle east, let's hope it might happen in the US. x)
  • leetpete, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Should just kill em all, then replace them with competent people who are not corrupt as fsck.
    • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yea, lets just invoke more violence into a world that has more than enough currently.
      • leetpete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is, the elected officals.
      • evil-doer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4if you could, you wouldnt kill a few dozen corrupt people to save 10s, or 100s of thousands of innocent lives?
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately, that's the mentality that got us where we are now. It's tough to say what to do anymore. Rock in a corner in the fetal position.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I CALL BS! fsck was built to check filesystems and prevent corruption! VIVA LA LINUX!
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+46

    This will come back to bite Hillary Clinton in the ass
    • insomnious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Yeah, it's to bad Obama wasn't there to cancel out her vote. We should all go by his example and not vote in the democratic primaries.
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Isn't not voting the same thing as voting no? Either way, he didn't support this legislation.
      • gehmflor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But he didn't oppose it either, right?
  • ultralights, on 10/10/2007, -6/+43thank you america for ***** around in places you dont belong, yet again... better buy fuel now before the price doubles tomorrow...
    • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Especially after the D's get their $0.50 per gallon tax increase, an increase to help "fight" global "warming" of course.
    • est1979, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1***** YOU AND WHATEVER SILLY COUNTRY YOU COME FROM ASS HAT!!! (no, i dont like this either, but i am sick of the America bashing)
  • Ellipsys, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Damn. Why doesn't this bloody surprise me. This, and the blatant insulting of the Iranian President by the people who invited him to speak, and before his speech at that, is playing out like some bad movie. Do people really want another war so badly? And of course Lieberman is the one who sponsors something like this.... Go Go Gadget Israeli Lobby and their champion puppet.
  • thekaempfer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32*****
  • cybermort, on 10/10/2007, -0/+43everyone who voted for lieberman should feel very proud right now.
    • doctorweird, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2Yes We Are!!!!
    • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For the record...Democrats in CT replaced him with a real Democrat...then he ran as an independent in the general election and high profile Republicans campaigned for him and ignored the Republican nominee. So in the end, Lieberman won the general election with votes from Republicans and some Democrats. It's a case-study of the power of an incumbent. They don't even need the support of their party once their name recognition is that high.
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -23/+7Sweet. Suck it diggtards! Your chosen leaders are turning on you!
  • sysoprock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+85I hear Canada is nice this time of year.
    • ChefGroovy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Don't let the door hit ya on the way out
    • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2coming up to winter........
    • Durinthal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not easy to (legally) move there, though. I've checked recently.
      • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for being on the same wavelength as a bunch of other Diggers, apparently.
        Also, in light of this fact, I think I'm going to go weep in the corner of my room. At least I live in California... I guess...
        WHY DID ONE OF MY SENATORS VOTE FOR IT!? AUGHHH
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you have a college degree, work experience, and a job lined up in Canada it shouldn't be hard. If you need a couple more points for Skilled Worker status you can take some French classes. There's a self-assessment test, which lists the points for various things. Just figure out what the easiest things are to get them.
  • Litespeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19“Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” ... wet dream, more like.
  • empirefalling, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23I fear for your countries peoples. They have signed their suicide note.
  • kerryhall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+72Thanks Lieberman, for leading us into World War III.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, interesting to see GERMANY working WITH the UN AGAINST the US.... that will just be a 180.....
  • zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11BREAKING: Hilary is still a....
  • frostyfrog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36How long before the :Iranian government was behind 9/11" newstories start popping up ? Anyone got an over/under ?
    • theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This would be hilarious if it weren't so ***** likely. I'll put good odds on Fox News being the first to start rolling the propaganda out.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I put good odds on you being unable to remove your head from your arse
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1How long before you loons actually read the news (and not just left wing propaganda). Three years ago the 911 Commission found links between Iran and al-Qaeda.
      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664 ...
      • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So the plan was to start with those countries *least* involved and then work our way to the more legitimate targets? What's absurd about the idea of that propaganda showing up now is that WE CAN'T GET INTO ANOTHER WAR.
      • darkestroom4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right.. and the 9/11 commision did such a great job with all the issues they ignored.. and it "wasn't" directed by someone with ties to the white house...
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2contrary to his mangled proverb, bush is going to try to fool us twice.
    • HouseFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"How long before the :Iranian government was behind 9/11" newstories start popping up ?"
      Wait. Calling Bill O' Reilly...
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Ladies and Gentlemen, we got word from the whitehouse today that there was indeed a 20th hi-jacker, (cue evil violin music) from Iran..."
    • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I say 2 to 1
  • doctorweird, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5Yes!! - Lieberman FTW!!
    • T8erT0T, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3....are you looking to get a cinder block to the face that badly?
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Would it save me from seeing the events of the next 4 years?
  • toastgodsupreme, on 10/10/2007, -4/+64Is a civil war in the US out of the question? Can we still rise against our govt? Ugh... this is bad. I'm moving to Canada or something. ***** this place.
    • frostyfrog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Hong Kong is looking pretty nice with their incredibly fast, incredibly cheap fibre optic broadband lines :) .
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Golly - living under the iron fist of a Communist dictator can't be all bad.
        • DashingLeech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Are you talking about Hong Kong or the U.S.?
    • greekgoat91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3dude, have you read DMZ
    • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -21/+1Just once, I would like to see one of you morons actually move. I realize that for most of you diggtards, you'd have to convince your parents because you're still minors, but still. Just once, that's all I ask.
      • Mohdoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm actually getting my Canadian citizenship for just that purpose. My mother is a citizen, so I can get it too :) Once my girlfriend and I are citizens, we can do as we please. see ya!
        • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please god can more socialists and neo-commies LEAVE....
      • CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You know, you can ask this sort of question without being an ***** about it. But you don't. Dick.
      • CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You know, you can ask this sort of question without being an ***** about it. But you don't. Dick.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1***** i'll just sneak into Canada beotch! It's not like there is Border fence there that is hard to pass!!!! TARD!
    • RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Civil war?! Ha, all of those gun control measures aren't looking so good anymore are they?
      • oceanrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You bet. "Oh we need gun laws because of crime" Yeah, now you know the real reason why they want to take the guns away.
    • z987k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4would it matter if we had fully automatics and rocket launchers and such anyways? Our govt has tanks and planes. Civil war is a thing of the past, in this day, it's not much more than suicide.
      Terrorism... on the other hand is what people usually resort to since there is no way in hell they could win a conventional war. That's what a lot of the organizations fighting governments in Africa and such use since they can't fight head on.
      • melchoir555, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Civil war a thing of the past? Are you kidding me? The U.S. armed forces number under 5 million, at best, and the majority are overseas (including the national guard). There are 300 million people in the states, many of whom are armed with more than knives. I assure you the American people could easily engage the US government in conventional ground warfare.

        "Would it matter if we had fully automatics?". I don't know what country you live in, but there is no shortage of fully automatic weapons in the hands of United States civilians.
        • z987k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah but 5 million with tanks, ships, fighter and bomber aircraft are better than 40million with pitchforks shotguns and rifles.
          I think that in my state(IL) you can't have automatic weapons, not sure.

          You would need the military to either not intervene or split/be on your side.
    • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22A Civil War is when the People fight each other.

      A REVOLUTION is when the People fight the government.

      I opt for the second.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2a revolution in this country will ultimately lead to civil war. there are a lot of bible-thumpin bush lovers from middle america who i'm sure are already armed to the teat.
        • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1no there's a lot of anti-socialists and pro-individual freedom loving true Americans that will shoot you.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Don't ever expect a socialist revolution to take place. Please quit dreaming.
      • tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Something tells me that there would be a group of government supporters would rally against the revolutionaries and there would be a civil war anyways.
      • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think this is one war I would actually fight in. I hope there is a revolution, and I hope people get off their asses and stand for something.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Are you going to fire the first shot - didn't think so. Run away little person
  • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -28/+7I bet 3/4ths of you idiots don't even know what this bill is or what it does. You just log in and type "Fvck". How stupid. And another thing, why do you vote democrats in that you can't trust to vote "your way"??? Maybe you people are left wing loons???. Very possible.
    • zephc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15"Fvck"? What are you, Roman?
    • jze17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0All it does is prevent Iran from turning Iraqi Shia into Hezzbola, label Irans Islamic Revolutinary Guards Corps as an terrorist group, tell the US Treasury to act on UN resolution 1737 & 1747 (Imposed sanctions on Iran for nuclear enrichment).

      What can Iran do? Allow IAEA inspectors or block the Straight of Hormuz. Guess which one they'll pick.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"All it does is prevent Iran from turning Iraqi Shia into Hezzbola"

        No it doesn't. It does nothing like that. All it does is provide a fig leaf for more US criminal aggression in the Middle East.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I think we have a winner! This will piss off the Digg Democrat Children (the DDC) - they can't handle the truth. You will feel the wrath of the DDC (because even now they are realizing they are acting like loons). This is not 0 versus 1 - this is not good versus evil - if you think Democrat=good and Republican=bad (or the inverse) you are a loon.
  • socket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29DISGUSTING. Our Congress has completely lost it's mind.
    • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6you guys know what is even more awesome? The way the mainstream media hasn't picked up on this.
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They are doing exactly what they were put there to do.

      The real question is, who put them there. It certainly wasn't the people.
  • EllisAshbrook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63Gravel just called them out for this *****, and Hilary laughed in his face!
    • migel628, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13For the 1st time in my life, i have donated to the right candidate...Mike Gravel in 2008!!!
    • DesertFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I met Senator Gravel when he was on Real Time with Bill Maher. He is the real deal. Honestly, I don't think he cares if he wins, he's just out there to make a point.
    • gehmflor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The little I have seen of Gravel is GREAT! But he is so rarely mentioned. I don't have any hope left for politics to change things for the better, it's all rigged. Hillary, who I used to like, will win, and will continue with the same old same old, with a slight left turn.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Downside of gravel, he is too extreme.
    • cyberdogg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gravel takes on Hillary Clinton at NH Democratic debate for her vote on Lieberman-Kyl Amendment. Hillary laughs at him.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o
  • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25This should serve as evidence to anybody who thinks the Democrats are entirely anti-war. They're only anti-Iraq war (or at least they want you to think that, they voted for that one too). 76-22?! Do you seriously think that's only Republicans? I ***** hate Republicans more, but god damn, give up the act people.
    • aredcalledblue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0word
    • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It was republicans and jews. Only hitler can save us now.
  • SoyJames, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15So what the hell? Somebody post the new paragraphs. What does it mean? Are we going to war or not?
  • Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's like they want a nuke war...
  • Checkerd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2God damnit!
  • tangledupblues, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What the *****! Will this perpetual warmongering attitude ever end? Why doesn't Lieberman go to Israel and fight on the front? Notice that Hillary voted "yes"; she wants to end the Iraq war as responsibly as possible, and start one with Iran. It is ever apparent that what the American people want does not matter anymore...
  • GR3G, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I would like to respond by saying - *****!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.