digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at rawstory.com —

Mainstream media yawns as Kucinich offers impeachment

rawstory.com — On Monday evening, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) took to the floor of the House of Representatives to read out 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush in an almost five-hour marathon. Kucinich's action made an immediate splash on the Internet, but the mainstream media were far more reticent in their coverage.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • callmebwana, on 06/10/2008, -39/+421Of course the msn pans it, they are culpable and should be named as co-conspirators.
    • GhostFreeman, on 06/11/2008, -3/+21s/msn/msm/
    • JQP123, on 06/11/2008, -3/+34"... they are culpable and should be named as co-conspirators."

      As is Congress ... which is why this is nothing more than political game playing.
      • digitronix, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6Which is why there probably won't be enough support in the Congress to follow through with this impeachment.

        Welcome to the age of the government of very little accountability.
        • daRoach, on 06/11/2008, -13/+3Probably because all the accusations made are laughable.
        • zunieric, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3A joke? I'm sure not laughing.

          Did you even read his accusations?
    • jetboyterp, on 06/11/2008, -38/+8When did the MSM ever side with President Bush? As for this stupid "impeachement" thing, someone tell Kucinich to maybe get back to some real problems that Congress should be attending to...not this impeachment crap. What a waste of tapayer $$$.
      • h3lx, on 06/11/2008, -3/+26***** YEAH! I wonder who is on steroids this week...
      • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -2/+27right, they should be working on important bills like this:
        H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr11 ...
      • jetboyterp, on 06/11/2008, -13/+5I see no one wants to address the issue of how exactly the MSM is in Bush's corner? OR is it that this impeachment crapola has no foundation, and is a total waste and a partisan political ploy?
        • 55mph, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7how you ask? By ignoring the news of his impeachment for one.

          What's a guy got to do to get impeached these days? Get a blowjob from a plump intern?
        • mrsammercer, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Umm...how about the lead-up to the Iraq War? It was all push, push push for war. The Administration was barely questioned back then. Sure, the MSN will jab at the President and pick at him for stupid little things, like how much he misspeaks and things like that, but they never report the big things. Like the report that just came out which came to the conclusion that the Administration either willingly or incompetently withheld dissenting intelligence in their argument for going to war. That was a blip on their radar, if it was mentioned at all. A congressional committee coming to such a conclusion seems like pretty big news to me, but the MSN barely mentions it? There's a list of things like that that have been swept under the carpet by the MSN for years now.
        • mrn111, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Oh I long for 10 years ago, economy was booming, gas was about a buck/gal, and all it took was perjury over a blowjob to get a president impeached.
      • ClosedCaption, on 06/11/2008, -1/+14@ Jetboy..You missed the Judy Miller story, and the Pentagon Propaganda story, Katie Couric being pressured by NBC to do soft interviews, Phil Donahue being canceled and pressured by Execs, Jessica Yellin saying that she too was pressured, My personal fav a press pass being given to a Gay male prositute that sat there and asked soft ball questions pretending to be a journalist. Wait there's more but you missed ALL of those..I doubt it put your head back in the sand or your ass.
      • starbuxadct, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Because nothing that Bush does is a HUGE waste of taxpayer $$.
    • sagat, on 06/11/2008, -4/+37MSN? Leave Microsoft out of this for a change!
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -9/+5***** MICROSOFT! And while I'm on the topic, ***** THE RIAA!!
    • jzuska, on 06/11/2008, -11/+10They don't call him Bulletproof Bush for nuttin
    • InetRoadkill, on 06/11/2008, -2/+58Damn liberal media. Always trying to embarrass and harass Bush at every opportunity. Oh wait...

      Congress (Pelosi in particular) should be ashamed of themselves for not pursuing impeachment months ago. The majority of democrats are just as responsible as the GOP for enabling Bush's attacks on the constitution and turning a blind eye to his corruption.
      • ngmcs8203, on 06/11/2008, -0/+12Uhh... well this isn't the first time Kucinich stood up there and let his 2 cents fall on deaf ears. So he's pursuing the issue, but nobody cares in congress.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 06/11/2008, -1/+20Nancy Pelosi does not want to impeach Bush because she and several other democrats supported Bush when it was apparently politically beneficial to do so. They had advance knowledge of torture techniques and warrantless spying used in the war on terror, and not only didn't object, but supported them.

        http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/ ...

        The people of San Francisco really need to wake up and see that she is only superficially critical of Bush and is actually actively protecting him and herself in the process.
      • Julik, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10I wonder how many people on here realize that congress's approval rating is HALF of Bush's.
        • delmar14, on 06/11/2008, -4/+6They clearly don't. This is Digg, and facts like that don't cut it here.
        • catbeller, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Not relevant to impeaching Bush.
      • daost, on 06/11/2008, -6/+0I would think all of these Diggers who support Obama as a pragmatic, bipartisan candidate could see that impeachment is not a pragmatic solution at this point. Does he deserve to be impeached? Sure. Is it going to happen, and if it did, would it actually make any of the current problems with our country better? No.

        You can call out Pelosi for being a whimp, but she's making a smart political choice that happens to be better for the country. If you really support what Obama stands for, which is a rejection of the partisan rancor in Washington, we need to tone down the shrill anti-Bush dialogue. We have less than a year before Obama is going to be in office - let's get things started out on the right foot.
        • cwgannon, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1The problem is that nobody should want the misdoings, whatever they may be, of the Bush administration to set a future precedent. It was so blatant and so frequent that it's barely surprising that many people have become accustomed to it,
    • humanerror, on 06/11/2008, -2/+21What sucks is it's not just the main stream media ignoring him. Look at huffingtonpost.com, look at moveon.org, look at dailykos.com.

      There is no mention of Kucinich or impeachment anywhere on the front pages of any of those three sites.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/11/2008, -6/+16That's because the Democrats are right of center. I still don't understand what a real leftist like Kucinich is doing in that party.
        • TimDigg, on 06/11/2008, -2/+9Exactly, it's like

          Democrats and Republicans = Right vs FAR Right
        • brycelb, on 06/11/2008, -6/+2right of center??????????????

          You must be a communist who thinks he is right down the middle with his political views. How about a little bit of self awareness. There is nothing about any of those websites that is even remotely close to center. They are all FAR LEFT. If you think that they are not I really feel sorry for you because you are obviously about to fall off the cliff.
      • ngmcs8203, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5Also because they've already reported about it, and look how much headway Kucinich made. Absolutely none.
      • Digger1123, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4As retarded as all those site are, they know this will go nowhere.
      • rcomegys, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4What's worse, for me, is that the Digg audience can't see WHY the press is ignoring it: because Kucinich knows he's politically safe, and he's probably only doing this so in a few years, he can say "But I was the sole voice of opposition! I tried to get him out, but no one wanted to help!"

        He isn't serious about this impeachment, and the national press is smart enough to realize that. It's kinda sad that my fellow Diggers aren't.
        • humanerror, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5And what exactly do you think he would do if he *were* serious? What more should he do than stand up for 5 hours and read off 35 articles of impeachment on the house floor? Start a riot? Show up naked?
    • randone, on 06/11/2008, -0/+7http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.im ...

      CNNs running an article
    • bullhead2007, on 06/11/2008, -3/+9The entire congress is a co-conspirator. They are all bought ant paid for by the same people.

      Is there a way we can just like.. impeach the entire congress, executive branch, maybe even judicial? Flush the ***** down the toilet we need a fresh new start, going back to the basics (read: CONSTITUTION).
      • s3rgi0, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3"it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
        -Declaration of Independence
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8If I remember correctly you need 2/3 of congress (or higher?) to impeach president. Do you think it can happen with republicans controlling just under 50%? So, whats the point for the congress to spend their time doing this, when there are other problems at hand?
      Even though I do think president deserves to be impeached, I am with the media for this one. YAWN!
      • TimDigg, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I know Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul would join the dems, I bet others would too
      • Silentshadow900, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Thank you. You win the "thank god you're not a robot and have some ***** sense" award for the day.
      • Raphae1, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Well, at least it shows us which congressmen want Bush's impeachment.
        It's always good to know, which side our representatives pick.
    • phoenixshard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Amazing how the Republicans say its a liberal media and then the Dems say its a conservative media. Must be nice to claim that just because some media outlets have the sense to know that its not actually newsworthy since nothing will ever come of it in the first place.
      • operatorc, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0I disagree with you on why the media isn't covering it (it most certainly is newsworthy in my opinion), but I also agree with you that nothing will ever come out of this though at least it'll go on official record... at least somebody did SOMETHING, even if it won't go through because of that traitorous bitch Pelosi.

        Democrat, Republican... same ***** thing: useless.
    • cesig, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2The fact is that the media has no obligation to present accurate or relevant news anymore. Not since the Fairness doctrine was dismantled by Reagan in 88 (and later Clinton).

      Before that, it was mandated that media outlets presented balanced, relevant news. It was a LAW. However, since then, there isn't any such requirement on any media outlet. And since every news outlet is owned by a corporation, they're legally required to do anything to turn a profit. Otherwise it's "wasting corporate resources," and they can be sued.

      As a result, we get watered down, incomplete news coverage. We get only what the corporations think will get ratings, because that's all that matters to them. It's all that CAN matter to them. The MSM isn't covering this because they want to ingratiate themselves to the ruling party in America. It's a "you scratch mine and I'll scratch yours" sort of arrangement.

      Blame the media if you like, but the fact is, this is the government's own doing. And it started a long time ago.
      • operatorc, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0That makes a lot of sense, and it's unfortunate that nothing can really be done about it at this point.

        The cause to "wake up" America is an impossible endeavor because the sheep are too attached to the mainstream media, addicted to the entertainment-news that they're fed day-in, day-out.

        The best one can do is pat his or her own back, and feel good that he or she is not a zombie, or something.
        • cesig, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1There are a lot of people who see what's wrong with the MSM, but we're unorganized.

          So long as we stay that way this problem will be virtually insurmountable.
    • 0ceanic, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1same thing i was going to say, except without the typo.
    • directedition, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Why should anyone cover it? Bush is the best source of news on the planet. Without Bush, we wouldn't have the war, the ruined US economy, or any of that juicy stuff that glues people to the TV.
    • JonGalt, on 06/12/2008, -7/+3@all of you...
      COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!COO COO! coo coo!
    • culbeda, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2CBS ran a piece on it almost immediately. They were the only site that had it on the front page when I first saw the story on the tubes.
  • danfive555, on 06/10/2008, -31/+218MSM can try to ignore this but its only Tuesday, and this story keeps gaining traction every hour. Impeaching this president right now is perfect timing, he keeps corrupting government and transferring wealth to corporations in the IRON TRIANGLE. This movement is starting right now before our eyes.
    • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -26/+10The President wont be impeached when only one loony congressmen supports it.
      • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -6/+14Why not? Neo-cons got into power because of loonies like Limbaugh and Murdoch. Loonyism apparently works.
        • brycelb, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2And this is why comment boards are insane. How exactly did Murdoch get ANY neocon in power. Was it because he has always been a democratic supporter. He is a big Hillary fan and I believe he has backed Obama. But you go ahead and continue spinning your web of delusion.

          Are you really claiming that 150 million people listen to Rush? That is what it would take for him to control the election.
      • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -15/+6Neo cons have numbers. Kucinich has himself and his empty pill bottle.
      • relic180, on 06/11/2008, -4/+31I love how every honest politician is a Loony. Kucinich, Paul, Nader... all completely bonkers. Right?
        You ***** waste of space.
        • homah, on 06/11/2008, -4/+27Exactly. Instead of refuting even a single one of Kucinich's 35 points, he chooses to dismiss him as a loon without any reason. The sad part is if enough people say it it will be accepted as the truth without question.
        • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -2/+20Honest men, labeled lunitics. Provable facts, considered horse-***** conspiracy. Its a sad time to be a free man.
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3Nothing says "I'm in high school" like calling someone a "***** waste of space". If you're going to insult somebody, try to seem at least half way intelligent.


          I don't have the time to refute every 35 of his points, however, while I strongly disagree with Bush I don't think simply disagreeing with a politician is enough to impeach him. He has to do something seriously wrong, unprecedented for it to be impeachable in my book. I'd love to impeach him and all of congress, but that won't happen. As compared to other politicians, bush isn't particularly evil. Kucinich is in a world of his own, he thinks he's fighting for the Constitution and the like, when he's really essentially a member of the US socialist party elected Democrat. I'm thankful most of the ideas proposed by Kucinich are seen as silly to even the most radical congresspersons, otherwise we might be far worse off than we are now.
        • DavidBGie, on 06/11/2008, -7/+5Everybody yawned. Even the other Democrats said impeachment was "off the table.". Only Kucinich, the mentally insane and lib-diggers are screwed up in the head to think Bush is impeachable. There are no crimes to impeach him for! Just a bunch of scatter brained rants by the wacko left-wing.
        • relic180, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5@DavidBGie

          That's right, no crimes to impeach him for. Because he just changes the laws he wants to break so that he's no longer breaking them. Very repectable (definitely un-impeachable) behavior for the leader of the free world who is suppose to protect and lead the country that "voted" him into office.

          @DucoNihilum

          Since you oddly seem to care about the quality of the insults hurled your way, let me try again.
          You're a short sighted masochist with an over-generalized world view to compliment your dearth of critical thinking skills which have caused you to attach worth to the artificial "banner waving" behaviors that you, and your fellow lemmings are hiding behind while driving this country, which doesn't just belong to you and your self-important, narrow-minded teammates, into the ground under the false pretense that it's inevitable... while in all reality it's completely avoidable if you would just process the world around you in the slightest and realize what you have accepted as reality is not actually reality.

          But really, all of that can be summarized very easily.
          You're a ***** waste of space.
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Such a profoundly empty statement. I read your statement over a few times looking for something to refute, however, I noticed that while you may have upped your vocabulary (somewhat), you have not upped your reasoning (or your clarity really). I am not a fan of Bush (GHASP), but Kucinich's attempt is meaningless and shallow. He's been here six years, and isn't all that much worse than any other politician. You can't impeach him for just being an enemy of the left.
        • facelesscoward, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1If any of Bush's constitutional violations are not unprecedented, we need to find the precedent presidents and posthumously censure them. Then impeach.
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2So any president who's signed any expansion of government, like welfare, social programs, etc? I'm all for that, but considering ALL OF THEM since FDR has been very much into expanding the role of government..... impeaching EVERYBODY isn't very practical.
        • Qumahlin, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2"You can't impeach him for just being an enemy of the left. "

          Please read through the articles that Kucinich has laid forth. Also if you honestly can't find a reason to impeach bush...I'd love to live in the America that your living in. It's been proven over and over again that bush put us into an ILLEGAL war with Iraq and that by all accounts there isn't a single reason thats been given as to why we should have invaded them. The MSM refuses to cover this, and everyone other then Kucinich refuses to do anything and would rather just suffer out his last 6 months and let him get away scott free.

          Once bush is out of office he should IMMEDIATELY be charged and held in a international holding pen for war criminals.

          The excuses we were fed about the Iraq invasion could have been used against a multitude of other countries with REAL dictators. I'd love to know why the US cares so deeply about the Iraqi people, yet doesn't care about true monsters like Robert Mugabe.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0All of them since FDR have expanded government? Then all of them since FDR should have been impeached.

          Maybe some others before him, as well, especially Lincoln. The American Civil War was the first time American government got a real chance to become completely corrupt, and it did just that.

          We still haven't recovered from it. It's time to at least try, don't you think?

          Whether it's practical or not, we need to make a stand for our rights and our Constitution. We avoided having a king for a reason, and we need to cut the powers of the president back down to what they were intended to be as soon as possible--they think they're kings already, and they will be if the American people just stand aside as they have been doing for decades.
      • digitalhair, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1GET THE ***** OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!! what a worthless and astoundingly-uninformed PARTISAN TROLL! what do these people's faces look like??? do they contribute ANYTHING to the greater good of our society?
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2You label your opponents as.... partition. Do you know anything about me, or my political commentary? Probably not, don't judge me without any evidence whatsoever. And before you say I've done no research on kucinich- I have, which is why I think he's absolutely wrong. I say again, these childish insults are a great way to point out the high schoolers of Digg. All mouth, no substance.
        • digitalhair, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1actually, relic180 articulated my opinion of what you said much more reasonably than I. I've simply lost patience for idiots who dismiss the bravest member of our nation's senate, representing a significant bipartisan percentage of our nation's electorate by bringing forth these articles of impeachment, as "looney" or "leftist" and therefore inevitably ineffective when it has been precisely that attitude that has kept Bush in office for so damn long...
    • TomK88, on 06/11/2008, -18/+10Just like Ron Paul will be President, right?
      • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -9/+7You Canadians don't even care if your free or not. So what difference does it make to you.
        • bigbadgoat, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8We don't care if we're free?

          That's an audacious statement to make.

          Especially considering Canadians were on the front lines of Both World War I and World War II years before Americans. We have thousands of peacekeepers deployed all over the world, because that's what we do, we keep the peace, we try to end unnecessary wars, not start them. We won't join you in your "war" on Iraq because it isn't justified. We don't stick our noses where they don't belong. We fight for our freedom when our freedom is actually in peril, when we are threatened.

          Fortunately, for us, we have no enemies. No one hates Canadians in general, because we, for the most part, are good, caring, intelligent, compassionate people. That's why Canada is rated one of the best countries to live in, that's why immigrants can come to our country and not fear persecution. We don't have a strong military because we don't need a strong military. If we did, we'd have one, and we'd have millions of citizens that would be more than willing to die for this country if necessary.

          Besides, if my memory serves me correctly, you guys already tried invading us once, and we kicked your ass and burnt down the white house.
        • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3@bigbadgoat
          I apologize, I was out of line. I was only refering to the fact that you guys seem to welcome every socialist garbage that comes along with open arms. ie gun control, socialized health care etc...
        • TomK88, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5@republicker
          Since when is making healthcare accessible to all citizens a bad thing? Or trying to keep a better track of guns (you can own handguns in Canada, in case you didn't know)?
        • bigbadgoat, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3I think he's one of those Americans that thinks it's okay to legally own a ***** assault rifle.

          The only thing that's good for is killing people, why would anyone want to own one?

          Socialist garbage? Maybe? but it makes the average citizen's quality of life better, I assure you.
        • sigg14, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2"Besides, if my memory serves me correctly, you guys already tried invading us once, and we kicked your ass and burnt down the white house."

          by "we" you mean Great Britain right?
        • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -4/+1@TornK88
          If you knew anyone from canada who wasnt in denial about their healthcare they would tell you that waiting months to get a surgery that you need today is not fun. Do we want healthcare like the DMV....no
          @Bigbadgoat
          Furthermore, I own many "assault rifles" and they are no different than any other rifle thats not black and scary. I really don't know why your worried about me having guns when your probably scared of your own shadow. Boo
        • TomK88, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5I have honestly never met a single person in Canada that doesn't like the idea of free healthcare for all citizens. How can you justify letting somebody die in your country because they can't afford healthcare, which can be ridiculously expensive as we all know.

          Also, surgery wait times are nothing here. Try to find some instances where people in Canada died due to health care being too slow. It rarely happens. I was just scheduled for surgery within a month for an operation with a specialist and the surgery is strictly for quality of life purposes (no danger now or in the future).

          As for why I don't want people owning assault rifles...ever see a drive-by shooting or gun fight in the street? School shooting? Assault rifles have no use other than harming people and target practice. I think sacrificing target practice is a small price to pay for people's lives.
        • bigbadgoat, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3@Sigg, well yes, the territory was technically part of britian, but the Americans invaded the british territory known as "Upper Canada" as it was known then, now Ontario. The army who occupied the area, consisted mainly of people called "Canadians", since many of them were born, raised and lived in Canada, defended it and then proceeded to march down to Washington and torch it to the ground.

          its all right here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

          @republicker: Ohh you mean when my grandfather discovered he had colon cancer and had surgery within days? How about when I need to see a dermatologist or specialist and I see them within three weeks? I've never had to wait longer than three weeks for anything, neither have any of my relatives, including my father who has a heart condition.

          It costs us nothing, I repeat, nothing to go see the doctor, and our taxes are only marginally higher than yours (2-3% if I'm not mistaken).

          About the assault rifles, why the ***** would you want to own one? What purpose does it serve?

          "Man! I paid $3K for a gun that I can't use for hunting, and anything else even moderately practical, and I can only fire it off in a range, but it shoots 30 rounds a second! WOOOOO!"

          I'm not worried about you owning one, you're not my neighbor. My neighbors can't get drunk, act stupid and have a shootout with the police where they're better armed than they are. In fact, I actually do not know one person who owns a hand gun. Why would they? They're useless for anything other than killing other people. Why would I, or anyone else need to own something that's only purpose is to end another person's life?

          And believe it or not, the crime rate is so low here that practically no one has security systems in their houses or their cars, and most people don't even bother to lock their doors at night. Then again.. where I come from, there might be... one murder in my city ever 3-4 years?

          Who wants to bet the murder rate goes up if everyone was suddenly armed with a handgun? Better yet, lets give everyone access to AK-47s, that would be ***** amazing! Everyone would be SOO much safer! You're ***** delusional if you think you and every one of your neighbors owning an assault rifle is some how a good thing.

          Ever wonder why you never hear about a school shooting in Canada?

          (I'll give you a hint: You can't shoot someone if you can't get a gun to shoot them with!)
        • nosecohn, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4@bigbadgoat

          Shh! You might be telling people things they don't learn in American schools.
        • motivatedmama, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Beautiful! I applaud the show of solidarity in denying this "patriot" his delusions. Perhaps someone else will read this thread and find enlightenment.
          @relic180: Beeeautiful smackdown.
        • onefatfrog, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2@bigbadgoat

          First, I would like to say that I appreciate your use of relevant arguments to make your point, many people just resort to petty name calling or baseless denial.

          On the issue of gun control, there a couple of reasons I disagree with you. The first and most important reason is that a population with inferior or no weaponry is defenseless against oppression from their own government. I could be wrong (I wasn't there), but I believe this was one of the reasons "the right to bear arms" was so important when The Constitution was written. And it is true that assault rifles serve no purpose but manslaughter, but if our police and military have them and we don't, the chances of a successful revolution (if necessary) are almost zero.

          The other reason I will mention is the simple fact that banning guns will only keep them from honest, law-abiding citizens. Just like we couldn't keep people from alcohol, and we can't keep people from marijuana, we won't keep criminals from guns. No matter what we do, they WILL have their weapons and they will be free to use them knowing nobody can defend themselves from such weapons. Think of it this way: if you were a criminal planning a gun crime, would you be more likely to attack a group of people where you knew everyone else had a gun and knew how to use it, or a group of people where nobody had a gun?
        • bigbadgoat, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Ahh, see, you have to actually have a reason to think your government is or is attempting to oppress you... I understand why Americans want to own guns, especially with your current government.

          I have nothing against people owning guns. People in Canada are allowed to own them, rifles and hand guns alike. I'm not even sure if assault rifles and those types of guns are even illegal here. I've honestly never looked into it, because I've never had the desire to own any type of weapon and neither have most anyone else I know besides the scattered person who goes hunting.

          Furthermore, the gun registration is just that, registration. Laws banning certain types of fire arms or limited how many you can own or when they can be purchased have nothing to do with this. If anything it's more for law enforcement's sake, since if everyone registers their guns, they should be able to at least get a bit of a heads up on the potential weapons that could be in a particular household.

          As for your scenario, tell me then, why is it that the crime rate of Canada, particularly levels related to death/injuries involving firearms, where there are FAR less firearms available is significantly lower than that of the United States and other countries where firearms are easily accessible? I mean, its not like people go North of the border and suddenly lose the urge to kill someone or commit a crime.

          I just don't understand the mindset; to own a gun out of fear, fear of your government, fear of your neighbor, fear of anyone and anything that you do not know or understand. I live in a city, in a society, where generally no one lives in fear of oppression, in fear of getting robbed or randomly attacked, and we are far, far less violent (in general) because of it. Why should I be afraid of these things?
        • republicker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/tech_news/Canada_Proposes_Draconia ...
          Canada is a bastion of freedom
    • plhearn, on 06/11/2008, -6/+4Do you really want Cheney in charge of the country?
      • Jorin, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Set him up, knock him down.
      • Rekutyn, on 06/11/2008, -1/+13There are already articles of impeachment being reviewed by the house judiciary commity for Dick Cheney. McClellan is set to testify against Cheney in regards to the outing of CIA-spy Valarie Plame.
        • Izult, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Sadly the committee isn't doing anything other than letting them gather dust. Write your reps many times and make sure that they understand that if they're not going to do the job you'll vote in someone who will listen to their constituency.
        • Rekutyn, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6I've e-mailed virtually every congress-person in my state and let them know I'd rather saw off my own foot than vote for those turncoats again. Their secretary who sends out the automated form-replies doesn't care.
      • Stavrosian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1That's fine reasoning there, buddy.

        "He might be a corrupt crook, but look, his number two is even worse, so let's leave him alone."
      • phike, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3I'm not your buddy, pal.
      • vbullinger, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Lyndon LaRouche put it best about impeaching Bush to get Cheney:

        "Why impeach Little Red Riding Hood to get the Wolf?"

        Get 'em both out. Kucinich has gone after both, good for him.
    • Barbarino, on 06/11/2008, -8/+24I'm not here to debate whether he should or shouldn't be impeached, but lets face the truth here, this isn't some high ranking Senator doing this, DK has no respect from the MSM, the American people and even in his own district he's not doing well. Digg loves the far left and the bash Bush crowd, fine, it's your right, but at some point digg needs to learn they are fringe and not main stream regardless if their point of view is correct or not.
      • TomK88, on 06/11/2008, -12/+6Dugg down for logic and reason. Obama should be president and Ron Paul VP. LOLZZ!
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5You had to know you would be dugg down, bashing Obama AND Paul AS WELL AS Kucinich in the same breath. That's 99% of digg.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1If you think so little of Digg and its members, what are you doing here? Do you honestly think you'll sway the opinion of someone you already have deemed to be opposed to your stance ("...99% of digg")?

          Or are you here simply to troll childishly? Either way you're wasting your time and, I imagine, soon will be blocked.
      • HughesAP, on 06/11/2008, -0/+10Logic and Reason getting Dugg down? Just be thankful the 14 yr old kids on here cannot vote.
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1The world would be run by people like McCain 'oh yeah, well I don't take economics until senior year so i just do what my liberal teachers tell me'.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 06/11/2008, -6/+2Again with the denigrating of the digg population - why are you here? What justifies your need to spend time here when you could be out making "Iraq for the next 100 years!" bumper stickers. Surely your time would be better spent among your peers.

          Liberal teachers? Is that like the myth of the "liberal media"?
        • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I'm not at all in support of the Iraq war, or most wars for that matter. Hopefully sometime you will grow up and realize that the simple act of having a different viewpoint does not make somebody stupid, or inherently bad. Digg is NOT a website soely for socialists, and the world does not necessarily think like you do. Just because somebody is different than you, does not mean that they are stupid. There are plenty of intelligent people on all sides. Depending on where you live, there are plenty of Liberal minded teachers who might have influence over students. I'd say that the Liberal media exists as well (Not that there isn't conservative media or conservative teachers.)
      • Silentshadow900, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5You also win the "thank god you're not a robot and have some ***** sense" award today. Congrats!
    • joe122370, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4it's not just the media yawning...it's everybody
    • Darkside2984, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Yep and Ron Paul is your next president. Here's your sign...
    • makenshin, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Yes, they wont be able to ignore it much longer.
      I would like to hear what major political players right now thing, like Ron Paul or Hillary. Obama I do not think should comment on the issue quite yet.
      • makenshin, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Well, looks like the House pushed it to a committee to be sat most likely until Bush is out of office. The Dems voted for such mostly, and Ron Paul voted with the Dems.

        Link to results:
        http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll401.xml

        apparently not a single nay from Dems.
    • Gorgamel, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Oh, no! Not the IRON TRIANGLE!
    • 158701, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1CNN picked up on the story today. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.im ...
  • malibu87, on 06/10/2008, -45/+323IMPEACH NOW!
    • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -25/+20The media is smarter than the Internet apparently. Because at least they have brains to understand impeachment is an ancient story that amounted to nothing. Diggers, it seems, along with Kucinich, have peanut brains.
      • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -7/+21seeking justice is never a waste of time. these articles will go on the record thanks to the hard work and diligence of rep. kucinich.
      • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -13/+7These articles will make him stupider because every one knows how corrupt senate is. Did you know their ratings are lowest in history, and suck more than Bushes? Kucinich is a hypocrite who did it for political gain, and some people, like yourself, are the product of his hypocrisy. If you are seeking Justice, seek it elsewhere cause you wont find Justice in Corrupt senate.
      • jzuska, on 06/11/2008, -9/+5The media is smarter than the internet. The internet is a pack of bloodthirsty libs. I am going to jerk off constantly with all the hate i get to spew about Obama. It's going to be delicious.
      • notanidiot, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4He's not in the Senate, its the House, you idiot. Thank you for making your comments obviously irrelevant due to inherent cluelessness.
    • TheThirdLevel, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5IMPEACH MOAR!
      • dakine42, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2That was the first thing I thought of.
    • cannonball, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1Yeah, lets have Cheney as our president...
    • Hypomanic, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, too bad Kucinich voted against his own measure. This is political maneuvering.
    • JoeHammer, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2impeach? why not trial for Treason?
  • grannymiller, on 06/10/2008, -48/+490MSM is irrelevant.
    I've been a Republican for over 35 years. I voted for GWB twice.
    He needs to be impeached. Same for Cheney
    • LimeParrot, on 06/11/2008, -18/+184WHY? How could you possibly vote for him the second time? I'm not trying to be offensive... I just want to know...
      When he won the second time... my jaw dropped.. I couldn't believe it.
      • foodude, on 06/11/2008, -12/+56http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/
        'The New Hampshire statewide hand recount was begun by Democrat candidate Dennis Kucinich and Republican candidate Albert Howard amid "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors about the integrity of Tuesday's results"'
        This has happened all over the USA, not only in NH, and not only in '08. Watch the documentary, I highly recommend it.
        Legislation is needed to open source all voting machines, srsly.
        • halobender, on 06/11/2008, -7/+34"my jaw dropped"... I felt like crying it was so depressing to think so many of my fellow Americans voted for him. It was just one of those where the f*ck do I live situations.
        • Neoanarchist, on 06/11/2008, -10/+7Thanks for the heads up on the documentary. Going to watch it ASAP.
        • bradysdaman, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2so where are you living now halobender...???
        • Qumahlin, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2"Hacking Democracy" was ruined as a documentary due to the lack of knowledge and inexperience of Bev Harris. While I admire the womans goals, she honestly was not articulate enough to adequately explain the problems to someone who has no idea about computer systems and databases.

          The part of the documentary where she is at a Diebold held conference where she talks about source code and FTP sites made me cringe...she barely understood what she was saying herself.

          She hired computer security experts as consultants and to help demonstrate the "hacks" and she should have also let them speak in regards to the issues as they would have done a much better job. There is also quite a bit of FUD in the film as there are multiple parts where they act as if anyone can just walk up to the central server, fire up MS access, and just change the vote counts....now while I believe there may have been something fishy going on, I don't believe that the actual central voting server is setup with a blank windows password and that the database has no password either.

          So while I liked the movie, it's about on par with a Michael Moore piece as far as accuracy and facts are concerned.

          I do believe Diebold should be held criminally liable for their lack of security on such an important piece of the voting infrastructure, I don't however believe that hacking democracy should be taken to heart as true evidence of the american election being "stolen". All it proved was that it could be and if we want to talk about things that "could" happen then every election in the history of elections should be recounted.

        • ModernChem, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1I hope you have the had the sense to leave out country halobender. (I dont support bush, just my fellow americans ;-) )
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/11/2008, -10/+45"When he won the second time... my jaw dropped.. I couldn't believe it."

        See also "How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him."

        Kerry was a douche, so it's no surprise Bush won a 2nd time. Seriously, if Kerry was so great in 2004, why wasn't he a Democrat frontrunner for 2008?
        • snotrokit, on 06/11/2008, -1/+28I will see your Douche, and raise you a Putz. Kerry was an awful choice for a candidate. A smirking chimp could have beat him..... oh wait.
        • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+7He didn't run again because I don't think people usually run again if they get to the general election and lose. Especially if they lose to the worst president of all time.
        • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2Yea, you're right Cuchanu, Gerald Ford never tried to run again after he lost to Carter.
        • culbeda, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1"I'd say that's a nice first step."

          Yeah, an intelligent, articulate war hero. What a douchebag. John Kerry wears a clean room suit and gets slammed for looking like a bunny. McCain think's Putin is the President of Germany, doesn't know the difference between Sunis and Shia and fairly recently said that he will always hate all "gooks" and he gets a free pass. He changes his viewpoints 180 degrees to pander to "religious right" and they don't blink an eye.

          You got duped into thinking Kerry was a poor candidate like millions of others. Why you're still clinging to the ignorance is beyond me.
      • nastysquar3d, on 06/11/2008, -14/+7The democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass an run an electable candidate.

        John Kerry, c'mon... in my opinion if they would've ran Edwards in the 2004 elections he would have won hands down.

        I also think that if the current administration didn't suck so much and they didn't taint everything that's associated with the Republican party the democrats would also loose this election. Nothing against Obama but I think that there's definitely more "electable" democrats out there.
      • Pritchard, on 06/11/2008, -2/+19Oh, people had their reasons. You know, I've only been free of mainstream media corruption for a year or two. There were a lot of facts that had to be cleared up by resources I found on the internet. I can't recall my exact thoughts, but they were somewhere along these lines...

        I still supported Bush in 2004. I thought that the Iraqi War would be a success. I wasn't aware that there was no Al-Queda in Iraq before we went over there. I had thought a new world war was going to start, and that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., were all preparing themselves for it.


        I was still in Middle School 4 years ago, I believe. A prime example of how out of the loop most of us living dead-end lives were thinking.
        • SakisRakis, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Being a middle school student is leading a dead end life? It doesn't really worry me that a ~13 year old did not know about the Iraq war.
        • Pritchard, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Former Middle School student is a future not Middle School student! It's not like knowledge knocks on your door once every year on your birthday asking you to help rid the world of ignorance...
        • Asheis, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3how old are you? did you just turn voting age?
        • Pritchard, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Not voting age yet :-)
      • Izult, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6i'll venture a guess and say it's because the Dem's ran a candidate, who for all intents and purposes, seemed to be (at least in my eyes, i know there are those who will vehemently disagree) a carbon copy of Bush. People will vote for the evil they know over the one they don't when presented with options like that.
        • thegreatgazoo, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Ding Ding Ding!

          How the Democrats ended up with John Kerry I'll never understand. But then they nominated Al Gore too.

          Al Gore talks to people like they are in Kindergarden (ie down to them as if they are idiots). Boring as hell too.

          John Kerry was a wishy washy empty head under a nice haircut. And it would be really great if we had his $1/gallon tax increase he wanted on gas back then.

          At least with Bush you knew what he was up to.

          This year I might just vote for Bob Barr. At least if he can get up to 15% he can make the debates interesting.
      • jfsimard79, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I know, I was like `that`s it, game over man, game over.`
        I couldn`t believe you guys voted him in the 2nd time.
        • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2"you guys" hey that offends me even though I know you are talking about america as a whole. I remember the headline in some British newspaper was "HOW CAN 50,000,000 PEOPLE BE SO STUPID?"
        • samthurston, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1"us guys" didn't vote him in even the first time. florida, ohio, new hampshire, new mexico... there's some whack-ass ***** going on with our election system.
      • skyshock1, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Easy. Two words: John Kerry.
    • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -36/+11Glad you voted for Bush twice.
      Logically there was no other choice.
      • WNW3, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2The Democrats wanted Bush to win the second time. Bush makes them look great by comparison. That's why they put up that goofball Kerry against him, Kerry had zero chance to win. With all the Bush-hate going on during the mid-term elections the Demos were able to get back congress. Now they are going to get the white house too. If Kerry had won they would have lost the congress because he wouldn't have been able to fix anything and the Republicans would have taken this years election.
        • HughesAP, on 06/11/2008, -10/+5And Obama's HOPE and CHANGE will be the same as Kerry. His debating skills are crappy and he can only spew the 10 sec clips to make people feel good about themselves. Obama will not CHANGE anything IF he is elected. In fact, if Obama wins and he does as bad of a job as many are predicting, then the GOP will win yet again.

          Also, thanks for digging me down since you don't agree with my point of view.
        • Andrwmorph, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4"Also, thanks for digging me down since you don't agree with my point of view."

          Its called democracy.
        • danno74, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2You're welcome.
        • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1"The Democrats wanted Bush to win the second time."

          Are you kidding me? Also, what exactly has Congress done since the Democrats took over again? Oil, natural gas, gasoline are at all time highs, spending continues to skyrocket, unemployment keeps rising and we've done absolutely nothing about any of it. The next four years will be Carter 2.0 (no matter who wins) and hopefully a Digger can run in 2012 to wipe the slate clean.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/11/2008, -10/+5And you're a liar, Moby....I mean, grannymiller.
    • N3tw0rk, on 06/11/2008, -2/+47There were still a lot of people eating their "freedom fries" in 2004. I remember asking people back then why they wanted to vote for Bush again, and the most common reply was "because I'm a patriot" or "because we have values".

      That is so sad, the way Repubs manipulated their constituency.
      • casek, on 06/11/2008, -4/+13neo conservatives. republicans just want small government, liberty for the masses, and big govt. to stay out of their business. neo cons want perpetual wars, big profits for their buddies, etc. etc.

        not bitching, just making it clear that it's insulting to real republicans when people blame what the neocons have done to the party.
        • m0deth, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Please list them as they like to be called, NeoCons(as in the new round of Con Men), not neo conservatives, as that would imply they are interested in conserving ANYTHING beyond their own fortunes, and those of their corporate friends.

          And for the record they are in both parties, neither can be wholly trusted until these brigands-for-profit are flushed out and down the drain from America as a whole, they do not hold any loyalties to America, or it's people.....but like usual, most will wave a flag and hope.....which of course solves nothing at all.
        • MalenfantX, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2You've bought into the lie about Republicans being for small government.
          Republicans don't want government to interfere in business, so businesses can save money by exploiting the commons and stealing from us all.
          They do want government to tell individuals how to live. A party for small government wouldn't be full of big-government conservative christians.
        • Rendonsmug, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Not quite. Neocon's make up a good portion of the republican party, including most of its prominent members in power, so generalizing neocon's positions as republican ones is indeed a valid one.

          The people who you are referring to are those who hold the older values of conservative would be more accurately referred to as perhaps Goldwater Conservatives.
        • casek, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1rendon: perhaps you are correct. possibly "paleo-conservatives" would work just as well?

          malen- no, you've bought into a lie. you just aren't aware of it yet.
      • thedragon4453, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I think in 2004 Bush may have pulled one of the best sleight of hand tricks ever. You saw his right hand saying "Democracy, Democracy!" but most missed his left hand on your wallet.
      • clarionhaze, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1and the way the bulk of their constituency is so weak-minded.
      • PokerGigolo, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5The Republican Party has never been about opposing big government, that's a common misunderstanding.

        The Republican Party was originally formed as an anti-federalist group, meaning they wanted the states to have more power than the federal government. But they didn't really care how big the state governments were, or how much influence they had over the lives of their constituents. They just wanted the states to be stronger than the union.

        Fast forward a few hundred years, and the party has forgotten all about that. The Republican Party is now fundamentally about taking away people's rights, which is ironic, since that is diametrically opposed to its original purpose. Women having rights? Hell no. Gays having rights? Hell no. Minorities having rights? Non-Christians having rights? OH HELL NO.

        Modern Republicans can claim all they want that they're Republican because they want smaller government, or the empowerment of the states, but that's not what it's about anymore. If it were, I'd be a Republican, because I agree with the issues that the party was founded on. The problem is that it's changed, and the party platform is so wildly egregious and disgusting these days, that the simple concepts like "less government, fewer laws, more freedom" are in fact counter-productive to the goals of the party.

        Take a quick look at the modern historical record, and it's clear that freedom is one thing the Republican party does NOT want people to have, unless they're rich and white. Not really a surprise, then, that the Republican torch-bearers for the last 20 years have come from a family with a long history of socialist activism and support for the Nazis, who, as we all know, were all about the freedom.

        Anyway, I got off topic. If you're a Republican today, and claim that it's because you're in favor of smaller government and more freedom, then you simply don't understand the goals of the modern Republican party, and it's just not worth it to lump yourself in with a group of people who genuinely don't want people to be free (well, unless it's them, of course, but not those dirty immigrants and minorities).

        If you're really about smaller government, you should be registered Independent.
      • tyywebb, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1pathetic
    • tillerman00, on 06/11/2008, -2/+18ok, now you've almost redeemed yourself for voting Bush twice. all that's left is for you to surrender a limb of your choice.
    • Somedude2137, on 06/11/2008, -13/+3I don't care if you say he and Cheney should be impeached.... you voted for him 2 times, you should be shot
      • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Don't blame the victims of the republican spin machine. Blame the machine itself.
        • MalenfantX, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Can we not blame the people who were stupid enough to fall for the constant lies from Republicans? Do stupid people get a free pass for their actions?

          Republicans would just be amusing like a creation museum if the people were smart enough to laugh those bozos out of office.
    • danno74, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7I can't believe he won the 2nd time either. And don't use the Kerry excuse.... you could have put Al Sharpton up against him, I would have voted for him. Inept leadership is better than warmongering, oil thirsty, fear-churning assholes like Bush and Cheney.

      But I do appreciate those who admit their mistake, there is hope for them. The 20% that still approve of him, they are the ones who need to be sent on a one way trip to Iran/Pakistan/Iraq/Insert-one-of-the-many-countries-that-hate-us-here
    • lazlonger, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3you voted for him twice. shut the $#%^ up, your decision making skills are extremely suspect. pathetic really.

      and those" good for you admitting your mistake" people are just getting caught up in the same idiotic notion of self-exoneration and rose lensed history rewrites that the bonehead you voted in is. people like you allowed yourselves to be "manipulated" is such embarrassing and childish ways and now you expect to be treated equally to those who knew, understood, made the right choice, and stood by it when it wasn't easy. well too bad, back of the room, shut your mouth, and we'll keep SomeDude2137 in his seat...
      • mfreeland, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5man, you're obnoxious.
        • lazlonger, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1i meant what i said. pity for idiotic decisions is what got us into this mess. i'm honored to have pissed you off so much. can't wait to see what gets your goat next you bellwether of society.
    • patch6, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1How do you rationalize the MSM as being irrelevant?

      The interests of a large demographic are dictated to them by the handful that own a media majority in the US.

      Dismissing that level of influence is questionable.
    • stuman455, on 06/12/2008, -1/+0I admire this post for the simple fact most people would not admit to this. 2004 was the first time I was able to vote and my vote was for Bush. He has made me regret that decision continuously. I agree with you that he should be IMPEACHED.
    • skyshock1, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4+1. Longtime Republican here. GWB has brought nothing but shame and disgrace to the GOP - he needs to go.
      • Kronk42583, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1he is going.... he'll be out of office soon enough. impeachment is ugly and bad for the nation. just vote in the election this fall and bush will be gone.

    • Spudster, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2Buried for voting for Bush.
    • frogstomp19, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Oddly, running Kerry worked out well (politically) for the Dems. Bush, proven to be a ***** president from his first term, proceeded to alienate the majority of his remaining supporters in the first year of his second. The Dems took control of congress, largely due to a backlash against the Bush administration, and this year their nominee is almost a shoe-in, regardless of who they would have run. 2008 will include a Democratic White House and Congress. (Hurray!)
      • Spudster, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1And all the while the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and dozens of other legal fundamentals with the new Conservative majority solidied with the appointment of Alito and Roberts after 2004.


        Yep, we're gonna look back and be real happy we lost that election...
    • digimat, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0your a bigger idiot than him if you voted twice for that moron.
  • sdocpublishing, on 06/10/2008, -26/+138Of course the mainstream media is ignoring this story. Funny how just last week Wolf Blitzer was talking about how they asked the tough questions in the run up to the Iraq War as journalists admitted how they failed at their jobs to present factual well rounded news reports on issues that effect our lives.
    "Bias, what bias? We asked the right questions!"
    They bashed anyone who was against the war, and they knew they had paid Pentagon Professionals on their shows to sell the war.
    They did not cover that story either.
    They have since almost stopped coverage of the war. This is so they can say, the war must be doing fine, it's hardly ever in the news.
    The mainstream media is controlled and so is the information we receive through them. They are a thing of the past and soon will pass on with eight track tapes and VCR's.
    • danfive555, on 06/10/2008, -5/+9The MSM is owned that is for sure, but it is a hyper-inflated stock. Only direction now is down. If these media moguls lose enough billions, their business practices will go the same as all failed CEOs---into the toilet. Biggest problem we have now is that globally dispersed investors will still buy up stock in NBC, News Corp etc and prop these dinosaurs up for a few more rounds.
    • danmarek, on 06/11/2008, -2/+8Beware of that mindset, because any person or organization concerned with profits will, when they start to lose them, try desperately to hold onto them.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more legislation finds it's way into our government to lock down the internet as big media corps. lose more profits. The internet could potentially get screwed in the process and real news and info would become more underground than it already is.
    • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5They are already trying. Read up on the Net Neutrality debate.
    • kaelyiesta, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6"I'm sorry, but the action of a lone congressman who's widely considered something of a laughingstock, especially when it's clear that action will never come to anything, just isn't especially newsworthy."

      The funny thing about MSM, and those who follow them as in the quotation above, is how predictable their behavior to politicians unwilling to play ball with the rest of the corrupt wastes of human life in congress and corporate office buildings: Call them crazy, tell us that they aren't respected and that their actions are meaningless. Their claims become true simply by saying them over and over(self fulfilled prophecy). Because they belittle these people, very few people become aware of these few decent politicians. It was obvious with Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich is no different. MSM is behaving like the PR division for our government.
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Good points...That's because they are. See "Operation Mockingbird" and "Cato Institute."

        Want an eyefull? Check this: http://www.freewebs.com/medialawsuit/

        Many American consumers still insist or persist in believing that we have a "free press', while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually (always) cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures.

        Many Americans think of their supposedly "free press" or "LIBERAL MEDIA!" as a 'watchdog' on government, mainly because the controlled media itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone. They are up to their eyeballs in dishonorable deeds and there will never be an end to the corruption that prevails unless the CIA is abolished.

        "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - ex CIA Director William Colby
  • dreamtiger, on 06/10/2008, -40/+149Impeach, then tar & feather, then throw in Gitmo.
    • ProgressBar, on 06/11/2008, -10/+4I think he might enjoy being tarred and feathered...
      • zyklon, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3I know I'd enjoy him being tarred and feathered, anyway.
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/11/2008, -6/+8Correction: drag to Gitmo; feed to inmates.
    • amenic, on 06/11/2008, -4/+7And fed cockmeat sandwiches.
    • boycottsony123, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7Don't tar him, we need the oil!
    • zspade, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5Just take em directly to Gitmo, after all they didn't need to follow any legal processes to drag anyone else there.
    • jasmus, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Even better, tar and gzip, then > null
  • principle, on 06/10/2008, -35/+44The degree to which this event is ignored by the media clearly demonstrates the degree of fear that exists that Bush will prevent his impeachment by instigating a pretence to suspend Constitution. They obviously believe this threat to be real since the media would never let a sensational story like this slip away. For example, if it were some other President whom they have no reason to fear, like Clinton. This story would be on the front page ad nauseam.
    • danfive555, on 06/10/2008, -4/+14Who's afraid of George W. Bush? Not me, not the media. What they fear is greater damage to the economy w/c will be seen first in the stock market, then in consumer confidence, bond ratings etc. They are stuck between memos from Murdoch telling them what to talk/write about and fear of making things worse. Media isn't elected, they are not leaders, they are bootlickers with Communications degrees, remember those guys in college? I do.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 06/11/2008, -7/+19Oh ***** please... the media is afraid Bush would suspend the Constitution? Where do you come up with this *****?
    • JYoungest1, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4The last thing main stream Media is afraid of is Bush, that's all they talk about is how bad he is. This was ignored because hippies have been calling for his impeachment since he got in, and no one really cares.
      • iruber1337, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Only hippies?! I do believe you mean essentially any concerned citizen that loves their country and does not like the course it is headed...
    • gandhii, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2The reason this is under reported is because the MSM is bought and paid for. No more complicated than that.
    • principle, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Those who have doubts whether Bush can suspend the Constitution should read the articles of impeachment, there you will find a section “ARTICLE XXIII—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT”.

      http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/files/kucinic ...

      In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a controversial bill, which grants the President the right to commandeer Federal or even State National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R.5122 Section 1076) effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act and gives the President legal means to define under what conditions martial law may be declared.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...

      This is why Democrats are afraid to move against Bush. Because, Congress has the man-at-arms to enforce their will, while the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and the Attorney General runs the U.S. Department of Justice. With H.R.5122 in addition to NSPD51 & HSPD20 the President and the Home Land Security issued separately, Bush can simply suspend the Constitution. This is why Democrats are silent. They are hoping that he might peacefully go away at the end of his term.
  • smellyknee, on 06/10/2008, -28/+123Somebody give the man a blow job so we can get him out of there already...
  • NacaV, on 06/10/2008, -15/+108And amazingly all we have to do is quit watching... YES QUIT WATCHING!! Ground breaking I know. Boycott their sponsors and parent companies. MSM has shown their true colors during the last decade, I guess you can call it a new business model? And I assure you the MSM will only get worse. KILL this propaganda machine ASAP.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/11/2008, -12/+20I've never owned a TV in my life. Never will.
      • plimpton777, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6You're missing out on some quality television programming, is all I gotta say. I hope you're downloading Futurama and Battlestar Galactica.
        • rex84, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6I get my Battlestar fix from Mininova, munus the commercials. The only reason I turn on my TV is to play GTA IV.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/11/2008, -11/+6"I've never owned a TV in my life. Never will."

        Too bad that instead of doing something worthwhile with the extra time, you instead use it to fill your head with worthless lefty propaganda.
        • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3Too bad your an idiot.

          Daily Show and Colbert Report are stream able online now. You get a far better coverage of current events on those shows than FOX.
        • lasVegas702, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Too bad you're an idiot.
    • danmarek, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10The problem is that nobody sees that they are a propaganda machine. You see the ads that run during MSM shows? Tons of pill commercials, viagra, elegra, etc. The main demographic here is 35+; people who, in general, have watched the news all their lives and are set in their ways. These people are living in a news bubble, and don't know what's outside of it.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2You are correct, if you don't like it, don't watch it. But what else would the liberals complain about if it wasn't for foxnews and the liberal MSM?
    • gandhii, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure there are that many on digg who do watch it... not counting the occasional youtube cut.
    • lodwar, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I like your thinking .Simple and brilliant .I f Ron paulites could pull off a money bomb surely we can pull off a reverse Blackout.
    • notanidiot, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2If noone watches, how are we supposed to know which sponsors to boycott?
    • mrraven200, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Why do you think I am HERE? And counterpunch.org, and democracynow.org, and yes even amconmag.com

      A lot of us gave up on tee vee other than the occasional Colber/Stewart a looooooong time ago...
    • yodacallmesome, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1It requires two things:
      (a) Quit watching
      (b) Start thinking
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/11/2008, -20/+94Articles of Impeachment:
    http://yellowcakewalk.net/articles_of_impeachment_ ...
    • republicker, on 06/11/2008, -9/+4I agree with your sight for the most part, but palestinians are not the victims. http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
    • korupture, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1pwned!
    • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the link to the articles.
    • fearsofgun, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Thanks for finding that. It looks good. Very good grounds for impeachment.
      Although there are some topics that I can see being purposely looked over.

      Iraq, misleading the people, and Katrina are going to be the topics to do it if it gets done at all.

      However, Bush has built a pretty strong corrupt judicial shield around himself...imo.
  • louise12345, on 06/11/2008, -17/+44These turds will skip without a single thing happening to them. Though they've made a mockery of our Constitution & lied to start an illegal war. Most of this administration's many players have bugged out to, 'spend more time with their families'. These people leave, because, like Scott McClellan, they know that the President and the VP are criminals and they don't want to be implicated.
  • wanderingwill, on 06/11/2008, -15/+67It is really scary that the mainstream media refuses to pursue an public investigation of the claims made by Congressman Kucinich. Whether you agree or disagree, these claims are plausible and if true, entail enormous consequences for our country.
    • mplumb, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Kucinich is a joke; that's why there's no coverage.
    • Knabber, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2...and yes, most if not all have validity and are unfortunately, true.
    • randomerratum, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6He may be a joke, but it's still pretty big news. It would sell papers (so to speak) - it's absolutely terrifying to me that there's no coverage. Usually even the unfounded crappy stories are sensationalized, replayed and replayed- for frick sake the rubber alien video is getting more attention!

      Does this not scare the crap out of anyone else?
  • covertress, on 06/11/2008, -13/+39That's because the whole process is going to be one BF embarrassment.
  • verbose, on 06/11/2008, -16/+60Jon Stewart needs to talk about it tonight, then MSM has to pick it up. The giant head of Brian Williams is ever-watching!
    • diceau, on 06/11/2008, -4/+8Yeah hate to break it to you but Jon isn't the hero you might think he is. He's just doing a show, he has no real interest in actually making a difference.

      That said, I watch every episode and love it ... but he's not who he sometimes comes across as. He's a bandwagon dweller ... he'll say whatever he thinks the public want to hear while not treading too much on people's toes.

      Anyone else noticed the decline in his presenting? He's wasting so much time on useless crap these days ... it's like he's out of material.
    • judylim, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1jon works for viacom.. enough said
  • citizenfury, on 06/11/2008, -14/+27Contact your representatives and tell everyone you know to do the same. They are going to vote in tomorrow and it's not looking good for impeachment.
    • tehHardcorez, on 06/11/2008, -5/+6Is this the right link? I think it is, but I'm not totally sure...

      https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
    • 9bpm9, on 06/11/2008, -12/+7Because there's no reason for impeachment. Truman dropped two nuked and killed hundreds of thousands of people, FDR fire bombed Japanese and German cities, killing millions while people were burned alive. How, in one simple way, is that not as bad as ANYTHING Bush has done.
      • rex84, on 06/11/2008, -4/+6War was declared by Congress back then. Since WWII, not one war, police action, etc. has been declared.

        • mplumb, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Congress may not have made a declaration of war, but they did vote to support the actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll never impeach the President of the US for doing what they themselves voted for and supported (and nearly unanimously, at that).
        • beezneez, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Well, the Democrats did demand a separate resolution be passed to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. They wanted to show how strong they were on defense issues. It may not be a declaration of war, but it's the next closest thing.
        • rex84, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1@mplump & beezneez: If a war is not declared by congress; it's unconstitutional. If you pick and choose when it's okay to ignore the constitution, you open the door for the crap situation we're in now. Play by the rules or leave the game.
      • keviniskool, on 06/11/2008, -3/+8Those were actual wars. The Iraq War is not an war in the sense we are fighting off some evil that stands to hurt us.
        • 9bpm9, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6Neither did Germany or Italy. They were no threat to us and we could of just ignored their false declarations of war, seeing as they could never of sent enough troops across the Atlantic ocean cheaply enough to actually win a war. We could of just kept fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, FDR decided to send troops over to Europe.
        • antipoet, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3Could HAVE, my friend (9bpm9), could have.

          You are right to a point, it's arguable that the Axis front in Europe was a potential threat to the US. Seeing as how unpredictable the Nazis were, I think it would have been hard for anyone to consider the former to be anything but a threat.
        • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3The Japanese attacked and Germany declared war on us.
          At that point it becomes a matter of strategy as to what threat to face first.

          The nuke was an arms race, we won the race, and we used our new technology on an enemy. We could have targeted the largest cities and blown them to smithereens, but the smaller cities we went with were a sufficient show of power.
          The people dropping those bombs had no idea the kind of payload they were carrying.
      • Dugout21, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4Because those wars were necessary. And the bombing, no matter how horrific, did save lives in the long run.
        • 9bpm9, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, it saved lives on our side. But of course you don't think about how the Japanese felt about having millions of their people burned alive like ***** animals. More people died from firebombings in a single night than died in both nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And most of those people were immediately incinerated.
    • KLBP, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7I've contacted my Representative on this matter and asked him to support Kucinich's efforts.
    • milou, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Honorable John Culberson, 7th district Houston, TX. I did it. Does any one know the correct way to write a support effort? I just did what I thought would be good. I am hoping anything is better than nothing. The more emails they receive the better. I challenge all those that have not contacted their Representative to do so. Thanks for the link "tehHardcorez".
      • nvisn, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Keep it simple.

        Representatives Name Here,

        I just wanted to take a moment out to recognize the courage of Mr. Kucinich's presentation of the Articles of Impeachment and standing up for the majority who understand the grievous damage that President Bush has brought upon our Republic. I hope you see the support that Mr. Kucinich is receiving in the current MSNBC.com poll where his motion has received the support of over 89% of total respondents. I thank you for your time and your service to our State.

        Your Constituent,
        Your Name Here
  • Frostman3D, on 06/11/2008, -14/+46The media is no longer a news organization, nor is the Associated Press. The media is a news tabloid, and the AP caters to the types of stories they want to sell. I don't trust the media anymore. I get all my news off the internet, and I research stories that interest me to make sure I'm getting the truth.
    • sylvok, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1The AP is a news organization, but they sell to the media. Basically the AP does all the reporting parts, shows it to the media, who then decides what they want to air.
  • LimeParrot, on 06/11/2008, -13/+29I don't know much about about politics and even less about how the American system works... but it occurs to me that your system is very broken. Independent nominees have a snowball in hells chance of winning, the mainstream media has too much influence and is extremely biased with non-journalistic agendas, and whoever does become President can do whatever the heck they want because the mainstream media does not scrutinize and the politicians in the house of representatives are too scared to do anything (bar a few)... so please tell me I'm wrong? How can you fix a situation like this??
    • chicofaraby, on 06/11/2008, -5/+12"How can you fix a situation like this?"


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
    • Demener, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2We are a LONG way from having enough people for that to work here.
    • mplumb, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2The system may be broken, but one beautiful thing about it is, you're free to leave any time you find something more appealing.
      • LimeParrot, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Hehe. I don't live in the USA and never have =)
        The problem is... many choices made by the US president reverberates to many countries... I was born in Iran (guess what the connection is) and now live in Australia (whose politicians follow your politicians like sheep).
      • ramenite, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Spoken like someone who's never tried to leave.

        It's actually fairly difficult to move from the US to another country. They don't want Americans. It's typical "American" thinking that you can just pack up and go to another country, and they should be glad to have you. There's also a substantial financial investment. Leaving the US just isn't feasible for a lot of people.

        Any ideals this country was founded on, have been lost long ago. I look forward to the day when I can leave.
        • ramenite, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1And I should note that comment probably put me on the "no fly" list, as well as several "terrorist" watch lists.

          Warrants are probably being written up to tap my internet and phone usages--wait, they don't need warrants for that anymore.
      • lotu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Ramenite weather you can leave or not depends on your willingness to accept negative consequences. Such as a loss of income, luxury, ect. if the situation was truly dire you could leave the USA and renounce your citizenship. This doesn't mean that anyone is going to take you in but you can leave.
        • alwilson, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You can actually have your cake and eat it too! Not very many people realize that you can leave America and gain dual citizenship. By doing so, you retain the rights of US citizenship without having to pay the price. If you are born in the US, no one can take your citizenship. Hell, you can't even give it away!
      • humptyz, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2I get tired of seeing retorts like that, "if you don't like it, leave!" Run away, huh? How about we stay and fight and change a broken system, the way the country's citizens did when it was founded.
    • ExOrienteLux, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0I would love to tell you that you're wrong, but it's too true. Democrats and Republicans need to stop fearing each other and start listening each other and especially to people like Ron Paul and Kucinich.

      Get informed, read, start getting their message out.

      There's a reason Ron Paul called his book: The Revolution,

      John Adams distinguished between The American Revolution and the American War of Independence. The Revolution was a change in thinking for the Americans. We need the same to happen again.


  • plimpton777, on 06/11/2008, -14/+75Remember when the Ron Paulites chased down Sean Hannity screaming, "Fox News Sucks!"? If we could do that on like, a daily basis, maybe we'd get our point across...
    • skyscape, on 06/11/2008, -41/+7Who is "we"? you and your herpes deceased, gay, lesbian, drugged up friends?
      I don't think I want your opinion represented.
      • Orsenfelt, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Intolerance ftw.
      • why3th, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Deceased people running in the streets? WHEN DID LIBERALS BECOME ZOMBIES?
      • plimpton777, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Dugg for deceased gay lesbian drugged-up friends!
    • vexingmodstwo, on 06/11/2008, -6/+11I take it you're unemployed?
      • plimpton777, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1I made $6K today, actually, and quite legally.
    • dvord, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2No I don't remember, actually. That's the trouble.
  • jeremyduffy, on 06/11/2008, -7/+11Screw the news. What do they do for us other than cover any story they think will get them more money and ignore everything else?
  • pablo0713, on 06/11/2008, -39/+7WASTE OF TIME. Bush is almost out. Let history condemn this man.

    and....

    ***** THE RIAA
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/11/2008, -7/+11Is that why we don't punish murderers? Nothing can bring back the dead so why bother? Or is it to stop the next ***** that will try and do it?
      • 9bpm9, on 06/11/2008, -7/+8The words of a man who understands nothing about politics or government.
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2You mean the words of a man who understands that governments, despite what they tell you, are not your friends.

          You really need to smarten up and see the world around you is not what the MSM would have you believe it was... however, much like an addict recoils from the notion of sobriety, you recoil from the truth and what that means about "old glory" and all the other symbols that have been drilled into your head since you were born....

          Trying to explain this stuff to some people, is like giving medicine to the dead. .
        • protium, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1GO F yourself 9bpm9.
    • rex84, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3Is that you Speaker Pelosi?
  • Bagos1, on 06/11/2008, -9/+10A lion roars.
    • metallic07039, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2A kitten dies at the same time.
    • FadieZ, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4A digger has no idea what the ***** you`re talking about.
      • Bagos1, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Ok...I was being poetic. If you are in the middle of a jungle and you hear a lion roaring, even though you don't see it, you are aware of a great threat.
    • tayf, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Tell us more Chief Running Fox.
      • Bagos1, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I despise Fox....and all of the the so called "News" channels. They are all nonsense.
  • DucoNihilum, on 06/11/2008, -26/+9