What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- VirginiaWoolfe, on 11/09/2008, -25/+683Good.
- wholesum, on 11/09/2008, -5/+44One for the conservatives: Don't worry about the environment, it will go away.
- McNash, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Some problems do go away with time...
- Paulorific, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3If you consider endangered species a problem.
- Nattybumpoe, on 11/09/2008, -16/+108Wait wait wait... Let me get this straight. So we just elected a president who is going to use his executive powers - after the largest expansion of executive powers in US history - use those executive powers to get rid of the president's powers in the executive branch? Ladies and gentlemen, I think that George Washington may have been dethroned as my favorite US president - and that president hasn't even taken office yet!
- Sherman901, on 11/09/2008, -34/+14oh please...
- evo8ftw, on 11/09/2008, -32/+11and you couldn't be anymore ignorant
- dwrecktion, on 11/09/2008, -17/+7what?
- FearlessFreep, on 11/09/2008, -31/+14No, he's just going to take advantage of those executive powers for his own aims
- cnot3, on 11/09/2008, -16/+13No modern American politician will ever equal Washington as a civil servant. Washington understood that freedom and liberty should reign in America, not safety or complacency. Perhaps if your man understood that he would not have voted for FISA or to reinstate the PATRIOT Act.
- eodp3, on 11/09/2008, -3/+25his not taking away his powers, he's just reversing Bush's.
".. to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, ..." - dandonia, on 11/10/2008, -16/+3Yeah cos it's much more important to have the freedom to own my gun than be safe. - RETARDED MUCH!
- gwolf, on 11/10/2008, -3/+16Don't, worry he's just going to have to hit the undo button about a thousand times on the pc in the oval office. shouldn't take more than a week. Then he can un-delete the constitution.
- Nattybumpoe, on 11/10/2008, -7/+4There are a whole bunch of things that I disagree with Obama about. I think that a lot of what he had to do was to make him electable - I could be wrong, that remains to be seen.
However, says the man who still thinks Obama was born in Kenya (evo8ftw), after that myth has fervently been laid down to rest by even conservatives - I guess I am too ignorant to look beyond reason and doubt and see Obama for what he really is - a terrorist!
If having high hopes makes me ignorant, then so be it. I have no intention of hoping that my country or my president or congress will fail. I want the very best for all three of them. Where is your patriotism? We need to support our new commander and chief - this is a time of war - and your dissent is dangerous to our way of life! - walt100, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2"Then he can un-delete the constitution."
So he can ignore it in his own special way.
- digitronix, on 11/09/2008, -53/+28Unfortunately, Obama is not getting rid of the loophole that allows the president to make executive orders, which is what really needs to be done. He will come up with his list of his own, I guarantee you. He is not one that really strikes me of being in favor of the Constitution.
- Nattybumpoe, on 11/09/2008, -13/+68He's not one that strikes you as being in favor of the constitution? What prompts that little nugget of *****?
- JaseFace, on 11/09/2008, -6/+33digitronix, while I agree with you...*****, Bush has done enough damage that I don't care, to be honest, if Obama uses a bit more executive authority than the constitution grants the presidency in order to reverse it.
- ctscradle08, on 11/09/2008, -5/+46yeah you're right...why would a former professor of constitutional law value the constitution? *sarc*
- Pyehole, on 11/09/2008, -3/+25Didja see his org chart on change.gov that lists the constitution as the highest authority?
- fyngyrz, on 11/09/2008, -30/+10Natty, Obama has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the 2nd amendment, and to some extent, the 14th as well. His stated position is that government -- state and federal -- can create legislation that infringes the right to keep and bear arms. This, in the face of direct instruction to the contrary in the operative clause of the 2nd:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Obama has referred to himself as a "constitutional law professor" from time to time, and he is a lawyer, and from this we should conclude that (a) he's a very intelligent man and (b) he should understand the absolute constraint that comes from the government's constituting authority. Further, the 14th applies the bill of rights, which of course includes the 2nd amendment, to the states: This means that states cannot create such regulations either.
As for the myriad other coercive power grabs made by federal and state governments, it remains to be seen what an Obama administration will do:
Will the impositions on free speech be reversed? "free speech zones", censorship, etc.?
Will the violations of the 4th amendment stop?
Will they stop compelling people to witness against themselves?
Will the topsy-turvy abuse of the commerce clause end?
Will the judiciary be restrained from its habit of inventing constitutional interpretations that have nothing to do with the intent of the original authors?
Will the requirements of counsel and witnesses and hearings be reinstated?
Will the government stop sanctioning and implementing torture?
Will the feds stop usurping state power? Further, will the feds return the powers to the states that have already been usurped? For instance, will the feds stop raiding California residents for using medical marijuana? Medical marijuana is 100% legal in California, yet the feds misuse the commerce clause to ruin lives and arbitrarily terminate doctor-recommended treatment.
These are all critical constitutional issues, and it is by no means certain that Obama's administration will do anything at all about any of them.
In order to rate Obama's constitutional acumen, we'll have to see what actions his administration as whole takes, and what he says about those actions. So far, his rhetoric has been nothing to write home about. - fyngyrz, on 11/09/2008, -21/+6Pyehole: The question is, is the constitutional authority he recognizes the one the authors intended, or is it the topsy-turvy fairyland constitution that has been foisted off on us by decades of out of control government?
Obama has already spoken up for the "fairyland" interpretation of the 2nd amendment; this does not bode well for his administration. - evo8ftw, on 11/09/2008, -27/+7The fact that you are getting dugg down really shows how ignorant these sheep are. The truth is Obama loves pissing on the constitution and he's track record proves this. This is the darkest hour in US history and the mindless Obama zombies have no clue.
- secrity, on 11/09/2008, -4/+23What the *****? Do you not know what his academic background is and what part of his career has involved?
- nihilville, on 11/09/2008, -6/+27@fyngyrz
Unfortunately, you lost any argument you may have been attempting to make regarding the United States Constitution when you decided you could list one section of the Second Amendment and completely ignore the other.
The ENTIRE text of the Second Amendment that was written into our Constitution reads as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Did you catch that part about "well regulated"? Trying to do away with gun regulations is what is unconstitutional. What Obama has mentioned regarding the issue (which really isn't enough to judge what his ultimate stance will be on this oft misinterpreted issue) is well within the bounds of what our founding fathers suggested, as it would not infringe upon individuals rights to bear arms, but would just put the necessary regulations in place to protect the nation's citizenry and security. - fyngyrz, on 11/10/2008, -9/+5nihilville, the prefatory phrase has no force in law, specifically because it contains no instructions.
However, I *did* address it in a separate comment, where I pointed out that the correct interpretation of it - that is, the words as they had meaning when they were written, not what people think they mean using today's common usage - doesn't support the gun repression stance.
"Well regulated" specifically means that the able-bodied individual (which, BTW, is what militia meant at the time) should have a dependable supply of shot, bullets, arms, food, etc. You can find multiple levels of confirmation of this, the most telling being in state laws of the time that specifically defined "well regulated" in those specific terms.
I'm just giving you objective facts. These *are* what the words meant at the time of authoring; it is 100% in error to read "militia" as "organized armed forces" of any type, it is 100% in error to read "well regulated" as "heavily legislated", and it is 100% in error to read "free state" as "free country."
These are all mistakes made by people who try to read the constitution by applying modern sensibilities to the words and grammar; you cannot, repeat *cannot*, sensibly interpret that document unless you know how they were using the language. That's what leads you, and people like you, to make the errors you do.
> Trying to do away with gun regulations is what is unconstitutional
You cannot back that up. Period. It is a nonsensical statement.
> What Obama has mentioned regarding the issue (which really isn't
> enough to judge what his ultimate stance will be on this oft
> misinterpreted issue)
...well spoken, from one who completely misinterprets it. :-)
> is well within the bounds of what our founding fathers suggested,
> as it would not infringe upon individuals rights to bear arms
Pardon me? Here's a couple of direct Obama quotes:
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation"
(no, it isn't -- so says the constitution: "shall not be infringed" does not mean "infringe as you find it appeals to common sense" - it means SHALL NOT)
"The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution"
("gun safety laws" -- what is a safe gun? One you can't have, use or carry, as the Washington DC law struck down in Heller would say? One you can't assemble? One that cannot be loaded? One you cannot carry inside your jacket? One you cannot carry at all?)
Now, you tell me how either of those doesn't infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"??? Good luck with that, by the way.
Also, Obama specifically supported the law struck down in Heller; a law that said you could not own some types of arms, that the arms you could own had to be disassembled, and that you could not bear or carry arms at all.
The constitution doesn't give anyone the right to arbitrarily shoot anyone else; there's no need to regulate firearms, if some idiot shoots you (or stabs you, or hits you over the head) we already have completely adequate laws to deal with them. Until or unless they do something along those lines, they have every right to have weapons at home to protect themselves and their families from criminal assault from both the private and public sector.
The entire rationale for "gun safety laws" and other "common sense" weapons restrictions is that somehow, people don't have the right to keep and bear whenever legislators find it convenient. With laws properly focused upon personal liberty, no legitimate need for such unconstitutional legislation arises.
And finally, if the government (Obama or whomever) wishes to dilute or alter the constitutions crystal-clear prohibition against infringement, there is article V, just waiting to be used. - Pyehole, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6@fyngyrz
I don't know where the term fairyland interpretation comes from but unless you can cite a Supreme Court justice saying that you can do something with it that would be rude to describe in detail. In the mean time I'll enjoy some sweet, sweet fairyland constitutional interpretation.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinio ... - jfreeman, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5@nihilville: Reread the founders' letters on gun rights:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to ... prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington
"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
- Patrick Henry
In fact, when Madison first proposed the Bill of Rights, here was the wording:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; ..."
Here is what he spoke during debate on the Bill:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
A "well-regulated" militia does not refer to what weapons the people can and cannot own. At the time, "militia" referred simply to all free men between the ages of 15 and 50 (or thereabouts). The militia, it was expected, could be called upon in time of emergency to defend its community. "Well-regulated" simply refers to the fact that the militia needed continual training, lest it become unsuitable for fighting. - lamiaconfitor, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2jfreeman, He never said he was going to take anyone's guns away. You just might not be able to buy more then one at a time.
- jfreeman, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1@Pyehole:
The Supreme Court is not the Constitution, nor are they infallible interpreters of it. The best authority on the Constitution is the Constitution itself, then the letters of the Founders, including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
@lamiaconfitor:
That is still an infringement on my natural right to keep and bear arms. - Pyehole, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1@jfreeman
Considering the sole job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution I'd say they are the ultimate authority on it.
Asshat.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 11/09/2008, -29/+11As for reversing the patriot act, or any that are relevant...? Obamafans are such ***** tools.
- AmazingSteve, on 11/09/2008, -10/+4Oh, I see the RNC talking points have been distributed. You all don't get a say so ***** off.
- megaloid, on 11/10/2008, -1/+8Well, what about the PATRIOT Act and the rest of the most odious Bush-era legislation? Will the new president and congress repeal those or not? The parent may have been a touch abrasive with his delivery, but he makes a point. We need to reverse our society's march toward authoritarianism and if Obama is such a damned champion of the people, then he will help us toward this end.
- DentThat, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Who cares if the parent was a bit "abrasive with his delivery"
This is the internet. Get the words out quick and straight. No time to pretty it up.
***** the patriot act. Obama?
- zephyr42, on 11/09/2008, -8/+3But who will his Drug Czar be? They seem to be bringing up the clinton years a lot, would it be John Walters from the Clinton administration?... god help us
- mikemarino, on 11/09/2008, -15/+5As well as letting the bush tax cuts run out. Technically that's called raising taxes.... but the liberal media wouldn't want you to know that.
- Exilon, on 11/10/2008, -7/+2So much for "country first" huh?
- metaliq, on 11/10/2008, -3/+5Are you stupid or just misinformed?
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/10/2008, -3/+2@metaliq:
when you go back to paying more taxes. ie let the Bush tax cuts run out, .. thats bad .. try to explain it to us genius - mikemarino, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Just wait till obama starts blaming republicans when he realizes his tax cuts won't work with his new influx of spending. MARK MY WORDS, and none of it will be covered on digg.
- thscientist1, on 11/10/2008, -8/+8bury me idc.
http://digg.com/people/Support_Housing_for_Develop ...- cigaro, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Everyone digg him up!
- DentThat, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2no digg ups or downs. He stays at 0
- dlite922, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Excellent.
if not for this, What did we elect him for? - Karlitzor, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1By using executive orders.
CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE. - toefinder, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Bush is leaving the country in shambles. Osama bin Laden didn't do a fraction of the damage to America that g.w.Bush has. It is not enough to undo his executive orders. He and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice should be locked up for a long long time.
- wholesum, on 11/09/2008, -5/+44One for the conservatives: Don't worry about the environment, it will go away.
- WilliamCrandall, on 11/09/2008, -4/+119
"A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive.
"A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.
"The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office."
- sarahlee, on 11/09/2008, -0/+31Reassuring, isn't it.
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -51/+9America...land of the free? No, no, no.
Obama's America....you can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say.
2nd Amendment (just a reminder).- layne36, on 11/09/2008, -6/+46I'll take Obama's America over Bush's America any day.
- Dweller99, on 11/09/2008, -7/+35As a proponent of the Second Amendment, what have you done in your state to form and participate in a "well regulated militia"? Most people who point to the second amendment as they clean their guns always seem to overlook the part about what the founding fathers meant by that passage.
- Pyehole, on 11/09/2008, -14/+7The supreme court finally heard a case on that just this year. The terms "well regulated militia" do not limit the right of gun ownership to a militia. Citizens are entitled to the right of gun ownership under that ruling. Bye bye laws in DC and Chicago that eliminate the right of the individual to own a firearm.
- fyngyrz, on 11/09/2008, -10/+9Dweller, you're *very* confused. The phrase "well regulated militia" refers to individuals provided with consistent supplies such as shot, long arms, powder, etc. It in no way refers to organized militia. This is detailed in many state laws of the time.
The prefatory phrase contains *no* instructions to the government; therefore it can have no legitimate weight at law. The operative phrase is 100% clear: "shall not infringe", end of story.
This is preface, like the preamble:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
This is instruction:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
...that's why the 2nd amendment is parsed as two separate clauses, the prefatory clause and the operative clause.
If you'd like to get into the prefatory clause (though it has no force at law), what it is saying is that if the able-bodied fighters (militia in the parlance of the day) aren't consistently armed and otherwise supplied, then they will not be able to retain the condition (state) of freedom. Where it says "state", it doesn't mean "country", and where it says security, it doesn't mean guard, it means retain, as in "to secure for themselves..."
You can't just read the 2nd as if it was written in 2004. You need to understand the use of language that was current at the time the amendment was written.
The bottom line, however, is 100% clear: The legislature is explicitly forbidden to make laws that infringe on the right to keep or bear arms. Not simply knives, rifles or pistols, *arms*. The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) to the states; that means they are forbidden to make such legislation as well.
Now, if the government wants to limit keeping and bearing, there is one, and exactly one, legitimate path open to it, and that is the path defined by article V: Amendment. The authors of the constitution knew full well that they could not predict what would happen in the future, and that the document would have to be amenable to change, and that's why article V is there.
For instance, I suspect that an amendment to the 2nd that said "EXCEPT for nuclear, biological, chemical or weapons that utilize ionizing radiation" would easily pass the required test, and probably should have been implemented, oh, I dunno, in the late 1940's at the very latest.
What we have is a government -- 545 people, to be specific -- doing whatever it finds convenient. This is no different in actual behavior from that of an absolute monarch, though it is spread out over 435 house members, 100 senators, 9 judges and the executive. What we're *supposed* to have is a government that receives its operating authority and limits from the constitution -- but it has been many years since that was significantly true.
Many people hope that Obama will reverse this; I don't think it is very likely, but I have to admit, I retain the hope myself to some extent at this early date. I voted for him because the republicans have explicitly demonstrated that they were making things worse, not better. - Jareth86, on 11/09/2008, -7/+15You know what? I think the government should take away your guns. Not everyone's, just yours.
- kiwijam, on 11/09/2008, -3/+5@Dweller99
The Second Amendment states - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice the part "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The common citizenry of the US are "the people."
The founding fathers put this clause in because they knew first-hand how governments have a tendency to become authoritarian and overstep their mandate to serve. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to defend themselves against such a government.
When the voice of "the people" is ignored, when voting is allowed within the bounds of preselected leaders who do not represent and follow the will of "the people," when protesting is has no effect, when leaders blatantly ignore the laws of the land, when "the people" are taxed and paper-worked into oblivion without a real say in how their money is spent, when illegal wars are waged, when a government erects a police state around them and wields dictatorial powers against dissenters, "the people" have, as a last resort, their "arms" to defend themselves and their families.
THIS is what the founding fathers meant by that passage. - johnn11238, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6if the 2nd amendment is meant to enable the populace to defend itself against authoritarian government, where the hell are my unmanned drones and Patriot missiles????? I cry foul!!!
- Dweller99, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2I will let Hamilton speak for me on what they meant by Well Regulated as seen in Federalist paper 29. You can read all of it here, http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/f ... but I think this passage is pretty telling.
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Summarized: "were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse: "to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia... to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." - 007brendan, on 11/10/2008, -2/+3@fngyrz
I agree with much of what you said, except for the part about the 14th amendment. I've never seen anything in the 14th amendment pushed the bill of rights on to the states. It merely said that the powers the people had delegated to state government had to be exercised fairly for ALL citizens. Individual states are still free to restrict gun ownership, unless their state constitution explicitly forbids it. All federal gun bans are unconstitutional, regardless of how well-meaning they are.
- Subliminational, on 11/09/2008, -4/+3spotted the metallica reference there
- blitzlee, on 11/09/2008, -15/+3is that think tank or stink tank?
- EricSchC1, on 11/09/2008, -2/+9Are you 12 or 5 years old?
- SleepParalysis, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3Exactly what we need. Another one of those national council things. This one will work this time though. amirite?
- beabis, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4Of course it will work. Just like the time during the Clinton era when Al Gore and the automakers got together to invent a car that would save the earth. What ever did happen with that?
- alexkreuz, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1@beabis,
Oil got cheap
- flapanthers87, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Somebody watched 60 Minutes tonight!
- texasred54, on 11/09/2008, -17/+171A rush to save the environment from corporate greed. We all need to raise a ruckus about what Bush is doing.
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -32/+13As opposed to saving the citizens from government greed?
- Arramol, on 11/09/2008, -2/+23Hint: citizens live in the environment. Destroy the environment, it takes us with it.
- rock774, on 11/09/2008, -17/+7Yeah make it harder for corporations to operate in the USA !
they will just move to MX and pollute more !- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -2/+10Eventually even Mexico and China will have some concern for their own environments, and for the global climate...
And, besides, don't you think that challenging companies to reduce pollution is a challenge that some companies can eventually meet without significant cost? Manufacturers already need to be creative and innovative to make products that will succeed in the market. Soon, there will be the extra challenge of not polluting as much. The creative entrepreneurs that find a way to build things while polluting less will be successful.
Right now, parts of China and Mexico are very unhealthful places to live. The value of human life in those countries is evidently pretty low. We need to aspire to a higher standard of living for all, and that means finding ways to manufacture things without producing as much pollution. Yes, in the short term this means some manufacturing companies will choose to not be located in the U.S. -- but, increasing fuel prices affecting shipping costs, combined with the desire to sell things to U.S. consumers, means that manufacturers will have a lot of incentive to make things in the U.S.. We already have Toyota and Kia plants in the U.S., despite our high labor costs and environmental regulations, because it costs a lot to send cars across the ocean...
Anyhow, it took a gas price increase to finally interest people in more fuel efficient cars, and now some of the higher-tech car companies (e.g., Toyota) are producing fairly economical hybrid vehicles. It took rising electricity costs (especially during the reign of Enron) to get people interested in more efficient appliances, and now compact fluorescent bulbs are commonplace, and CPUs in servers are designed to consume less power when idle, etc.
Now pollution is going to be a greater challenge to manufacturers. I'm not too worried about manufacturers giving up on making stuff in the U.S. simply because they can't find an economical way to generate less polution. - oldgal, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3The forward looking corporations are all ready doing this. The others are just biding their time collecting bonuses until there is a management change or they go bankrupt. If the auto industry had gotten on board when they should have and put out a low cost energy efficient car, they would not be begging for bucks from the government right now. The corporations that keep harping on "why they can't" instead of "how they can" are going to be left in the dust.
- mrraven200, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1You guys are so Patriotic and "Country First" unless it comes a MULTINATIONAL corporations bending over both Americans and third world people to make a fast buck then SUDDENLY and 100% hypocritically you are all about globalization and screw the American worker if there someone to exploit elsewhere cheaper with fewer environmental regulations
In short you "conservatives" are hypocrites, lying assholes and greedy self centered sociopathic scum *****!
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -2/+10Eventually even Mexico and China will have some concern for their own environments, and for the global climate...
- slezzzter, on 11/09/2008, -10/+16So Mother Nature needs a favor!? Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well I say, hard cheese.
- EricSchC1, on 11/09/2008, -5/+8Um, you do realize that if Mother Nature goes to *****, "you" go too right?
- Bertram23, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7dugg for poison monkeys
- CrazyChair, on 11/10/2008, -1/+10Dugg for funny Simpsons quote.
- gdo01, on 11/10/2008, -1/+11Too bad some people don't get satire. This is a Mr. Burn's quote. Who else would say "hard cheese"?
- DestroyFascism, on 11/10/2008, -2/+3Tossing the narrow eyed turd in prison would be the best thing America has done in 60 years..
- schkura, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1Maybe I like radioactive drinking water.
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -32/+13As opposed to saving the citizens from government greed?
- Nicotone, on 11/09/2008, -24/+147Hip-Hip-Hurray!
This brings so much joy to my heart.
Next up, prosecuting the war criminals of the Bush Administration, prosecuting the lawyers of the Bush Administration, prosecuting those who broke federal laws in the Bush Administration, prosecuting Karl Rove, Prosecuting those who ran Abu Gharib, prosecuting those who ran Walter Reed, Prosecuting those who ran Guantanamo, prosecuting everyone in the Bush Admisintration who doctored facts, who uttered lies under oath, who disobeyed laws of the land, prosecuting those who Bush doesn't pardon. Heads need to roll!
THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!!- IkeWarrior, on 11/09/2008, -38/+6
THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!!
Sadly, it seems ∅bamadinajhad is determined to cause just that . . . .
Be care for what you ask, mac; you may well get it.- Nicotone, on 11/09/2008, -2/+15It's spelled "careful," Jack!
- RansomHoldiay, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1haha you've probably never even seen the movie.
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -6/+5Two funny anecdotes regarding Walter Reed hospital in Wahington D.C.:
(1) During McCain's nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, one of the images shown on the huge screen behind him was of Walter Reed MIDDLE SCHOOL (of North Hollywood). LOL! Whoops!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Middle_Sc ...
(2) The space alien, Klaatu, in the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still", after being shot by an anxious Army soldier, was taken to Walter Reed Hospital to recover. (Gee, thanks, U.S. government!) And Klaatu is locked in his hospital room!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Sto ...- beabis, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6I thought you said they were funny.
- darienphoenix, on 11/09/2008, -2/+15Obama isn't going to prosecute Bush, or any other government officials.
I love Obama as much as the next digger, but if he indicts Bush or Cheney for war crimes, he loses all the goodwill he's build up over the entire election campaign, not to mention shooting a massive hole in his own rhetoric.
You DON'T want him indicting Bush, seriously. If he does, you'll get Palin in 2012.- Nicotone, on 11/09/2008, -5/+6We shall leave it up to Pelosi and Waxman then.
- darienphoenix, on 11/09/2008, -1/+8Won't help. It'll still happen after Obama has just been elected by a large proportion of people who voted for Bush twice.
If you think indicting him is a good idea, you're politically retarded. - BuLong, on 11/09/2008, -7/+1lol for a second there it read like you're calling obama a digger
- kiwijam, on 11/09/2008, -3/+8Yes, we all want that, but these people are all politicians afterall, even Obama. We need to temper these outrageous hopes for Obama with a little sound reason and common sense.
Everyone said "heads will roll" when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate at the beginning of 2007. Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, and her Democratically controlled Congress did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prosecute the crimes of Bush and his cronies, nor did they do anything to roll back the unconstitutional laws passed during his administration (it was as if the Republicans were still in control of Congress since they were passing all Bush's war budgets, Constitution-crushing acts, etc).
What makes you think Obama's administration will do anything other than continue to ignore the long list of Bush administration crimes. Just look at his voting record and you'll notice a trend that does not favor freedom and Constitutional government.
At this point, you have to ask yourself, why? Could it be that these two parties are in bed with each other and work FOR the same interests (not the American people), and could it be they are pushing the same agenda while giving us the illusion of choice and democracy.
Look past the media mind-mush programming and you'll see that the answer is a resounding "YES."- danibobanny, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3My sentiments exactly; thank you.
- PhilLesh69, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1No politician can hope to get into office unless the people who own this country approves of them.
- oldgal, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2Given what needs to be fixed in this country, I would have to put this at a low priority. I personally am in no mood for a witch hunt. On the other hand where irrefutable illegal actions have been taken I would hope there would be prosecutions.
- pinchduck, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2Nope, not going to happen. Obama has two choices: Focus his resources on fixing problems, or let the problems go and launch his administration on a prosecute & purge witch hunt. Obama is smarter than that, which is why he will focus on fixing our problems, not attacking people you hate, no matter how justified.
- qbthemc, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1(Evil laugh commencing) MWHAHAHAHAHA.
- cigaro, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1You are an idiot.
- AugustusOsari, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2Buried for "Hip-Hip-Hurray!" and "!!!"
- Nicotone, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1"!!!" That's funny
- whok, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1war criminals? are you ***** with me?
- SpecialQ, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1I drink your milkshake!
- IkeWarrior, on 11/09/2008, -38/+6
- NapoleoneDos, on 11/09/2008, -94/+36Will he reverse warrant-less domestic spying on phone calls, bank records, Internet activity and physical mail? I HOPE so, but I think not.
His campaign was the most brilliant exercise in propaganda since WWII. McCain was and remains a joke, but that was obvious going in. This guy on the other hand is a master con artist. And this is coming from a former supporter of his.- dingokidney, on 11/09/2008, -2/+32Care to elaborate/explain?
- drewbe121212, on 11/09/2008, -13/+7You see, he was just recently brought into the tin foil hat association (TFHA). This is merely the introductory brain washing. It gets far worse as it goes...
- dafragsta, on 11/09/2008, -4/+21While that was a little paranoid, Obama DID vote for FISA and the Patriot Act.
- Pyehole, on 11/09/2008, -1/+5that is true, that single vote almost changed my mind on voting for him.
- GhostyBoy, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8Yeah man. He is still a politician.
Of course we are going to hear all about reversing Bush's environmental policies and letters to 8 year olds.
Don't get me wrong, I find him extremely charming, but I'll trust him once he stops a war or two. - woofers07, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6^^ You guys realize that Obama was already being labeled a terrorist, can you imagine what the GOP would've done throughout their campaign had he voted against FISA and the Patriot Act?? It would have pretty much been suicide for him and his chances.
- Findeton, on 11/09/2008, -3/+10Obama is way better than Bush in many, many, many issues. But he voted YES to every revision of the Patriot Act and FISA acts, and voted yes to the Retroactive Immunity for the Telcos because they aided and were paid for helping Bush's administration in illegally spying every american citizen.
It speaks very bad of the diggers community that you are voted negative, but truth is everyone who cared about those issues knew that, on those subjects, he is just like Bush.
Of course, hope is the last thing one loses... - graeh, on 11/09/2008, -6/+10Nobody, including you, believes you were ever a supporter of Obama.
- 0dnj0, on 11/09/2008, -8/+5well said napoleonedos,these guys are idiots they will never get it
- AvidPreatorian, on 11/10/2008, -6/+8You gotta stop watching South Park like it's a news update.
- Mujokan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5The revisions of FISA and PATRIOT he voted on were Democrat amendments that improved the bills. They didn't have the numbers to do more, like take out the extra defense the FISA bill gave the telecoms. I would have preferred that Obama still opposed it; but it would have been a gesture only, with consequences for the campaign. We never would have heard the end of it from the Republicans.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2So go with the flow for appearance only? that's a good lesson to teach people.
- Mujokan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Sometimes when you've got most of the amendments you want, but not all, you just support the bill anyway. Politics is the art of compromise.
- sgregory416, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5the day will come were we will all regret voting for obama and wish we could go back and vote america's mom and our evil touchy-feely grandpa into the white house.
- userperson, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Can't regret what I did not do.
- Karlitzor, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1How much is Halliburton paying you?
- dingokidney, on 11/09/2008, -2/+32Care to elaborate/explain?
- cheesegypsy, on 11/09/2008, -15/+61Thank god.
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -43/+9Just like the Godless Marxist you are.
Here, take a look:
G
God, it's spelled God. Those who don't believe in something will FALL FOR ANYTHING. It happened in Hitler's Germany because lemmings like yourself fell for his rhetoric of 'change'. Americans won't let it happen here, at least without a war.
The tree of freedom from time to time is watered with blood.- lostlyrics, on 11/09/2008, -6/+5yet another vain dogmatics between
artificial excitement and natural coma
- most certainly zilch in g_d's view :D
unless He's on stoneage maintenance - Nupeper, on 11/09/2008, -5/+16alright crazy time to take your meds
- dizzythegreat, on 11/09/2008, -6/+17Just like the religious fascist you are.
See? Not so appropriate from the other side, is it now? - TraumaPony, on 11/09/2008, -5/+8lol wut
When referring to a person-like entity, then yes, it's "God". But when referring to a spiritual force, such as gravity or magnetism, then 'god' is just fine. - Renian, on 11/09/2008, -4/+4Damn Neopharisee! Get off my Digg! *shakes cross-shaped cane*
- dissolutionman, on 11/09/2008, -3/+5Yes, because god gives a ***** about capitalizing his name.
- damndj, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2god god god god
happy?
btw, i am godless.
ownt - envy860, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3The actual quote is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson. Changes the meaning just slightly, and yours really had no meaning at all, what does changing Bush's actions have to do with your "freedom"?
- lostlyrics, on 11/09/2008, -6/+5yet another vain dogmatics between
- joe122370, on 11/09/2008, -3/+3thank godbama
- MxM111, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2god has nothing to do with this. We have free will, it is our own action.
- userperson, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2... unless someone is threatening us with force, but who would do that? who could do that?
- dizzythegreat, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1someone threatening us with force?
not Christianity, surely!
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -43/+9Just like the Godless Marxist you are.
- MyBookie, on 11/09/2008, -8/+237I think that is great. Reverse the Patriot Act and other things Bush did to errode our Freedoms and I will be his biggest fan.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -9/+31He's going to have to go through Congress to repeal that one, but I expect he will. They need an entirely new law (with warrants!) to replace the old law, which was outdated.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/09/2008, -4/+32Reversing it should mean replacing it with nothing. The old laws work just fine.. the ones about not taking away someone's liberty, life, property, freedom of speech, redress of grievances, right to bear arms, pursue beliefs as they please, etc...
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -2/+13@PeppermintPig: I'm not talking about the requirement for a warrant. There are all kinds of technological changes that need to be addressed and several laws which need to be consolidated, particularly with respect to e-mail, cell phones, wireless phones, wi fi, etc. The Supreme Court had already gone too far in construing the laws on the books before the Patriot Act. You never want law enforcement to have a gray area to play with when you are dealing with people's rights.
- RuffRidr, on 11/09/2008, -1/+10I also hope Obama repeals the Patriot Act. But he needs Congress' help to get that done. Seeing as most of them were complicit in getting it passed in the first place, I am less than hopeful.
- LawSchoolBound, on 11/09/2008, -0/+29Although he cannot immediately throw out the patriot act, he can choose not to exercise the power it gives to him. As the head of the executive branch he can make it clear to the FBI and others that he expects them to have a warrant before conducting searches, etc.
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4Good points.
- h4ckler, on 11/09/2008, -0/+16No. He needs to get the patriot act pulled the hell out of our law. He may not use it, but some nutjob in the future might.
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -0/+4Good points.
- Findeton, on 11/09/2008, -6/+15I'm sorry to tell you that he approved that law, and there's been no indication since then that he has changed his mind on that subject.
- malex, on 11/09/2008, -4/+8No, I think there's every indication that his votes on FISA and The PATRIOT ACT were compromises to remove the worst abuses of power, because eliminating them entirely would not have been possible.
That's how politics work, you see. - Findeton, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7So you THINK that. Well, guess what, I REALLY HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT, but we'll see if it's true in less than four years. Yes, I give you four years to prove your point. And, in the meantime, I will be pushing him to do so!
- dexter411, on 11/10/2008, -3/+5And the Obama apologetics come out in full force.
- Findeton, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8Yeah dexter411, it's kind of incredible. People not only think Obama will keep his promises -I hope he does- but also he will keep promises he never agreed with! It's *****' incredible. And I've dugg down because of pointing out the fact that he voted YES to FISA and Patriot Acts.
Well boys, I hope you are right about Obama, although, on the FISA/Patriot Act thing, real facts indicate you're not. And it doesn't matter if you digg me down, truth stands by itself. What's more, it is people asking him to suppress the Patriot Act what will bring it to reality, and not conformism.
I mean, you are acting like conformist people, just like the opposite Obama himself asks you to be! - pinchduck, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Yeah, he voted for FISA, and won't want to seem "weak on terrorist", so our freedoms WRT the Patriot act are gone. It is very, very rare for a President to limit his, or the government's power. Obama is a rare person, to be sure, but I doubt he will get rid of those abominations. I hope I'm wrong.
- malex, on 11/09/2008, -4/+8No, I think there's every indication that his votes on FISA and The PATRIOT ACT were compromises to remove the worst abuses of power, because eliminating them entirely would not have been possible.
- SleepParalysis, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Put Directive 51 on the chopping block as well.
- DarkReign16, on 11/10/2008, -1/+9Obama voted for the Patriot Act....
- dieboldcracy, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3well somebody here can smell the rotten koolaid
- arkboysooner, on 11/10/2008, -4/+2Honestly, the patriot act has had no negative effect on my life so far. When it does I'll care.
- ntopaz, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9I think some have forgotten that Obama's running mate almost literally wrote up the PATRIOT Act.
- arkboysooner, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1almost literally?
- justinlarsen, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1you mean literally almost right?
- jkendal4, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I would love if he did, but it would take widespread political pressure for him to repeal it, and don't expect that to come anytime soon.
- addiktion, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Is that part of what he plans on reversing? I don't see that as something he would fully support because he did vote for the Patriot Act and does indeed believe in it somewhat. Agreed he might want to make changes to it but I doubt he will reverse it completely.
- userperson, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah ... that'll definitely happen. http://tr.im/ydh
- MyBookie, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Well, now that we know that 9/11 wasn't initiated by Islamic terrorists, maybe it is time to get some of our freedoms back.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -9/+31He's going to have to go through Congress to repeal that one, but I expect he will. They need an entirely new law (with warrants!) to replace the old law, which was outdated.
- RuffBong, on 11/09/2008, -19/+74(^^) I believe the only propoganda is the exact kind of stuff I read on digg and bury/thumbdown/block.... Barack Obama is without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened to this country, representing a total reverse of a dangerous path we have been on for many many years now. Give the guy some time and soon we will see that the people elected this man, NOT big business, like arms makers that have very nearly tripled their sales in foreign arms for the past three years, and OIL companies, you know, the same firms that have been running puppet governments till this time. Much of what we need to do and where we need to go is going to take a bit of time. But we now are led by a man that the PEOPLE, the hardworking PEOPLE of this country elected, and he represents his constituency, US. FINALLY we have someone here who is looking out for the best interests of the real backbone of america.... US. Dig it, soon, we are no longer being controlled by big business. This is not rule for corporate profit, this is rule for liberty of the people, enforcement of the constitution, rule for the people, and rule for peace. That's why we were founded in the first place, we are just getting back to our roots. Like Lincoln, Obama will be an instrumental part of making it real again.
He has defeated the worst of both the republican and democratic parties grudges and slander, attacks and attempted defamation of his character. Give the guy so0me ***** credit, kick back, relax, shut the ***** up, and realize... HE'S GOT THIS.
America, i am proud of you, we just got the entire world high as a kite, they are very proud of us, and for once, the very real possibility of peace is in front of us. Thanks to Jah for this man.- paintgrl, on 11/09/2008, -1/+8Ditto!!
- KublaiKhan, on 11/09/2008, -18/+7"Barack Obama is without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened to this country."
Wow. There is hero worship, and then there's hero worship. I think this is the latter.- IkeWarrior, on 11/09/2008, -11/+2And there is babbling lunacy, which seems to characterize ∅bamadinajhad and most of the vermin which support it.
- secrity, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7I for one hope that "Barack Obama is without a doubt the best thing that has ever happened to this country." is true, and I have no reason to think that it is not.
- driedwater, on 11/09/2008, -5/+1147% still voted for McCain.
- oldgal, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1In response to the above post, are you saying that 47% of the country prefer a president purchased by corporate America?
- oldgal, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Actually the people of this country purchased this president-elect, $20 bucks at a time in some cases. A fact which I am surprised the pundits have missed.
- centerblack, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3No, 47% of voters voted for McCain. We still only got 63% of the country to exercise their right to vote..
Yea well, 47% of American voters need to:
A) Stop voting based on "faith"
B) Get themselves an education
C) All of the above
The Republican party has changed significantly over the last decade. It's essentially the Christian party now. The GOP as we know it needs to quietly die and rebuild itself into something worth voting for.
It won't happen though. I was watching fox last night and this guy claimed Sarah Palin is going to be a big part of the Republican party moving forward. Fail?
Hopefully we can start getting people educated in this country and leave the religious zealotry behind. - mexicomanda, on 11/10/2008, -0/+0centerblack, i doubt if you have ever ventured any further than your backyard. if you had you would understand how silly your comments are. how old are you? stop playing your super mario and open your eyes, son.
- scubajim, on 11/09/2008, -18/+4Wow that is hero worship. Do you want to suck his dick also?
- recurve, on 11/09/2008, -1/+13Since when did looking up to someone become a bad thing for America?
Little kids have heros, let the adults believe in something for once, isn't 8 years long enough to suffer?
Put yourself in another persons shoes.
This bitterness has got to stop if you want anything to come out your way.- KublaiKhan, on 11/09/2008, -1/+1Looking up to someone is a great thing, and if Obama is half the man his hero-worshipers believe him to be, this country has wonderful things in store for it.
On the other hand, describing a mostly unknown, less than one term senator who is, by all definitions, a newcomer to national politics as "the best thing that ever happened to this country" less than a week after his election to the presidency is the the most hyperbolic statement ever made in the history of the universe. And I really don't know how it is at all partisan or bitter or outrageous for me to say so. - centerblack, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Obama strikes me as an extremely calculated, thoughtful and logical man. He has a stunning ability to articulate his thoughts and opinions. He's not afraid to exchange opinions with someone who disagrees with him. If a flaw is discovered in his plans, he takes that into consideration and amends the plan. He's well tempered, level headed, and he's open to diplomacy.
I think he is sincere in his commitment to all American people and I think he's sincere in his commitment to this country.
You know what I think is outrageous? This idea that "experience" is needed to be a politician in this country. The founding fathers were very clear about what was required to become President of the United States of America.
Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
1) Born here
2) 35 years old
3) A resident here for the past 14 years
It has nothing to do with experience, and everything to do with the qualities and character of the individual. If the architects of this nation thought the President needed two terms as a U.S. senator or 1 military campaign under his/her belt, they would have said so. - KublaiKhan, on 11/10/2008, -0/+0I never said his experience will make him a poor president (though I do believe that that's a possibility, at least to some extent). All I said is that this original poster made a ridiculous comment when he said that Obama's election is the best thing in the history of America, especially since Obama is relatively unknown, and so we cannot form a fully informed projection of how this administration may turn out. And I am seriously at a loss for words to explain why there has been such backlash against me for calling him on that comment.
- KublaiKhan, on 11/09/2008, -1/+1Looking up to someone is a great thing, and if Obama is half the man his hero-worshipers believe him to be, this country has wonderful things in store for it.
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5Absolutely!!
- blitzlee, on 11/09/2008, -7/+0the real suffering was listening to the pity party, otherwise known as liberals for the last 8 years.
- centerblack, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Let me get you a tissue. You're gonna need it for the next 4-8 while we legislate civil rights for all Americans, keep Roe v.s. Wade on the books, withdraw from Iraq, push renewable energy, stem cell research, and invest in education so the population doesn't remain ignorant and easily controlled.
- mexicomanda, on 11/10/2008, -0/+0Don't forget the people crying over Proposition 8 right now! Liberals love playing the victim game.
- paigeinphilly, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5and he will need everyone to support and help him...im ready.
- Evilblobs, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7Total Reversal!!!!
like FISA, PATRIOT, and the bailout!
oh wait....- Adamlite, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Hey man, hold onto that ability to see through *****.. it's important regardless of who is President. Goddamnit, FISA still upsets me.
- Dreamzville, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Ruffbong:
Thanks for being brave enough to withstand your cynical critics. I thought that what you said had pride and passion, and God knows we need more of that these days! I am so tired of the jaded, the bitter, the angry.
We are seeing the beginning of a brighter day. :) - mexicomanda, on 11/10/2008, -1/+0yes you can? no you cant ***** relate bitch...you never went to iraq...i did. All you piece of ***** scumbag ***** liberals are all the same...dont comment on a war you havent got the balls to fight..to say that my fellow servicemen died for nothing proves youre a piece of *****, hell you were probably among those little pussies demonstrating against this war in 2004. This goes out to everyone here: if you voted for Barack HUSSEIN Obama then ***** you too.
- mexicomanda, on 11/10/2008, -1/+0the best thing? with his ties to terrorist william ayres and acorn barack obama would not qualify to be a security guard in your local bank. don't believe me? trying filling out the application for that job. truth is the only people qualified to talk about obama, his choices, and past and present associations are those being asked pleased not to speak
- angrykeyboarder, on 11/09/2008, -6/+24Yes!
- ScoobyG, on 11/09/2008, -9/+239You mean... a politician is going to actually follow up on his campaign promises?
...
(brain explodes)- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -6/+82And he's getting it all in place BEFORE he takes office. W went on vacation after the two election and he spent more days on vacation before 9/11 (first 9 months of his first term) than any other President had spent in an entire term!
- dancindrudge, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8brains... nom nom nom :P
- 13373h4X0r, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6^----- Zombie DETECTED!!!
- Jimbob200, on 11/09/2008, -3/+10that's asplodes, nubcake!
*dances* - PovRayMan, on 11/09/2008, -3/+12It means nothing until it's done.
- RusskiGuy, on 11/09/2008, -2/+3It does mean something, as people can now nudge him to follow up on his intentions as they are outlined. Better than the generalities that politicians usually feed us and forget about.
- Bhima, on 11/09/2008, -1/+5Actually, Bush promised to lower taxes (which didn't really make all that much sense at the time) and then when he got into office he did... despite the fact that economic situation had changed and tax cut was a really bad idea. That's why the Clinton surplus evaporated so quickly.
- RusskiGuy, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7I don't like bush any more than majority of digg, but it's really oversimplifying to blame deficit on tax cuts alone. There were 9/11, wars, economic crisis (lately), and depreciation of U.S.D. ($).
Tax cuts don't always lead to decrease in total taxes collected anyway. People who pay less in gains taxes, spend more as consumers, thus paying more sales taxes. Because demand goes up, businesses sector bumps up the supply creating jobs (more taxpayers), more revenue (income taxes), and so on. Cutting taxes on businesses also encourages them not to outsource labor, which keeps people employed (and paying taxes).
It's all a delicate balancing act really, I just don't think Bush quite got it right. Lets hope Obama is more on the money (pun intended).
- RusskiGuy, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7I don't like bush any more than majority of digg, but it's really oversimplifying to blame deficit on tax cuts alone. There were 9/11, wars, economic crisis (lately), and depreciation of U.S.D. ($).
- ScottWC, on 11/09/2008, -7/+1You mean like his promise to use public funding? Obama broke a campaign promise even before winning office. I guess that counts as a some sort of a change.
- built2spill, on 11/09/2008, -0/+12Clinton promised to balance the budget. He did. That said, Go Obama!
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -6/+82And he's getting it all in place BEFORE he takes office. W went on vacation after the two election and he spent more days on vacation before 9/11 (first 9 months of his first term) than any other President had spent in an entire term!
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -12/+53Obama has it going on! I was so relieved to read this article. We all knew Bush would do his political paybacks, but I worried that they would be difficult to override. Next comes all the pardons. That should be interesting.
- DankNugzPlz, on 11/09/2008, -1/+1Can pardons be reversed? I didn't think they could be...?
- 007brendan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Pardons can not be reversed. Nor should they be.
- Mujokan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1It will still be interesting. Clinton didn't care how it looked, and neither will Bush I imagine.
- yellowcakewalk, on 11/09/2008, -39/+20We need him to restore the constitution, eschew aggressive war, and stop sucking up to Israel. Unfortunately, there is no sign that Obama has any intention of doing any of these things.
- onetimer, on 11/09/2008, -7/+6Jesus christ man you can't go a single post without mentioning israel.
Why do you have such a hardon for this place when the US provides aid to dozens of countries?- Gutterpunk, on 11/09/2008, -2/+4Not like what they give to Isreal they don't.
I have nothing against Isreal (ie : I don't give a ***** either way about that subject), but don't feed us that "but but but the US give money to other people too" bull. - nnddii, on 11/10/2008, -0/+0becuz supporting repressive regime to the muslim people is a great injustice
- Gutterpunk, on 11/09/2008, -2/+4Not like what they give to Isreal they don't.
- CCoe, on 11/09/2008, -2/+2DO YOU LIVE... IN A CAVE?!
- onetimer, on 11/09/2008, -7/+6Jesus christ man you can't go a single post without mentioning israel.
- SFBWork, on 11/09/2008, -7/+140Stem cell research is back on the books? Sweet!
- PeppermintPig, on 11/09/2008, -27/+14Stem cell research isn't illegal. The science entitlement community is upset because government won't fund it.
- onetimer, on 11/09/2008, -4/+13As we (speaking as a member of the scientific community) should be.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/09/2008, -9/+5Because you're entitled to the wealth of others, right? Yet again you advocate theft to support what YOU think is important. Apparently it's not important enough for you to persuade others to support you voluntarily.
I think stem cell research is perfectly acceptable, by the way, but we're not discussing the research but the way in which you FUND IT. - onetimer, on 11/09/2008, -4/+9So... you're one of those objectivist aynrand kool-aid drinkers, am I right? The kind that equates taxation of any form with "theft"
You either believe that taxation can be used to fund public services (roads, police, scientific research) or you do not.
Fortunately for the sake of progress, most intellectuals support the former. Including our founding fathers. - ferinex, on 11/09/2008, -1/+6Why are you burying him? He is technically right... Stem cell research is not illegal, it is just not being funded by the government. Which is, really, complete *****. They can't get much done without gov't funding. I am a HUGE supporter and advocate of stem cell research, btw.
- onetimer, on 11/09/2008, -5/+6He was technically right, but I buried him for his "entitlement community" *****.
- VanishingLex, on 11/10/2008, -3/+6The problem with research is that it NEEDS to be government funded in part.
The reason is simple:
Companies invest only when they can see how they will make their money back.
Much research has unknown outcomes. Some becomes incredibly successful, some becomes dead ends.
Research is essential to make progress, but it is financially not a good gamble.
It is in the public interest to have lots of research going on, hence the use of public funds.
The same applies to education, it is in the public interest for people to get a good education, its good both for the individual and its great for the economy to have a skilled workforce.
The same applies to having a road network, It is in the public interest that goods and people can move about easily, hence the use of public funds.
The same applies to defense, It is in the public interest that a country is safe enough to continue living in. You think your idealistic country with no taxes would be able to defend itself from a country which had a tax-funded organised centralised military?
As far as stem cell research goes, it could help healthcare immensely. If you have people who are healthier and living longer, not only do you improve life for many people but you also find they can live longer and be useful members of society for more years, contributing to a greater working population/dependant population ratio, which also helps the economy.
Yes govts tax their people to pay for public services, but not only willl the average person get back plenty of benefit through their lifetime from these services, but also many of these benefits would be literally impossible if the world was left to imperfect market forces, and personal greed.
This research like many many things nations do requires pooled resources of many people, and would eventally bring great benefits to those many people. If you don't compell taxation people will not voluntarily cooperate in sufficient numbers to get any of the above done, as humans are demonstratabley ignorant, selfish and short-term-goal based creatures on an individual scale.
It is because of human weaknesses that systems such as anarchy and libertarianism don't work, just the same as it is because of organisational and logistic weakness that systems such as communism don't work in practise. Ultimately the sensible option is the middle ground where you have a mixture of social based spending and taxation and individual freedoms and wealth. - PeppermintPig, on 11/10/2008, -3/+2So anybody should be able to ask the government to fund any project, no matter how strenuous this is to the government itself. Do it, irregardless of the economic situation, and tax people more if the government starts running out of funds, yes? In fact, let's just allow the Fed to create debt from nothing and then we don't have to claim that any taxes were raised to fund the research!
Not only are you economically illiterate, you are morally bankrupt! - VanishingLex, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1@peppermint pig
I made no such conclusions in the slightest, you have just taken completely out of context what I have said.
I never argued govt funding would be unlimited and free for all, that would indeed be completely stupid. I merely argued that much of scientific research is as worthy and sensible a thing to invest in as roads, defense, and education amongst others.
I'd like to take this opportunity to add the legal system to the list, you seem to want a fair legal system on other posts, that wouldn't happen without it being funded by government in the public interest.
Obviously one purpose of govt is to dictate the balance of what is needed to be funded and what is not.
If you are argueing that scientific research in general should not be publicly funded, then you can watch as your country eventually becomes less and less competitive globally in high tech industry as it won't be the one making new discoveries from unseen places, only developing on existing ones and taking all the safe bets.
You can also watch as the corporations gain even more of a stranglehold on the scientific community and undermine independence of research. You can kiss goodbye to fair drug tests for example as companies will only fund the reports that will end up working for their profit margin not for public safety.
And of course you can watch your education system decline as a result of the brain drain of free thinkers, leading your populatin to become even more manipulated due to their ignorance and allowing the politcal classes to take ever more liberties untill you end up in such a dire situation that you elect a fascist religious government and by then your transformation into a country like iran will be nearly complete.
If you are argueing that all public spending is wrong, then i hope you enjoy the corporate overtaking of the usa with nobody to regulate, the infrastructure becoming totally crap unless you want to do what the majority want to do, your democracy eventually shattering, and generally your whole country turning to *****.
If you are arguing that publicly funded research is fine, but stem cells should not be funded because they are not a usefull thing to research, then I just defer to thousands of experts who know the subject much better than you do that think otherwise.
If you are argueing that there is an ethical problem with stem cell research (unlikely given the say you've written your posts) then that is a different debate entirely from the one you've been having, and that is not such a simply decided issue.
I'll also weigh in on your comments about the federal reserve, I agree creatign debt from nothing is a ridiculous practise. I think the fractional reserve system is one of the biggest scandals of our time, if not the biggest. This of course is what happens when you leave something that is in the public interest (having a fair financial and currency system) in the hands of a private group of people instead of in government control where it belongs and can be regulated to prevent things like this economic meltdown.
Let be clear though, I'm not a supporter of big government or a massive state, there are plenty of places where it is bloated and needs to be cut back, but cutting govt/tax/public spending completely out would just make everything thats already bad worse, and cause a hell of a lot more problems than it ever solved.
- nilesmc, on 11/09/2008, -37/+6Stem cell research was never OFF the books, retard.
New embriotic stem cells are off the books because it's barbaric. Existing embriotic stem cells were never off the books, unfortunately.
Ignorance is bliss for you moonbats. Try doing a little homework before commenting next time. "Stem cell research is back in the books?" You don't have to be a lemming, you know. Start thinking for yourself.- KMartSheriff, on 11/09/2008, -2/+23Do you need to take a nap or something?
- falcon1, on 11/09/2008, -2/+15What the hell is a moonbat??
- drewbe121212, on 11/09/2008, -1/+12Yes... just the same way stem cell is 'barbaric'. Those who point out lemmings often are of the same type.
- ctscradle08, on 11/09/2008, -1/+6Barbaric? how? there are thousands of frozen unused stem cells in this country but for some reason the Lemmings in the white house are only funding research using the existing dozen or so lines which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. I mean imagine being a government scientist and doing experiments with genetics but having to clone the same embryonic stem cell over and over again. the bush administration never truly cared about progress in stem cell research.
- qbthemc, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2We Moonbats take offense to your comment. Now take that back.
- jhbarr, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1.
- secrity, on 11/09/2008, -2/+3It isn't back on the books yet, but it will be in January.
- richardparker01, on 11/09/2008, -6/+4They are cells dude, get over yourself.
- yuutokun, on 11/09/2008, -6/+2Great! Now I can get that third arm I've always wanted.
- one1plus1one, on 11/09/2008, -9/+3This posting will probably be highly unpopular... but a comment made by the Catholic church on this topic was actually (surprisingly) highly thought-provoking for me.
Essentially the Catholic church claimed that the use of stem-cells is a form of cannibalism, in that it involves the usage and consumption of human tissue, to benefit another human.
That thought was disturbing to me, and I can't outright deny that they do have a point.
At the very least I hope that biologists discover and perfect another method of human-cellular research, such as the conversion of adult-human cells into general purpose stem cells, so that we do not have to "consume" fetuses.
Lately I also found myself troubled by the idea of what a fetus is.
In a valid scientific argument, you can say that a fetus is essentially a "human life form at its earliest stage of development". It is impossible to scientifically refute that definition.
And thus, lately, I find the idea of harvesting tissue from fetuses and aborting them as... gruesome.
I'm not saying I'm going to go out and protest, nor would I ever pass judgment on a women who makes that choice... but the whole thing is highly emotional and disturbing, if you really take time to stop and think about it what it means. It is a very dark element of human life and society.- EricSchC1, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannibali ...
can⋅ni⋅bal⋅ism
/ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/ [kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
I'm sorry, the Catholics have their own book. They need to keep their filthy ***** mitts out of the dictionary.
...unless you wanna start eating stem cells, I don't think Catholics have a leg to stand on. o_O - innocentsinner, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8So people who get organ transplants are also cannibals? What about blood transfusions?
- VanishingLex, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9Actually that is an entirely false statement that you say is scientifically irrefutable
Lets be utterly clear here, an embryo is not a fetus, the two terms are not interchangeable.
a fetus is post 8 weeks after conception.
Not only is an EMBRYO an earlier stage of development than a fetus, a sperm or egg is argueably an earlier stage of development still.
Nobody is talking about harvesting fetal stem-cells, they are talking about embryonic stem cells.
The distinction is important.
No credible scientist will try and tell you that an embryo up to 8 weeks is aware or can feel any pain.
Even the most ultra conservative scientists who are anti-choice (both sides of the debate are pro-life in general contrary to what the anti-abortion side tries to portray) will only try and argue pain perception at 20 weeks.
Referring to things as dark and disturbing and highly emotional is to try and assign feelings and emotions and pain to a ball of cells that has none.
It is also NOT cannibalism, cannibalism is EATING humans by definition. The catholic church is clearly tryign to emotively convince people by takign a well established taboo practise and linking it to something that it is NOT relevent to be linked with.
Guilt by false association.
I'd stay remarkably clear of following the catholic church on medical advice if i were you, the same organisation has tried to prevent the widespread use of condoms in africa which has made the aids epedemic much much worse. There have even been reports of catholic organisations claiming condoms do not protect against AIDs as there are holes in them they aids virus can get through.
This is completely untrue, and whilst no method of contraception is 100% effective against aids, condoms could save millions of lives in africa as they are incredibly effective when compared to non-use.
Christ preached a message of loving kindness and goodwill to alleviate the suffering of others. The catholic church has deliberately spread lies about condoms causing much pain and suffering, all because they have misinterpreted Genesis chapter 38 to mean contraception is immoral, rather than to mean that god was displeased with disloyalty.
http://jahtruth.net/contra.htm THis explains that in a bit more detail
Don't be roped in emotively by an immoral sham of an organisation trying to tell you what to believe by guilt tripping you. Think for yourself, and study the facts and do a little research. - Yahkin, on 11/10/2008, -4/+1I didn't realize the test for whether killing a human is ok was based on if they could feel pain or not. If that's the case, there are thousands of passed out drunk people we could take out right now.
An Embryo is a human. Argue all you want about when it's ok to kill a human, but all of those arguments will be philosophical in nature. - heavensblade, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3An embryo is potentially a human. By your logic, wanking is murder too since sperm also has the potential to be a human.
- EricSchC1, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannibali ...
- 007brendan, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1I don't understand all the hubbub over stem cell research, and how emotional people get about it, when they don't even know anything about it. Stem cell research is COMPLETELY LEGAL! No one is stopping you from conducting your own research on stem cells. The federal government just decided not to fund it.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/09/2008, -27/+14Stem cell research isn't illegal. The science entitlement community is upset because government won't fund it.
- charm803, on 11/09/2008, -10/+176This is what happens when you send in an overachiever to the White House!
=)- ThsGuyRightHere, on 11/09/2008, -3/+90Actually I don't consider this overachieving, I just consider it competent administration/preparation. We've lowered our standards over the past 8 years.
Either way I'm impressed.- staffell, on 11/09/2008, -0/+25He didn't say this was overachieving, he just said an overachiever was being sent to the white house.
- joe122370, on 11/10/2008, -11/+7what has he achieved? you have to do something to OVER do it
- zacharytelschow, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8Sadly, you'll be buried for your obvious and correct statement.
- cloak419, on 11/10/2008, -4/+5He's the President, what have you achieved?
- zacharytelschow, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1He won a popularity contest by telling voters too ignorant to know the difference one thing while doing another. Why don't we talk about his "accomplishments" in a year or two, when he and the Democrat-controlled Congress have had the opportunity to properly screw us all?
- TheUngod, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3He won the election to become the President of the United States. Even if you don't think he deserved it, that's a pretty damn big achievement.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 11/09/2008, -3/+90Actually I don't consider this overachieving, I just consider it competent administration/preparation. We've lowered our standards over the past 8 years.
- PersonalJesus, on 11/09/2008, -32/+56Well, some of them.
He wants to leave gay marriage "up to the states" to decide. Way to stand up for their civil rights, Mr.Obama.
/s
And don't get me started Obama's support of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the Patriot Act. I guess he doesn't care about our 4th amendment rights...
The Obama loyalists will subsequently bury me for providing factual information, which casts their leader in a negative light.- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -6/+38I am an Obama supporter and I disagree wholeheartedly with his votes on FISA and the Patriot Act. It is my hope that he only voted in exchange for minimizing them the best he could. Both of those laws are contrary to everything he has written about or talked about, so I am hoping and crossing my fingers that he urges Congress to send him a bill which brings them into compliance with our Constitution.
As for gay marriage he has been very supportive of GLBT rights, but he is a little wimpy. I would like to see a US Constitutional Amendment protecting their rights as a class, but there is not enough support for that.
There will never be a candidate with whom I agree with 100% of the time. But I agree that civil liberties and individual rights provided by our Constitution are top priority. The ACLU has already sent him a letter requesting specific changes to restore the rights eliminated and restricted during the Bush Administrations. If he and the Congress doesn't respond I will be there with the ACLU working hard to hold him to the Constitution.- PersonalJesus, on 11/09/2008, -17/+4Perhaps you should have looked at Ralph Nader.
Those are two very important issues:
Civil Rights
4th amendment rights
Far too many people overlooked them, giving Barack a free pass.
It isn't something that should be ignored and swept under the rug.
This is very wrong. - JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -3/+26Obama is a leader. Ralph Nader is not. Ralph Nader runs for the Presidency every election and has had a dwindling cult following.
- faithhealer, on 11/09/2008, -1/+13@JenniferInMO - I agree Nader is not a leader; he's a gadfly. He has some good ideas, but he is not presidential material.
I totally agree with your comment about FISA, Patriot act, etc. However, I don't agree we need a federal constitutional amendment for gay rights. Tremendous strides have been made in recent decades (despite some obvious setbacks in this election). I do not think such an amendment would pass right now. In the meantime, we need to be moving forward legislation that ensures equality and prohibits discrimination. One day, Americans and the Supreme Court will recognize that the constitution, as is, protects gays and lesbians. - PersonalJesus, on 11/09/2008, -3/+1@JenniferinMO
You are still failing to address the issue of Civil Rights and our 4th amendment rights?
Should we simply give Obama a free pass on those issues, or should we stand up and vote for those who protect those rights, even though they may not be one of the two "mainstream" candidates that the news media focuses on? - Findeton, on 11/09/2008, -3/+2I agree, Nader is a greater leader than Obama. What happens is that, unfortunately, most americans of this decade are not ready for him. It's a pity, because he is ahead of his time. His ideas, indeed, are the ideas of a brighter future.
- kanabiis, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5There is no need to add an amendment to the Constitution protecting Gays.... (why do we call them Gays and lesbians by the way, its redundant, lesbians are gay)
The Constitution already protects gay people..... the issue is enforcement of the protection, not establishing the protection. The sooner the Supreme court deals with it once and for all the better.
- PersonalJesus, on 11/09/2008, -17/+4Perhaps you should have looked at Ralph Nader.
- VirginiaWoolfe, on 11/09/2008, -6/+30McCain completely opposes gay marriage, and he supports FISA + the Patriot Act as well.
- yurishoujo, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Obama and McCain's views on gay marriage ar
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -6/+38I am an Obama supporter and I disagree wholeheartedly with his votes on FISA and the Patriot Act. It is my hope that he only voted in exchange for minimizing them the best he could. Both of those laws are contrary to everything he has written about or talked about, so I am hoping and crossing my fingers that he urges Congress to send him a bill which brings them into compliance with our Constitution.