digg

Join DiggAbout

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

So, as of yesterday, If you protest the war, the Prez can take your stuff

whitehouse.gov — Was I only dreaming or did we use to have something called "Due Process of Law?"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theNazz, on 10/11/2007, -74/+1545***** YOU GEORGE BUSH.
    • doctechnical, on 10/11/2007, -261/+18Good thing you didn't say something like that to Bill Clinton when he was president. He'd have had you detained.

      The precedent was set by Slick Willy.
      • uninvolved, on 10/11/2007, -7/+115Yeah, well, i dunno about you pal. But the rest of us are living in the here and now...
        • doctechnical, on 10/11/2007, -73/+24See if you can fill in the blanks:

          "Those who forget history are doomed to ______ __."
          • MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+77"Those who learned 'history' from AM talk radio are doomed to misrepresent the truth."
          • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Those who forget history are doomed to cliche it.

            History said there was no such thing as electricity. History said that WE are the center of the Universe. History said that WITCHES WERE EVERYWHERE (sound like something else today?). History said wipe your ass with YOUR HAND.

            Yep. Good old history.
          • DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -35/+2I guess I found one place on Digg where the FUGB lemmings hang out. You guys eat up ALL the anti-Bush hype! 15 years from now when you realize that Bush was a good president in a bad situation and you will feel like morons. Yes, you will. But for now just enjoy the mindless hype fog you live in now .... don't worry about the future .... there there close your little eyes to that mean old world.
          • Trublmakr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21DavidBGie.,. you made me spit milk on my laptop with that "when you realize that Bush was a good president" bit,.. too funny. Forget the guy who put you on the moon,.. forget the guy who brought a peaceful end to Russian communism - NOOOOOooooooo the real hero is the inarticulate cowboy that went to war for no good reason with a piss-poor country - at a cost of billions in blood and treasure. He's the man. Please,.. If you leave your redneck trailer park you' might learn an uncomfortable truth - that the rest of the world - without exception - thinks he's a moron. We can't all be wrong.
          • GeneralFault, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13"Those who forget history are doomed to become republicans."
          • GeneralFault, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"Those who forget history are doomed to support Bush."
          • SilentRamble42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"Vote republican in 2008" doesn't fit. Not fair.
          • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Those who forget history are doomed to ***** YOU DOCTECH
          • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"...try to win hearts and minds by killing children in a foreign country."
        • arTech, on 10/11/2007, -7/+86wtf does clinton have to do with this?
        • tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -5/+67arTech,
          absolutely nothing.
          But the only remotely rational attack the brown shirt bastards have is to claim that Clinton was even worse than this turd. I wish they were right, but anybody worse than this turd would've been killed at birth.
        • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28@doctechnical
          Vietnam and the Russian lead military action in Afghanistan. Take your own advise and STFU.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3Source?
          • yohnstoppable, on 10/11/2007, -0/+93rd grade History isn't source enough?
          • SilentRamble42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I had to wait until I was a Junior taking a college class... damn red state education.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Nevermind I knew that I thought we were talking about th
        • ccamen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Scroll down you mouth breathers.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































          A little more.















































































































































































          Talk about a lot of nothing. Just like this article.
      • Acewrap, on 10/11/2007, -14/+147but...but... but... CLINTON!!!!!
      • sharpfork, on 10/11/2007, -10/+47***** YOU DOCTECHNICAL. :P
        • bigturns, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I agree, ***** YOU DOC-TESTICLE! Keep your 'BUT CLINTON' mouth to yourself. Bill Clinton got a blowjob and then lied about getting a blowjob to a bunch of do-gooder Republican ***** who were, to put it simply, sticking there nose where it didn't belong. A blowjob and a lie vs. a wantabe king (would love nothing more than to wipe his ass with both our Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself) who has lied to Congress and his fellow Americans to justify the war in Iraq. ***** You Dick.
        • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I agree with most of your statement, but they are not "do-gooder Republicans." They're crap smells just as bad and it seems that they have an uncanny liking for young male prostitutes themselves.
      • Arcesius, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18*annhh annnhh annnhhh*............... step away from the troll, folks! please, step away from the troll!...
      • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -45/+6Come on Diggers!!! Lets take something WAY out of context, get hysterical about it and blame the President!!!
        • absentmindedjwc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19way out of context???? RTFA!

          FTA:
          "due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004"

          notice that it says "acts of violence"... not bad, right?

          Well, remember in the past bush redefined "combatant" to now mean anyone that he dislikes at any point in time... all it will take is him redefining "act of violence" to something in the vicinity of "unlawful protest," which can be anything from picketing outside of the white house without a permit to do so, to attacking his ideas and signing statements online, in the media, and on the streets.....

          think this through, just because this doesn't affect you now, doesn't mean that it is not something that is going to rear its ugly head in the future... but believe what you want, just please don't vote in the upcoming election if you are going through life with your hands over your ears repeating "everything is good, I don't hear you"
          • GeneralFault, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8It's even worse than that.

            " all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

            (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: "

            those that the Sec of Def determines to "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence. Now how the hell do they determine a "significant risk of committing?".
            Mix this report with yesterdays report that the Republican Sr. Regan admin official that had come up with "Reaganomics" was warning that the Bush administration would create another 9/11 to stay in power... this ***** is scary.

            http://www.digg.com/politics/Father_of_Reaganomics_Says_Bush_May_Stage_False_Flag_Events
        • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1right. things posted on whitehouse.gov are not the president's responsibility. the buck stops at bill clinton, right?
      • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -36/+2Actually, Clinton would just have you "disappeared" and you'd never be seen again.
        • GeneralFault, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yah, sure he did. /sarcasm
          Lets keep with the subject at hand and leave the tin-foil hat at home... unless you were planning on providing some sort of evidence. Then you should post a new Digg story, and we can talk about it there.
          • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"Then you should post a new Digg story, and we can talk about it there." ---- except an anti-Clinton story would never make it anywhere near the front page, would receive about a dozen diggs, and nobody would see it.
          • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Because every anti-Clinton page I have ever seen has been complete BS.
        • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1yeah that totally happened all the time i mean like... never.
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15This is all just more of the same. We should have put a stop to this long ago. Do you know how bad the Patriot Act already is?

        http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Napolitano_Unconstitutional_Patriot_Act
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1you, as an entire person, are a joke.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -15/+92Bye Nazz. You're so totally screwed now.
      • SuperCUBE, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13I seriously doubt that.
        • domomike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Bye SuperCUBE. You're so totally screwed now.
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Best laugh of the morning yet. thank you. i needed it.
      • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -26/+9actually he's free to say whatever he wants (as long as he doesn't threaten lives). the ironic/beautiful thing is that our government will protect his right to say whatever the ***** he wants to. same with the anti-war protestors... i fight so that you have the right to protest against it. beautiful, eh?
        • Stormflux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34As long as he says it from a barbed-wire "Free Speech Zone" at least five miles away from the nearest reporter, that is...
        • nytewalker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+42Except that little fact that the war in Iraq is doing NOTHING to protect our freedoms.
        • Hostile17, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40Um, *****. Your government is doing everything it can to stifle freedom of speech, as this Digg article demonstrates. I don't know what your fight is (I presume you're military) but unless you're out in the streets protesting in support of civil rights, you are NOT fighting for freedom.
          • cassholio, on 10/11/2007, -40/+2way to support the troops, leftard.
          • smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5british.... rightard
          • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1No one from digg is really in the military. Well, maybe two people. But they usually aren't as odd as him.
        • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4He doesn't fight. He's an arm chair commander. Drinking diet Coke from his computer chair, in between rounds of WoW, pretending he knows whats best for this country because his daddy indoctrinated him with Republican ***** since birth. What a rightard.
      • kkopacek, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3thats whats wronge withthe american sheep, stand up for your self foxbat, you scum
    • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -79/+168Quick read through the article, shows:
      (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

      (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq;

      The title was inaccurate and inflamatory, you can't lose your stuff for protesting the war unless by protest you mean throwing bombs and shooting cops. Digg me down if you must, I'm glad you're all mad, I wish you were mad enough to do something other than rant, but keep your eye on the details. Get mad about the right things.
      • KOSmurfy, on 10/11/2007, -14/+64Do you just stop reading everything after the first few lines, or is this a one time thing?
        • da5id, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Smirky -- Let me break it down to you. The gist of the order is contained in "Section 1." That section sets forth three categories of violations unenumerated by lowercase Roman numbers. Numbers (i) requires "violence" for the purpose of blah, blah, blah relating to our so-called reconstruction and peace efforts (LOL) in Iraq. Subsection (ii) goes after the persons or institutions to provide financial, technical, etc. in support of the proscribed violent conduct. Subsection (iii) goes after the fellow travelers legally related to persons covered by (i) and (iii). To summarize, "Section 1" requires violence or assisting in violence.

          Section 2. "prohibits" transactions (i.e., financial or logistical support) that does the same thing but manages to evade or avoid the letter of Section 1. It also prohibits conspiracies to do that.

          Sections 3 and 4 are "boilerplate" including definitions and a statement of the basis of the legal authority for promulgating the Order.

          In no way does it directly or indirectly apply to war protesters. This administration screws us over by the things that actually does -- there is really no need to make up things that it doesn't do.
        • ImOnlySleeping, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
          (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
          (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; "

          That's significantly broader than "requires 'violence' "

          Technically congress would be in violation by not funding the war budget as requested
      • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -30/+14so the term quick read through was the part of my post that most confused you?
      • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -11/+133Wow, dude, seriously did you not pay attention to how RIDICULOUSLY vague the wording in that EO is? It's a very politically motivated order. It's almost magnificent in how non-specific it is. While the Digg title seems inflammatory (indeed that was my first reaction) a thorough read through shows that you could infect have your possessions taken for speaking out against the war by saying something like "Don't buy gas tomorrow, stick it to Haliburton." Not buying gas would hurt the stability in Iraq. Bam! your megaphone is gone. Start telling about killing innocent Iraqis, pretty sure you're going to jail.

        It's Bushtasticly un-Constitutional and probably would be overturned in a reasonably fair court... assuming it doesn't make it to Bush's Supreme Court,
        • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -34/+2That last line shows how ignorant you are. The previous and current supreme court lineups are the best they've ever been. They would overturn it in a second.
          • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Not until 4 learns to be more than 5....
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
            HAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA *coughs violently* *continues laughing*
        • bcars, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31ummm.... last I checked, the Supreme Court doesn't review Executive Orders. Moreover, this Supreme Court does not have a spotless track record in dealing with citizens rights / civil liberties.
          • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Of course they wouldn't review the EO. They would review the unlawful seizure of property.
        • crazedgremlin, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3you could infect? I think you mean "in fact."
        • da5id, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2It is vague and ambiguous, but it still targets persons who commit violent acts or "pose a serious risk of" committing violent acts. Weasel words yes, targeting the war protesters -- no. See my section by section analysis above.
      • avasol, on 10/11/2007, -25/+30"Get mad about the right things."
        You mean like the assholes that continue to support this monkey of a President and his NeoNazi party?

        Yeah you're right. ***** you too!
        • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -14/+21LOL, thanks for the assumption *****. I didnt vote for Bush either time, I don't support his policies. All I said was nothing in the article was as inflammatory as the title statement: Protest the war and lose all your stuff.
      • Iriel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+98The dangerously vague wording of this was even cited in your own quote : "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing".

        To pose a significant risk of committing?

        Read up on the history of blacklisting suspected communists in the USA and you'll get an idea of what this really means.
        • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -22/+27Finish the sentence: ...risk of committing an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect.

          God, what is it with everyone this morning, I'm not supporting the article, I never stated I was supporting the article. All I said was the posting was inaccurate. You want to hate Bush, fine with me. You want to hate the government, I'm way ahead of you. Don't make ***** up to get mad about, there is plenty of ***** this tool has actually done to go over the edge about without making it up as you go.

          Oh, and yeah... I know about McCarthyism but thanks for the largely (article based) irrelevant pointer.
          • cassholio, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9posts like this make me wish I had a +100 digg button.
        • Nodaki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Iriel is right about the vaguely worded comment "or to pose a significant risk of committing". There is no threshold...I must assume since I do not approve of Bush's Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, foreign policy, that I may pose a significant risk. There is no language to determine a peaceful protester from a violent one...it is in some ways related to "prior restraint" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
          • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3For your information: the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

            Yeah.. I'm staying. I'm finishing my coffee.
      • theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -12/+14Listen, friends. When the US wants to jail protesters just for being protesters, they'll pass a specific law or EO just for that, or, attach specific language saying that to some other action. It's how it's been done in the past, and while I agree that there is a lot more legal subterfuge nowadays than there once was, to my mind, the obvious fact is that there's no way the country would tolerate that kind of behavior -- not yet.

        We do live in terrifying times and we truly must encourage our representatives, senators, and friends to abandon this descent into whatever-ya-wanna-call-it ... the words 'fascism,' 'totalitarianism,' and 'martial law' work for me in that sentence ... but this disingenuous alarmism is absolutely not helpful in the least.
        • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Thank you for stating that better than I did.
        • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24Actually, we *don't* live in terrifying times. Go look out your front door. Everything is probably cool and in general, worldwide, this has been one of the most peaceful decades in centuries. The only thing terrifying is the bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy that the current administration believes in. I prefer the Clinton-era, hands off approach where you sign treaties with everyone and send them free have a nice day shirts.

          Don't buy into all the nonstop media coverage of terrorism all over the place. I guarantee you more people get shanked in prison every day than die in terrorist attacks, but you never hear about those. Next time you see a terror level warning (elevated today?), just chuckle to yourself knowing that you just rejected government propaganda.
          • underthelinux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18I don't really think that he meant terrifying in terms of our quality of life. I think he meant terrifying in terms of a government who is unaccountable to anyone; who issue EO with vague enough wording to allow them to do what they want; and all others nodding their heads in approval.

            I'm beginning to think that the Bush/Cheney combo is the greatest supervillian team to come.
          • Stormflux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Dugg up for "Bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy".
          • nikehat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10It's hard for me to chuckle to myself when i think the government is issuing propaganda.
        • byronm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It would be possible to have faith in the system if the system wasn't designed with "slippery slope" policies in place. By that i mean laws so vague they can be interpreted to uphold the unwritten law. We don't need laws saying we shouldn't be violent when violence against each other is already illegal, so why make up stupid crap like this? Intentiional "sliper slope" policies that give conservative judges what they need to be "activists" the very thing he hated about those "liberal activist judges". I mean you can sit there with a straight face and tell me we needed this law since if what you said is true, we already have laws covering all the bases to begin with.
        • byronm, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2It would be possible to have faith in the system if the system wasn't designed with "slippery slope" policies in place. By that i mean laws so vague they can be interpreted to uphold the unwritten law. We don't need laws saying we shouldn't be violent when violence against each other is already illegal, so why make up stupid crap like this? Intentiional "sliper slope" policies that give conservative judges what they need to be "activists" the very thing he hated about those "liberal activist judges". I mean you can sit there with a straight face and tell me we needed this law since if what you said is true, we already have laws covering all the bases to begin with.
        • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1@ popfrogs

          what we're seeing now is the result of the clinton era - not solving a problem when you had the opportunity, and passing it off to the next person in line. eventually you have to fix the problem even if that means sacrificing your political career or public image. nobody thanks the government for all of the attacks they've thwarted. glad to see you live in a bubble.
      • pgoetz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37Your comments are ridiculously naive. Of course you won't find language explicitly spelling out violations of civil liberties - the whole point is to create a police state WITHOUT setting off any alarms. A cursory examination of history (as previous replies have suggested) should show you that such is the language of fascists and dictators.
        • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -19/+1and your comments are paranoia driven?
          • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I would call them fact driven, but hey.. thats just me.
          • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Nope. Me too.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1infowars.com, you naive, sheeplike, dumbasses
    • tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -16/+97There's really only a few more possible paths for the USofA:
      1) Total descent into a fascist regime that tries to take over the world
      2) A well-placed pretzel.
      3) The Europeans grow a spine and crush Nazi America before it gets even more powerful.

      I'm not suggesting or encouraging option 2 by any means. It's a horrible thing to commit a felony in the defense of a nation. Please, don't go kill the President. *cough*
      • Hostile17, on 10/11/2007, -6/+49Option 3 sounds cool. You guys need hella liberating at this point.
        • ahknight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Please. We would welcome our socialist pig invaders at this point.
      • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52From Amendment Number Two:
        "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."

        From Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution:
        "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

        ...just saying...
        • jsmith39, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37That's the problem, you're all just saying... and you're all finishing your self righteous rants about home grown militias and presidential assassinations and then going back to reruns of Lost that you stole using your XP box, downloaded onto your iPod and took over to starbucks with you.

          Everytime I read a post about forming militias or pointing out the original purpose of the National Guard I picture a guy who hasn't seen daylight in 2 weeks, that couldn't run 3 miles if he was being chased and is scared to death of both soap and vegetables but he's tough mother ***** on the internet. Don't ***** with him or he'll crash all your webs when he points his Hax0r tools at 127.0.0.1 and fires away
          • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Good point. My question is.. what are YOU doing differently? Have you initiated a protest (or for that matter.. even joined in on one) or started forming some sort of plan as to how to stop these problems? I have seen numerous self righteous posts in this thread from you alone. Many of them doing nothing except issuing personal attacks on people. How is that constructive in any way?

            When *I* read a post about forming homegrown militias, amidst all of the stark white flesh and atrophied muscles that you mentioned, I see nothing getting done because of people like you, who would rather sit and yell at everyone and tell them the proper way to "protest" the correct opinion to have whilst protesting and in the meantime poo poo anything anyone else says.
          • Aninhumer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So what have you been doing then? :P

            (And no, I haven't done anything either.)
          • ITpolitico, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Do you want to know why people don't actually form militias anymore? Because when you do, the ATF or the FBI come and arrest you. Think it doesn't happen? There were members of a militia arrested in Alabama recently (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070630/arrest.shtml). Of course, Uncle Sam is portraying the image that they're "anti-government" and "anti-American." I'm willing to bet these guys won't breathe free air again.
          • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Shows what you know... I don't even like starbucks.
        • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22The second amendment is practically anulled at this point. Back in those times anyone could buy a musket and you had a reasonable chance of overthrowing despotism at the government level. These days you can't just go to Army Navy Surplus and buy a Nimitz-class nuclear sub or an M1-A1 Abrams tank or a Cobra attack chopper or anything else.

          If you can't purchase weaponry that gives you equal footing against an oppressive government, the second amendment is meaningless. I guess this is why all the gun nuts scream about gun bans...now that I think about it, they have a point.
          • saintdesy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Hasn't Vietnam and Iraq taught you anything? You don't need weapons parity, all you need is determination and the ability to blend in with the population.
          • mollerade, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2HOLY *****! why didn't i think of that! Arm every man woman and child with a tank, nuke and biological granade, and only then will we live in peace... C R A Z Y.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Keep in mind also that weapons have a way of upgrading themselves. It's best to start off with the most powerful possible, but take a handgun and take out an enemy soldier with a rifle and you've got a rifle. Get a few rifles and you and your buddies can take out the weapons depot and get even more. Keep going like that until you've got tanks and bombs. Convert as many enemy soldiers as possible, they may be as pissed off about things as you are. And so on.
          • koick, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@0xbadfood: I'd say you've watched Red Dawn a few too many times.
        • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2@popfrogs
          right, because we wanted retarded people like you to have access to military-power weaponry? riiiiggght..... /go back to your bubble.
        • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@popfrogs - I'm glad you came to that conclusion. When you follow logic and look at previous disarmaments you can only come to one conclusion. Also, just so you know, anyone can STILL buy a musket. By musket I mean blackpowder arm. Blackpowder weapons aren't considered firearms by the BATFE. They are classified under Curios & Relics I believe.

          @jsmith39 - Nobody is talking about an assassination. I don't know where you got that from. I'll tell you what I've told many before. If they come to take my guns they'll have a hell of a time getting through the front door.
      • nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5I hereby nominate tepidpond's pretzel post for the "Best Comment EVER !!!" award, Digg here for give the man the award, or thumbs down for nah, it wasn't that great...
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1tepid, i think there's hope for 2008. maybe i'm being stupid. i mean, who'da thunk he'd get re-selected in 2004?
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Running against Herman (Skull & Bones) Munster? Yeah. Okay.
    • TheCosmicFool, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18Hey Nazz....
      can I have your stuff? your not gonna need it soon anyways...
      • 3adkied, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Didn't you read the executive order? It says Bush gets to keep all the stuff.
        • domomike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Dang. He's lucky. If I were him I'd slick the Feds on everyone on MTV Cribs.
        • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or Pimp My Ride
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3does this mean that if you bought a 9/11 troofer book with your credit card you are bankrupt?
      • Innova69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I love it when Ebonics shows up. Nice use of 'troofer'!
    • Thorox, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Well, wasn't that articulate.
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1what, you didn't understand it?
    • Koldkompress, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21You know you guys can come to the UK if you want. Our immigration laws are a joke, so you probably won't have that much hassle.
      • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15Yes, let's run to a country where we're SUBJECTS and not CITIZENS. How's that gun ban working over there?
        • mrection, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21well it's working a hell of a lot better than a total lack of real gun control works in the US... tard.
        • mollerade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I'm sure the Queen will allow you to become a Subject is you ask nicely.
        • deadA1ias, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12It's called tradition, history and culture. It's not like the monarchy has any REAL power. As for a "subjects" freedom the reality is that we (and the rest of the democratic world) have just as much as you do (which at this point doesn't seem to be adding up to much over there).

          And the gun ban? It's working just fine. I'm 60 times less likely to be shot at and kill than you are. Thanks for asking.
        • UnstableMind, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2But, you're 60 times more likely to get stabbed than us Americans are...
      • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Why bother with the UK, when there's a friendlier, cheaper, closer neighbor up north with less police state?
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4because soon there will be little difference? Research the North-American union. NWO, people. The 'crazies' that have been warning us for years get less crazy each and every day.
        • ericisshort, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...Or might I suggest the neighbor to the south.
      • Innova69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Is there really such a thing as seperation of church & state over there?
        Where anything that is done, govt.-wise is not carried out under this god pretext *****?
      • kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I, for one, appreciate the offer. Thanks you silly wanker
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i second kmpr326. very bloody generous. (sarcasm not intended -- just throwing out brit words is all.)
    • cesig, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Whether or not this affects nonviolent citizens, if you're upset about it, tell your news agencies. If enough people contact the news organizations, they'll have a harder time ignoring us. Send an e-mail or make a phone call. It takes 5 minutes.

      If you're really upset about this, do something.
      • nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4...at 11:58 universal standard time, a young man puts a flag under his pillow & wishes for the democracy fairy make it all ok...
        (I don't mean to put your call to action down but you know as well as I that Digg is the Only News Agency left...)
    • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3The fact that you crazies just make ***** up makes you look like ass clowns. Do you think anyone will actually take you liars seriously?

      The title is a down right lie. But I guess lying is ok to you people.
      • HRviolation, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2liar liar pants on fire.
      • nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5you might be right, we might be wrong...
        I, for one, hope you're right. Just cross your fingers & whatever you do, don't read about History. If (even a little) peace & democracy are in store for our future, I'll be the happiest guy around.
      • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the right side, your a godamn zelot.
    • zachninme, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Everyone who dugg that comment can now have their stuff taken away.
      • VtmnR, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3OH SH!T! I take it back! I take it back!
    • HardyMachia, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22This is why we need to support and elect Ron Paul for President. Voted against the war and against the Patriot Act, and always votes for the Constitution.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5It won't be long before the practice of leaving comment spam becomes known as "Ron Pauling." Can't wait for the real candidates to catch on. The entire comment page will be swallowed up by political ads placed by staffers.
        • chuck3330, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2actually im a real person who supports him....then again im not old enough to vote so it doesn't matter....
          • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Can I assume then if you are not young enough to vote that you are not young enough to have done significant research into Paul's voting history. He's not as pure as snow as his croneys would have you believe.
          • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1this is the problem with digg.
      • satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Ron Paul is just a different flavor of Nazi.
        • kingraoul3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Objectivism is a reactionary utopia.
          Private property is NECESSARILY a relationship between people.
          There's no sense in privately owning a vast estate unless there are other people who are poor enough that they must work on it to improve it, for wages.
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1actually, no. he doesn't believe in freedom from religion, which is in the bill of rights.
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18One more step in the march toward fascism. Most people still don't even know how bad the patriot act is.

      http://www.digg.com/videos/educational/Napolitano_-_Unconstitutional_Patriot_Act
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well said.
    • caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6Bush is a traitor! 9/11 was an inside job. How do I know? I studied physics.

      http://patriotsquestion911.com
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bob+mcilvaine

      The more people that believe this the less we have to fear from this *****. Time to get a clue folks.
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2It really is as simple as physics. As I have said before, physics seem to defy most Americans. Not laziness, though.
      • domomike, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Uhm. No, it wasn't. You studied physics from those crappy websites?

        Try talking to a REAL physicist. The building had design flaws and the materials used to build the twin towers were not of the necessary materials. When the planes hit, the heat retained inside the building and as more and more things lit on fire inside the building, the heat began building up. Eventually, crucial structural elements began bending out of shape due to the extreme heat and the buildings fell. (In each building this happened differently but for this purpose those differences are extraneous.

        I'm totally against George Bush, but I am also totally against those kinds of unscientific websites claiming 9/11 was an inside job. Absolute crap.

        And to all those people out there... Don't let "caleb4mj's" comment affect your view on Americans. WE CAN BE SMART. Even as our government acts ridiculous, try to not stereotype us, please.
        • caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I didn't reference any unscientific websites, I referenced scientists and people who lost their loved ones as you will notice. You can be smart, however, once you realize that the temperature required to melt steel also requires oxygen, as in a tank of O2, to heat the fuel up above smoldering temperatures, you begin to see the big picture of how it had to be an inside job. There's no other way to explain it. Even NIST is having a hard time coming up with alternative explanations for WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, and they are now looking at controlled demolition as a possible cause, because nothing else explains it. BTW, I read the NIST report, did you?
          • tribble222, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I have a B.S. in physics (not that a degree really means anything) and I can say that the "scientists" on the page you reference don't know much about science. And if you interviewed 100 physicists I'm positive 99 of them would disagree that 9/11 was "an inside job." Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they aren't crazy.
    • wacki, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq "

      Seems like 1/2 of the stories on Digg qualify. Anyone have a spare room for Kevin Rose?

      EDIT: eh this is for "acts of violence" and not specifically protesting.
    • MrM1yagi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin
      • corranhorn85, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1People should be willing to give up their liberty for freedom.

        /sarcasm
    • luvkit, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Way to raise the level of discourse, Nazz.
    • kkopacek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5second.... ***** bush!
      go see martial law 911
    • zeroDNT, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Here here! ***** that bastard he doesnt even know who Voltaire or Camus are
    • jetfuel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Everyone loves to talk about this stuff and get really pissed, but nobody does anything. Sad.
      • thegreathal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do something...kucinich.us!
      • dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We can't do anything, that's the problem. If we do, we're shipped off to Gitmo. Nice setup they have.
      • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1what can we do in the face of such organization?
    • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I have to:

      http://www.myspace.com/brapman

      FUGB1. Wrote it weeks and weeks ago, one Monday morning when he did something unconstitutional.
  • kmg365, on 10/11/2007, -36/+574Little by little, step by step, our rights are being eroded in the name of security. Why don't stories like this get dugg? Am I a left-wing, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist for thinking this is all leading up to the day when this Administration will declare Martial Law for our security and safety?
    • terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -2/+59I don't think it's a given, but I'm worried about it. I'd rather not live in a country where one figure has so much power. Wasn't that the whole point of the USA? Who are these people who support this man? Where did they come from?
      • tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32They've been in the US a very long time. They watched what happened in Nazi germany, and they took careful notes.

        We're *****, and so is the rest of the world. The long nightmare is only just beginning...
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14@Tepidpond...

          "We're *****, and so is the rest of the world. The long nightmare is only just beginning..."

          - Only we they stay asleep.When more people wake, the nightmare will be on the elite. If enough people don't wake, I fear you're right.
          • Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12""If enough people don't wake,""

            So... what's in the news today? Any update on Paris? I'm sure that wacky girl has to be up to something today? Or what about all you stupid ***** that digg up all this ***** about American Idol or the iPhone.
          • nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6my personal belief is that all these things are happening for a reason... The current world wide capitalist situation where 1% owns everything & billions slave away & starve to death decade after decade... it's got to change. But people are too busy scrambling for their crumbs to care for anything but their own day to day survival. Lessons need to be re-learned cause the only thing we got from WW2, is that Israel should NEVER be criticized, so here we go again... I look forward to something new, when society can rebuild a culture based on respect for other people & compassion & respect for nature & free solar power & food that grows on trees instead of food that grows in factories & clean water & FREE wi-fi, ect... & we can do away with competition & consumerism & slavery & greed & destruction of environment for profits & poverty & starvation due to lack of funds & all that other primitive, outdated BS that we love so much today. Yup, let's tear this ***** down, I've seen enough, have you?? I want change, "BRING IT ON" !!!!!!!!!!
        • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If martial law was declared by this administration, you can bet your boots the Republican retards on Digg will be screaming that it's a good thing and you should go along with it for your own good (plus any wrong doing they'll just blame on Clinton). However, if implemented by the next Democrat president, they'd be all against it.

          The problem with Republican retards is that they don't care about politics. They just think about politics like sports, and the Republicans are the team they're rooting for.
      • Ahnteis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14This is the real problem IMHO.



        The president isn't the one who is supposed to make our laws!


      • obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We had a revolution so that 200 years later we could re-invent the monarchy.
      • tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Religion is such a powerful tool of control.
    • m0nk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35Yeah, it'll happen the day before the elections, so elections won't happen. Then they'll find that the president has the power to stay in office while something something something, and then we're truly screwed. :(
      • jtmOBX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Yeah... I dont understand how anyone believes this could really happen, especially when the administrations approval ratings are in the toilet and any other attack that happens will not be a reason for people to support Bush staying in office but will more than likely be viewed as an enormous failure of his admin policies.
        • terminal157, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13It doesn't matter if we support him, he's still the president and has all the powers (and more, it seems) of that post. Right now, the way things have been set up, it really would be LEGAL for him to essentially become a dictator if we were to suffer a serious attack. Many unconstitutional powers have been granted to him already, I don't see his approval rating taking them away.
        • rrasco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I guarantee prior to the elections we have another terrorist attack, possibly even a nuclear one, then it will be pinned on iran because thats where al qaida members are coming from now, executive order is envoked, martial law declared and we got ourself another FDR using the war to stay in power. Lets put it this way, unless we impeach, we are *****!
        • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I don't know why you're being dugg down. You're right, it isn't going to happen. No president, not even Bush, is that crazy. It isn't going to happen.
          • ahknight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like ... -rat-a-tat-tat-"
      • brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18People are losing site of the big picture. They don't need to find a way to keep anyone in office. As long as a relatively like minded republican, democrat, or potato is placed in office then things continue as normal. Crappy foreign policy and a negative influence on domestic policy. No need for crowning anyone emperor.
        • ahknight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Paul/Clinton in 08! No, really. You want balanced? Let's go back to how it used to be where the one with the second-most votes was veep.

          /seriously, I'm all for it.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7How about Paul/Gore or Paul/Gravel? Clinton is just a left wing neocon.
          • JDove6, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Obama is way better than gore or gravel
          • chuck3330, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0i hate to say it but....2nd most votes being veep = assassinations

            i would never be the one to do it though
      • edesignweb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6that's what i've been saying. everyday it gets a little closer.
    • jooeyd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19I don't think it's realistic to believe the current administration will declare Martial Law. Are they paving the way for a future administration, though? For sure. Cheer on the Democrats all you want, but realize they have more goals in common with Republicans than you think!
      • cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2And just look back one administration for the tactics they'll use to disarm and enslave. You don't have to like guns or own guns, but you damn sure better let me do so. When the schitt hits the fan where are you gonna run to?
    • blqysmg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Since we are more or less permanently in a "state of emergency," there is no need to ever declare Martial Law. When anyone can be declared an enemy of the state, forfeit their constitutional rights to Liberty and Property with no Judicial process getting in the way, why would there be a need?
      The part that disturbs me is the section that says undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

      This can be construed to mean that if you buy goods and services from anyone who is found to have ties to opposition groups, directly or indirectly, you're rights are gone. So, when you buy ice cream from a shop who donates a portion of the profits to Hamas, you are guilty by association, and your assets can be blocked. It's not likely to happen, but you get the point. No due process, no judicial review, and no way to appeal. Nice.
    • MystifiedGlobe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11"Little by little" is laws requiring you to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. This is more a lot, and all at once...
    • mediasl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Why sit around and wait to see what will happen next? At what point are you going to say "that's enough!" Take my advice and be a coward to the United Police States. Leave now! You can always come back when all of this is over (if ever soon). I've met many people who moved abroad when they saw, a few years ago, where the current administration was headed. I did the same and continue to laugh at all of the increasingly powerless "citizens" back home who just do nothing about what they see. No, I'm not joking.
      • therealgeddylee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3You tool, like it's that easy. Yep, alright family! Call up and quit your jobs; we're headed to Columbia for a life of pushing cocaine! Yeah, it'd be really easy to avoid people all together and fly up into space too, right?

        Let's be realistic now. You don't just one day wake up and throw away your current life and begin Life 2.0 in another country.
      • TrevorBelmont, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Running away from your friends, family, career and life sounds like a reasonable solution to you? 300 million people are just gonna leave? Have a good laugh at all us "powerless citizens" you naive coward.
      • namelessperson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4" I did the same and continue to laugh at all of the increasingly powerless "citizens" back home who just do nothing about what they see."

        Explain how by leaving the US, you did something about the problem? dbag
      • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2except for not paying taxes to these republican monsters, you're not a hero. stop patting yourself on the back so hard -- it must hurt.
    • bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14 Most of the Germans under Nazi Germany believed they were supporting a good leader... and they didn't believe the rumors about the death camps... Now here we are... The United States of America, the best place for a leader like Hitler. In a country where we are raised to believe that we are always good, always right... as the rug is being pulled out from under our feet, we feel ashamed for questioning authority. We are all to blame for everything that happens to us. We are in control of the government, all it takes is for all you lazy assholes to get off your couch, walk away from the TV, and go show the government just exactly who has the reins.

      If you let your government off the leash, expect to get trampled.
      • JDove6, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure we don't matter...corporations run this country and probably will until we die.
    • manicjunkee, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Everyone who is saying the government will freeze your assets if you protest the war is full of themselves. The government really doesn't care about protests. This is evident by the public opinion of our current foreign policy. The government is going to waste its time and resources over some stupid protester. This is specifically targeting supporters of the destabilization of Iraq. Learn to read and think.

      Also stories like this always get dugg and are always filled with moronic comments.
      • JDove6, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You do have a point, but there are some decent comments too. It was a false headline, but it is a valid point that our government is *****.
    • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yes kmg. Either you keep your head buried in the sand or you are tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, (though there's really no such thing as left and right wing politics), who realizes that the government is preparing for martial law. They have left you no other option. "Either you're with us or agin' us".
    • caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Was 9/11 was an inside job?

      http://patriotsquestion911.com
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bob+mcilvaine
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5363136763742748830
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-84622047439564178
    • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Those who restrict civil liberties in the name of security deserve neither
      -Thomas Jefferson
      • Jubalicious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3wow, you successfully managed to get wrong both the quote and the sayer of the quote...

        "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
        -Benjamin Franklin
    • derscoundrel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1protesters shouldn't be the only ones scared. remember that our commander-in-chimp also considers your friendly neighborhood pot dealer practically a member of Al Quaeda since somehow selling weed funds the insurgency it's only a short leap to this also being used in the name of the War On "Drugs". and with the wording of Section 1, subsection iii ("to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.")
      the use of the word "Purported" scares me. doesn't that mean, in short, hearsay?
      they can use this to come after the assets of your friendly neighborhood pot retailer's customers, since they are, by proxy, aiding and abetting... just a thought.
  • CloakandSwagger, on 10/11/2007, -27/+641Why worry about Bush taking material possessions when he's already taken your freedom?
    • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+44But you'll never take my freeeeedommm! Oh wait you will? Damn.
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's okay. i didn't need freedom anyway. all I ned is this chair. and this thermos. i love this thermos.

        What? I can't have the thermos either? Now that's *****.
    • lokai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Most people don't seem to care that their rights are being taken away. Now, if you go and inform them that Bush can take away their precious 'stuff' that they own, they'll flip the ***** out. Misplaced priorities: You've got to love them.
      • proton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13It's not misplaced. When the federal government begins to seize or simply threaten to seize people's homes, small businesses and vehicles simply because they claim you are undermining the Iraqi government you will see fewer outspoken people. It's not about 'stuff' but homes and livelihoods.
        • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0When they threaten your ability to speak and defend yourselves, it's not about 'stuff' but lives. Assume for a moment that we didn't have the right to free speech, but that you could keep your car and keep going to work. Everything is fine, right? Except that you don't hear about the invading army until they kick in your front door.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Shhh, it's gone.
    • Moocat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Nothing is being taken away from what I read. This doesn't address protests or verbal actions whatsoever. In summary it states if you are forming rebel groups in Iraq (specifically) or harboring insurgents, etc, that they can then take your property. It says nothing of the kind about no protesting in the US.

      I'm all for a good Bush whacking, but this is taken pretty far out of context into tin foil hattery land. Please carefully read the order next time and if you don't understand what it says, have someone else summarize it for you.
      • rhysmd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10It also seems to imply that if you donate to a charity that helps Iraqi citizens you can lose your property. Considering how the Armed forces have to consider men, women, and children as threats, it isn't that hard to connect the dots.
      • Moocat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2No, it says if you act on behalf of someone who is on the blocked list you can possibly be brought up. Simply donating money is not acting on behalf of anyone nor can it be construed as such even indirectly when you don't have knowledge of any misappropriations of your money, nor would they have any reason for tracking said people unless the person is knowingly supplying large amounts of money to known rogue factions. I'm quite sure you're safe donating $20 to your favorite Iraqi charity :)

        The whole executive order is in fact a rehash of laws that already exists, if anything, the order is stupid because it's redundant and repeats laws that are ALREADY in place. Bush apparently doesn't have the time to do a Google search and find that what he's enacting is already in place.
      • ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Moocat you are only somewhat right. It sure doesn't seem to threaten us (it seems to be focusing on the military side of things), but knowing this administration, they could simply re-define it as not only insurgents but also POLITICIANS and CITIZENS who dare go against Bush and his plan. Not to say the Bush administration would go that far, but they could. So far nothing is happening yet, but I won't be surprised if Pelosi's bra will be taken away if she opposes

        Oh wait, bad example. Pelosi's bra will be taken off anyway as she gets gangbanged by both Reps and Dems alike.
        • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0actually he is completely correct and you all need to learn how to read.
    • nickmv, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3First off, I'm no Bush supporter. Secondly, you say he's taken away your freedom. Tell me please, exactly what freedoms have you lost. I'd love to hear about them. You know, the everyday tasks you do, I mean you MUST have lost some freedoms. Because I gotta be honest, I've lost NO freedoms, and I'm willing to bet NEITHER HAVE YOU
    • nwoantibody, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Because Freedom is a right and it's based on property.
      Oh wait... he already did that...
    • caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I'm not afraid, besides not having anything to speak of, I'd rather die fighting for freedom than live a life subject to Fox News propaganda.

      First off, Bush is a ***** traitor! 9/11 was an inside job. Molten metal found weeks later in the basements proves without a doubt it was not jet fuel that brought the towers down. Learn the facts to know the truth.

      http://patriotsquestion911.com
      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bob+mcilvaine

      Second, I know I am free, I don't need some words spelled out on a piece of paper to convince me of this fact. I am free until I am arrested and detained. And then I'm still free in a court of law, should I ever see one. Don't ***** with Freedom, bitch!
    • TheSpore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Property rights count as rights. So I just view this as one more freedom GW Bush is taking away from me.
  • ajkxxx, on 10/11/2007, -21/+383I'm worried that no newspapers have picked up on this story. This is the White House Website.
    This is getting scary.
    • massivity, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25Seriously. WHY is this not front page news?
      • Dested, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Depends on your news source. =P
      • quik22, on 10/11/2007, -21/+3because OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. THE TITLE OF THIS STORY IS INFLAMMATORY AND MISLEADING. YOU'RE FREE TO PROTEST THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ ALL YOU WANT. IF YOU THROW BOMBS, YOU'RE GONE. WHY IS THAT TOO HARD FOR LIBERALS TO COMPREHEND?
        • Hostile17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Maybe if you tried a larger font?
      • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well, what exactly does this have to do with Paris Hilton??
    • ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8it is on Digg, but you know the mainstream media (aside from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert) are controlled by Bush
      • robwilkens, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Jon Stewart, who promotes his news as "Fake News" is your preferred news source?? Don't get me wrong, I love his show, but it's terribly one-sided and it's mostly because only one side is funny to laugh at.
      • maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Or, more likely, the MSM is controlled by Bush's handlers.
    • lazpa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5is about violent acts only? ...yes, but gee skippy that sounds reasonable...
      is about material support for organizations that might commit violent acts?...yes
      is it about donating or "materially assisting" an organization that may "pose a significant risk of committing" violent acts such as burning an effigy, throwing rocks at the guys who are tear-gassing a crowd, destroying or degrading government property, or resisting arrest? ...hmm, I don't like this at all.

      why do we need a - not even a law, that has the enforceable power of a law that covers violent acts or support of potential as yet to even happen acts?
      Don't we already have laws against violent acts?

      Luuuuuucie... You got some splain'nin to do...
    • pixelPhisher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There is just no way of knowing how many people have the same thoughts - they like it that way... control of the masses via media - if we all shared our thoughts they'd lose control...
    • assjunk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0ktlkam1160 covers this extensively.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2lol. you see, articles like this are why america is doomed to fall. keep talkign about, STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! DIE BY THE SWORD IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION!... my ass. starving africans do a better job of protesting wrongs. .... seriously, they do.

      This country is doomed to fail because after the patriot act was written, i didn't look out my window to see burning cars and politicians running like world class sprinters from gun weilding mobs. *which i would join immediately*. america is doomed because after this death legislation, you idiots are still sitting down reading this... but i guess i'm with you dumb bastards too. the difference is, when they come to get me, i'm going to shoot, stab, and clobber!.... in the name of freedom of course....

      NOTHING TO SEE HERE AMERICA! GO BACK TO SLEEP!

      infowars.com
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1lol. you see, articles like this are why america is doomed to fall. keep talkign about, STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! DIE BY THE SWORD IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION!... my ass. starving africans do a better job of protesting wrongs. .... seriously, they do.

      This country is doomed to fail because after the patriot act was written, i didn't look out my window to see burning cars and politicians running like world class sprinters from gun weilding mobs. *which i would join immediately*. america is doomed because after this death legislation, you idiots are still sitting down reading this... but i guess i'm with you dumb bastards too. the difference is, when they come to get me, i'm going to shoot, stab, and clobber!.... in the name of freedom of course....

      NOTHING TO SEE HERE AMERICA! GO BACK TO SLEEP!

      infowars.com
  • joshshu, on 10/11/2007, -26/+60That's the END.
    • ungus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19I'm surprised it's not the end of George W. Bush. I find it a MIRACLE that no one has shot him yet.
      • bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I find it extremely hard to believe that W. Bush is the person behind all of this. He seems too incompetent to take this much control of America... I bet it's someone that none of us ever hear about. The bush administration is a puppet.
      • Speckles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7If someone shot him, Cheney would be president.
        • nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5well, that explains it !
        • chuck3330, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5i thought in a way he already was....
        • SilentRamble42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well then take him out... wait... Pelosi. Take her out, no... that won't work either.

          How about we just keep going until we get the Secretary of Education? I've seen it happen before and things seemed to go pretty well.
    • hiphoc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Here is the deal. The president does not have the uthority to write law. All these Exective orders are written under color of law. Bush can only enforce laws passed by congress. But tell that to the agencies that he runs. The cops and feds in this country who are spying on us are so ready to start kicking doors down. Look at the ***** they are doing under the guise of the "Drug War". Now imagine if they started using terror or winning the war on terror as an excuse lolol. Blood in the streets baby.
    • Swoyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4yeah really. is this 2007 or 1984?
  • growlzor, on 10/11/2007, -20/+279Its sad, every couple days on Digg we read another story similar to this. The way I see it now, Bush has the power to imprison us without due process, put us all in camps, and basically turn this country into a dictatorship. I used to get goosebumps singing the national anthem. Now I shed a tear for Democracy.
    • Availle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9There's no need to turn the country into a dictatorship anymore.
      • tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Right, a little late to try and stop that, now isn't it?

        I wonder when he'll crown himself...that'd be a nice sight. God Emperor King George Bush, known to his confidants as Bush the Stupid, and to his enemies as GODPLEASESTOPTORTURINGME!!!!!
        • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I think that Availle means that these guys already figured how to run a democracy with benefits of a dictatorship.
    • slyydrr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16As far as I see it, this already is a dictatorship...
    • 275269, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2What happened to those good old days when people were still scared of terrorism?
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8People are still afraid of terrorism. They're just starting to realize who the real terrorists are.
    • digger1942, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"I used to get goosebumps singing the national anthem. Now I shed a tear for Democracy."

      Couldn't have said it better myself. I was thinking of the missing goosebumps a few days ago. I'm determined to get them back...
    • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9"Well, a dictatorship would be a lot easier. So long as I'm the dictator." - George W Bush
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Here's your problem. You don't read the story. You read the ***** headline. This is inaccurate, as the actual order involves actual actions against the Iraqi people, government, or US forces. You can't get in trouble for protesting. Most of the time these articles are blown out of proportion or inaccurate.
      • jshpro2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It says "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing", basically if they think you might... just like that patriot act says if they "suspect" you of being a terrorist
      • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i bet you think you can win every time at three card montey too...

        read between the lines.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -16/+456No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    It's called the 5th Amendment GEORGE, read it.
    • Kormiku, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16damn right my brother
    • zebbie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+63The constitution isnt worth anything unless you have people willing to enforce it. Your government doesnt so unless people stop thinking "omg tin foil hatter" every time anyone mentions America turning into nazi germany II you guys are hooped.
      • bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4thank you, now i don't have to type...
    • jimrooney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Don't be silly... he can't read.
      • almightyzam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Careful, don't make fun of Big Brother...or he'll come and arrest you too.
    • meltingrobot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10He apparently didn't read all the other ones, why start now?
    • cybortrip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4all he'll do is call it the 5th and a 1/2 amendment
    • evilregis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29I suggest it's time to start exercising your 2nd amendment rights and start arming yourselves for the next revolution. Seems like it might be necessary.
      • leftfoot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11As bad as it sounds, I think you're correct. This moron that we have the pleasure to call our "President" has assraped the constitution so many times, it's sickening.
      • bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8 Government blood on my shoes, cigarette lit, guns blazing, freeing my free country.... Oh, what a beautiful day that will be.
      • smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I'm so glad I already started doing this, at the time I really would have rather gotten a Wii or a 360. But I got a Springfield .45 and a Remington PPS700. Long and close range.
        • chuck3330, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0i hate to say it but it probably won't do you much good, the government has already confiscated people's weapons after Catrina and soon they will take yours b/c of some "emergency situation"
          • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1you gun loving hicks lol, disarmament? im a foil hatter and i dont think gun control has to do with ANYTHING but SAFTEY. if you ALL had guns and wanted to stop the will of a nation, good luck. look at the arab nations, think them having there little guns does anything?
    • karnival, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3zebbie is right. The government has enough power and audacity to imprison people for seemingly just reasons based on "national security" without abiding by proper law procedures. It does this until it gets caught, in which case either the government does nothing to change the situation or simply announces an apology and releases the person. Meanwhile, their credibility is in doubt because of the media, and anything they could have been working on (peaceful or violent) would have been sufficiently sidetracked that the person is no longer deemed a "threat to national security". Basically, the Bush administration is like a child picking on his younger sibling until he's caught who then puts on an apologetic face, only to resume bullying once the authorities back is turned.
    • Irashtar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The Sad thing is, the "in time of War" line, and his "War on Terror" let him ignore that.
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The great thing is, the war on terror isn't actually a war. A real war is only to be declared by Congress, and Congress hasn't declared any wars since WWII.
        • maxtangent, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yet Bush is still referred to as "Commander-in-Chief". How does that work?
    • BLish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12you do realize that George W. Bush said, "The constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper" .... sadly i wish i was joking.
    • diggydougie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Notice that he references several emergency laws. That's what any good dictator uses when taking over. The constitution is suspended for the duration of the war on terrorism, which will never end. Just like the war on drugs, poverty....
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -20/+25Welcome to the coup. Your rights are at this side. Wait, not you.
  • 2sjh1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+86This applies INISIDE the USA?! I'm sure GWB didn't write it either.. . but he sure signed it!
    • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14like what, if it applied outside is great?
    • onedown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13write it? hell, he probably didn't even read it
    • drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4GWB and write is an oxymoron.
    • Mariachi94, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2George Bush knows how to write?
    • rebuilder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Where else would it apply? It's an executive order by the US president, yes it applies inside the USA.
  • kmoed, on 10/11/2007, -19/+170America is living under a dictatorship, and seems to be doing nothing about it. Sad..
    • Doghound, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18You can't say it's a dictatorship until after 2008. It isn't a dictatorship until he claims absolute right to the Presidency and stay in beyond his legal 2-terms, which hasn't happened yet.

      *Prepares to be dugg-down by any and all who think I'm supporting the man*
      • thax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3During the period of time leading up to 2008 it will become harder and harder to stop a dictatorship from happening. I can only hope that the people of the United States have the strength to stand up to the President when the grab for power happens.
        • freightmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0he is one executive order away...martial law and were in check,EO 10990 and its checkmate.
        • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL he doesn't need to be president himself! He's just a puppet. All that matters is having the next president support the status quo. Sure, if a Democrat gets elected it will ease the bleeding a bit... but it won't heal the wound.
      • smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6There is more than one kind of dictatorship. It's like a virus it mutates in order to survive, and comes back uglier and deadlier than before. The only difference here, is we elect our dictator, but they all have these powers from now on. Every president does these things based on precedent. If the guy before could have these powers, you can bet the next one will damn well want to keep them. We live under something more like a Dictocracy.
    • bbardlbradd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8People are too afraid, or too loyal to the US to ask questions... people need to wake up, that's all. We've never faced this type of thing before. We've seen it in Nazi Germany, yeah, but people dare not compare the glorious United States of America (soon to be United States of George W. Bush) to Nazi Germany. We are the germans that didn't believe the stories about the mass burials, the faithful followers of our government...
      • ChristianMagic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The problem is, the majority of people who wake up are alone in their community and have no idea what they can do. That's at least my take on it.
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22 choices:

          1. Remain alone in your waking up.
          2. TALK TO OTHERS. BE BRAVE AND STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN! You might be surprised who agrees once YOU speak up....
        • ruyz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1you do enough and almost all you can do just participating in this discussion.
        • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've talked to others... I think I'm going to need a powerpoint with cool music... or a low cost movie to get it through their ***** heads.

          I live in Bakersfield Ca.... There are a lot of media puppets here.
      • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, That's exactly how I feel. Alone. I've talked to people but it's hard when they have someone in a nice suite tell them everything they need to know on a television beforehand, and then see me fighting their words. :/
  • ab9003, on 10/11/2007, -15/+145I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

    I wonder who wrote that for him..
    • Kurisuku, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Cheney's personal assistant.
    • hobgobbler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6probably this prick: http://www.nndb.com/people/327/000049180/
    • Wonderkind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21"I wonder who wrote that for him.."

      Believe me, I hate what George Bush is doing to this country, but in all honesty, NO politician writes his own directives, speeches or anything else. They are done by committees and lawyers.
      • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I do.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I've worked for three politicians who wrote their own stuff, two at the state (one Assembly, one Senate) level and one at the national (House) level.

        Those who take the time to write their own speeches and policy initiatives are able to actually understand what they are saying. It's refreshing.
    • letsgopens2006, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Lol you quoted from the order and got dug down.....
    • blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13The question is not who wrote it, but did he read it before signing it.
      • kothmia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2*sniff, sniff* smells like OVP verbiage to me. And did he read it? HIGHLY unlikely... does he ever read anything that Cheney gives him?
      • mattrh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The question is, does he know how to read?
        • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sure he can read, but Cheney has to turn the documents right-side-up first.
        • dillona, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And the answer is....no.
    • lazpa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2is about violent acts only? ...yes, but gee skippy that sounds reasonable...
      is about material support for organizations that might commit violent acts?...yes
      is it about donating or "materially assisting" an organization that may "pose a significant risk of committing" violent acts such as burning an effigy, throwing rocks at the guys who are tear-gassing a crowd, destroying or degrading government property, or resisting arrest? ...hmm, I don't like this at all.

      why do we need a - not even a law, that has the enforceable power of a law that covers violent acts or support of potential as yet to even happen acts?
      Don't we already have laws against violent acts?

      Luuuuuucie... You got some splain'nin to do...
    • dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Lawyers, obviously.
  • precision4u, on 10/11/2007, -112/+15Welcome to another edition of the latest craze, blow out of proportion.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26precision4u - Bush loves people like you.
      • MrVictor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yes. They are called "useful idiots".
    • Evermin7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You are a tool of evil...and you do not even know it...
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -24/+191hitler was elected at first.

    hitler card!

    3 remaining.
    • sleepingcow, on 10/11/2007, -33/+4hitler was not elected.
      • tepidpond, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Neither was the ***** in chie-...I mean, President Bush.
      • Horrormonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27He was, due to his party having an overwhelming majority. That said, his actual getting into power was a seedy back-room deal.

        Wait a second.

        Something smells like America.
      • commnode, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Horrormonkey is right, Hitler was elected under the National Socialist ticket (otherwise know as the Nazis).

        Bush is heavy handed and shortsighted, but that's a far cry from a homicidal insane racist.
        • member57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Nope, he lost the election, but his party was such a threat with the 3 million man SA and all, he was appointed Chancellor.
      • Zuriya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What sleepingcow probably means is that Hitler was not elected *until* he was appointed as chancellor by the president Hindenburg i.e. he was not elected in a "free" and "democratic" ballot.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+54Bush wasn't. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. More people voted for the other guy. Since that election day, our government has done nothing but fail us.

      Impeaching Bush is useless, he needs to be removed from power.
    • mgags, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7And Godwin's Law applies... but I agree with you..
      • leatherman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Thank you adding Godwin's Law. Its always great to watch it apply.
        Just to add one more thing: Hitler was not elected Chancellor. He was appointed Chancellor by the then President Hindenburg. You can twist and bend it any way you wish, depending on your arg