What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
171 Comments
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+133Let's start with, "What else floats in water?"
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -19/+96"I say there are so many amendments in the constitution of the United States of Americaaaa! I can only choose one! I can only choose ooooooone! I plead the fif! I plead the fif! FIVE! 1,2,3,4, fiiiif! Anything you say! FIIIF! Go ahead and ask me a question!"
"How do . . ."
"Fiiiiiiiiiiiiif!" - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+76Good.
The only way to deal with corruption is to use the powers of the law. This is how democracy ought to work. - pinab, on 10/12/2007, -14/+81We found them already, Now it's just a matter of getting them to answer our questions.
- DMCLP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+67I don't recall.
- sidsarkar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+56I don't recall, She doesn't recall, nobody recalls anything
- jessicah628, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48I fully agree. The problem is, they can force her to testify, but they can't control what she does or doesn't say...
- RealSurreal, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32I Can't wait to throw the Biggest Party I can afford on the ashes of this administration
- DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@ hikaruzero
I'm not sure where your history is coming from. The Roman REPUBLIC lasted 400 years, followed by the imperialist Roman EMPIRE. There was no Roman pure democracy.
A Republic is a much better set up to protect the rights of the weak than a direct democracy. I could go into a long post about this, but just go read the federalist papers. You will realize that the original way the Republic was set up was brilliant. You also might realize that we have been slipping away from a Republic for the past 100 years. The federal government can bully the states into doing whatever it wants nowadays by simply threatening to withold federal highway dollars. The checks and balances from the various branches of government are no longer working. Congress long before Bush gave up it's power to go to war to the president along with many other powers. The legislative branch makes laws instead of interpreting them. Neither party advocates fixing this, and most people couldn't care less.
There are a lot of problems with a truly direct democracy (where people vote on everything). First off is time, Secondly is who asks the questions? This person is as powerful as an emperor in a direct democracy. Thirdly, the passions of the mob should be avoided. Never mind how uninformed people can be. Should someone who knows nothing of middle eastern history be allowed to vote on if we go to war there?
To see why a Republic is better than a democracy, consider what a direct democracy via popular vote would lead to in these situations:
1. On if we should nuke (insert middle eastern country) on 9/12/01
2. On if we should deport (insert ethnic minority here)
3. If (insert gender here) should have the right to vote.
4. If welfare should be done away with. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Inaccurate.
She has been subpoenaed to appear before a partisan congress - this is not a trial.
Understand how government works before you make up headlines.
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -12/+34@RuffRidr
"Hey, this Congress is NOT a witch hunt!! They've accomplished plenty in the last 100 days. For example, there's... uh. Well, um, after that you've got the.. hrmm. But there was that one thing they did. The... dang, what was that again? But let's not forget about... jeez, I had it for a second there. Uh, uh, Bush's fault!!"
...
"You've proved my point. When all else fails, Dems blame Bush."
#1 America Blames Bush. You can call it partisan all you want, but the fact is that ONLY Republicans are backing bush, and _everyone else_ is not. Don't you find at least a little humor in the idea of you criticizing the Democrats for finger pointing... while all you are doing is finger pointing? You have stated no point, no argument, nothing substantial, yet you feel entitled...
#2 It will be difficult to get a whole lot done with the current congress. Again, you can place blame all you want, but a subjective, non-partisan analysis is very simple: Two groups of people at very opposite ends of the hallway will not agree on much.
#3 In response to your witch hunt comment, not a single reason given for the beginning of this war has turned out to be factual. You can agree or disagree with the big picture, but regardless of where you stand, you are not allowed to intentionally deceive and misinform your own people to achieve political goals. It is certainly possible that many of you feel the "ends justified the means," and although I don't agree with it, you are entitled to your opinion. Just realize, however, that the "means" includes punishment for breaking the laws that were designed to prevent this behavior. You cannot cheer for a war that was _legally_ unfounded while ignoring the steps taken to get there. You've made your bed..... now lie in it. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25"what about hauling in every single congress member who voted for the war and saw the same evidence?"
This is how Orwellian Government works - the party in power rewrites history and persecutes those they oppose (even if the party in power agreed with them at one time)
"Meet the new boss, sames as the old boss" - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"I Can't wait to throw the Biggest Party I can afford on the ashes of this administration"
It will be about as much fun as the Biggest Party right wing-nuts threw on the ashes of the Clinton administration.
Washington is full of ashes but the only people that get the brown end of the stick are the American people.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Steamed Rice
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24"Democracy and USA are a oxymoron."
Good. You have obviously been paying attention in History class, because the USA isn't a Democracy, has never been a Democracy, and I pray never will be a Democracy. The USA is a Federal Republic. Thank God.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority. Democracy got us Hitler. Democracy is EVIL. The Founding Fathers knew this, and did everything in their power when drawing up our founding documents to make sure that the US WOULDN'T become a Democracy, because they knew how bad it could be. - DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18You are right 1randomguy, the USA is a republic, there is a big difference. Not that anyone realizes it anymore...
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15In the end, this administration will have only the creed of shredability.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@jetboyterp (#6358000)
Just because Congress gave Bush the power to use military force in Iraq (during a neo-McCarthy-esque period, if you recall, where anyone bucking anything the president said was labeled a terrorist) doesn't mean we can't expect - nay, insist - that the president use that power judiciously, responsibly, and as a last resort.
Before that vote, which Republicans like to call "The Vote For War," when it was simply a vote to give the president power to use military force in Iraq - the administration touted that Bush's simply wielding that power would be the aggressive stance that would get Saddam Hussein to comply with UN sanctions. Turned out that wasn't the case; this administration intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning. I recall quite a bit of warmongering in Bush's acceptance speech in early 2001. That was *before* 9/11, in case you don't have a calendar handy.
BTW, I *am* rooting for "our side." "Our side" being the side where we're not going around sticking our dicks in every pie in the world. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15since when is the house committee a court?
- mrmdc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22>This is another side show designed to prevent anything from getting done in the next 18 months.
With a president vetoing everything that congress does, did you really think anything would get done anyway?
The president does not represent the American people in any way at this point. The only reason congress hasn't impeached him yet is because there are still too many republicans in congress that are backing him. - the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I dugg you up but I'm not so sure that the next Administration will be any better - I get this strange feeling that "opposite-guys" will still be placed in positions of power. Maybe, maybe, someone will say "too much" but I think a lot of the people in Congress got a taste of what absolute power could be and they will never let that go.
- Rhodamine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Churchs!.....
.....Very small rocks?! - SavageBlackCat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15But it's not under oath. This must have been preceded by another nonbinding resolution.
- obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ slapout,
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Snopes did an article on your cut-and-paste piece. While those are all true quotes, all of those quotes were also taken out of context. Surprised? You may want to read the snopes article before spreading such nonsense further. - drimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9IMO, he is the only person that has been involved with the Bush Administration that has a shred of credibility.
- Steviebe21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The truth would be great thanks!
- Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If she is testifying before congress, do you still call that court?
- zelig, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19This is another side show designed to prevent anything from getting done in the next 18 months.
- spd998, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12BREAKING: Good.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Oh, so you were taking the sensationalist approach. Figures.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9
Now let's see...
"Those matters are covered by executive privilege," said State Department"
Now where have I heard THAT line before?! Oh yeah,Nixon! - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@lastvisibledog, that's a lot like the phone company with the smallest network claiming it has the fewest dropped calls. Hell, EntropyWireless has ZERO dropped calls, no customers either. And I've never once lied or not-remembered under oath, because I've never testified.
First, let's put BushCo actually under oath. And then let's see how many times they don't recall or perjure themselves. - ddales, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17She already got grilled and simply lied or said that she couldn't answer the questions due to national security. I expect pretty much the same reaction the next time.
- MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7good thing colin powell left early.
- BarneyF, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10She was originally head of the national security council. she was supposed to get Rumsfeld & Powell to agree on something (anything) but failed. Cheney was calling the shots and rummy is his man.
She's a permanent house guest of the bush's. She can play the piano very nicely. - hikaruzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"In the end, this administration will have only the creed of shredability."
That was clever. :p - cjhandley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5
That quote is an urban legend chain-mail. Stop repeating it, please. Pat Buchanan even used it in "Where the Right Went Wrong." I'm surprised he didn't cite outlook express. - Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To be more specific, the USA is a democratic republic. Yes, our representatives (republic) pass laws, etc. but the people vote on the representatives (democratic).
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7She's a ***** servant of the people, not of one political party.
She has a job to do and she ***** better well do it. - laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7To be fair, if you need nails pulled, she's your girl.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@FatherVic,
you're becoming quite irritating... - obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ lastvisibledog,
We're *just now* starting to get some of the folks from this administration under oath. Let's give it some time, shall we? - BarneyF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Powell probably could have stopped the invasion but didn't. Also, he lied as much as the rest of them. The only thing to be said for him is that he seems to actually have regrets, a conscience that's bothering him.
Dumb idea to let a General run the foreign policy. - ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Rome was not a democracy. Read a little. And it isn't a criminal offense to ignore congress. Get a life.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What does "is" mean?
- Steviebe21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't understand why you would think that is a good thing. Is it just because she's on "your team"? Does that mean you don't want the truth? I thought you guys were the ones with the whole "If you've got nothing to hide..." thing.
- slapout, on 10/12/2007, -16/+20Like these people?
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 - im469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@BarneyF Powel did try to stop them. He was adament against going to war just like he was after the first gulf war. Stating it would take too many boots on the ground and way too long to figure out how to run Iraq after the invasion.
The reason he made the speech at the UN was at the request of his boss, the president. Not because he was a believer in the war. He was the one who understood what would be needed, but alas they chased him out. - obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If Powell had never made the speech at the UN, he would have had a great career in politics.
- bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7
First, buried as inaccurate. This is not court.
A useless political stunt. She's already testified about this before. Nothing was found. Now they want to do it again. Nothing will be found. Repeat. Indeed, it's not about the truth, it's just the Democrats want to repeat their lies until everybody believes it. Joe Wilson? A proven liar.
No impeachments will occur. The Democrats know why - they agreed and indeed voted for everything the president moved forward with. -
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is