What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
129 Comments
- soulshope, on 10/12/2007, -14/+138it couldn't come too soon , i want to see the wheels come off and the engine fall apart to this administration of deceit, denial and propaganda.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+88I still recall the outpouring of international support when the twin towers fell. I don't think we'll ever be able to regain the connection we had to the rest of the world on that day.
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62Makes you sad and angry at the same time, doesn't it?
- Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Let the wheels come off and things grind to a halt.
I'd rather this country goes nowhere for the next two years.
It'd be better than where we're headed now... - toddcat, on 10/12/2007, -13/+48All these damn crooks. Hell ain't hot enuff....
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30These are the eight attorneys that got sacked for not playing ball. I wonder how many others are still doing their job because they _did_ play ball?
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43> Naive little sheep
Sorry, If you can’t see 911 conspiracy theorists for what they are, I’ll have to spell it out…
They the children of the “self esteem generation” … they all grew up feeling special, important, and most importantly: smart. However, reality came crashing in, and most of these people, like everyone else grew up to be spectacularly average.
The 9/11 conspiracy movement is simply a product of the internal conflict between this desire to be special and smarter, while acknowledging the averages of one’s life… In other words, it is *only they* who are able to see the *truth* while everyone else are “sheep”. This allows them to again be “special” because they are able to “see through the lies”
This is why these people so vehemently attack those who debunk their theories… 9/11 theorists aren’t interested in “truth”, they are interested in justifying their own feelings of self-importance, of being special. Those who attack 9/11 theories are attacking their very sustaining purpose in life: the fact that *they alone* are special - dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30At this point I don't care how many stars this bandwagon got for government impact ratings, it's going to make a huge splosion.
And I'd sit back and watch and laugh, but unfortunately I'm one of the millions right in the midst of the coming shockwave. - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24The more I hear about this Admin., the more I long for simpler times - Watergate.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Are the democrats taking notes?
Because here's 8 replacement US attorneys you need to fire, and 8 ex-US-attorneys you need to reinstate, after the election 2008. - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Guliani will not become President.
Guaranteed. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22The most heinous thing here is the fact that Bush can appoint successors indefinitey without approval from the senate thanks to a clause in the patriot act which protects (Bush's) freedoms.
TFA states that they are trying to undo this:
The hearing, which is scheduled for Tuesday, March 6 at 2:00 pm, will consider a bill by Congressman Howard Berman that would reverse a new provision in the USA PATRIOT Act allowing the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors through the end of the Bush Administration without Senate confirmation.
I love democracy. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Difference is, back then all of his appointments had to go before the senate. But with the latest provisions in the patriot act, this is no longer the case, they stay 'indefinitely' with no such checks and balances. I can only imagine what Newt Gingrich would have said if Clinton had that kind of corruption of power.
- Methodius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17As geronimo said above, the problem is Bush won't have to run his appointees past the senate. I don't see why you're dragging Clinton into this. If you hate Clinton as much as it seems like you do, then why aren't you pissed that Bush is doing the same thing? Is it because this one's on your side? If you have a problem with the practice, then that should hold regardless of party lines.
I don't have a problem with the practice itself, but I do take issue with the fact that this president isn't subject to the same checks and balances that others were. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Looks like there's a full moon tonight.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Eventually, what goes around comes around. And personally, I'm glad to see karma's finally coming to town with a baseball bat.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Guess what? These 8 were appointed by Bush when he first started.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"i want to see the wheels come off and the engine fall apart to this administration of deceit, denial and propaganda."
I also wanna see the radio stop working, the interior destroyed with a bleach balloon, and the seat belts all twisted up into that really ***** annoying position to where each time you put it on, it's not at all straight and it kinda pisses you off inside and you wonder, "no how the ***** did THAT HAPPEN?" - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11a great story explaining the recent US Attorney firings in detail, i actually read reports on this months ago, but can't find them at the moment
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/28/attorneys/ - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -16/+27Go back to your room. The adults are talking.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Funny you should mention that. One of the things that got Nixon in hot water was firing U.S. Attorneys he didn't like during Watergate. It was called the "Saturday Night Massacre."
All this lacks is a pithy name. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It gets worse.
If I remember correctly, at least 2 of these attorney's were instrumental in convicting Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and were going after indictments of more of his co-conspirators.
Amazingly, for some reason, the Bush administration decided that they needed to be replaced (even though they're cleaning up corruption and got good marks on their reviews).
Now, the FBI cases against more Cunningham buddies that might result in more convictions, a cleaning up in government, and perhaps even get to some of the major players has been severely damaged as new prosecutors have to come up to speed (and, hopefully, have the same level of commitment to justice regardless of political party line).
Somehow, the fact that they were probably hired just for the purpose of retarding these investigations makes me feel otherwise. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Come back when you can type like an adult.
- mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10You really have to live in the dirt and eat out of garbage cans for a while before you become a true believer. Our government wasn't stupid like the Nazi's were. Our government built prisons without bars.
You'd better recite properly, or else! - TheShadowKnows, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The other difference here is that these attorneys weren't just fired because the ball changed hands, or that (thanks to *%#! Arlen Specter) their replacements don't have to meet any standards whatsoever other than they kiss real good (IYKWIM), but that some of these attorneys were fired *as a way of stopping investigations into criminal conduct* - in particular, the criminal corruption of Republicans in Congress and the Administration.
So it's not just firing attorneys to replace them with attorneys friendlier to the party in power. It's firing U.S. Attorneys as part of an obstruction of justice - and the obstruction clearly is run by the White House.
This is a BFD. It's a direct violation of the Presidential Oath of Office. (Not that that's new with this Administration, sadly.) - KoderOne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Somehow I think if there would be some kind of 911-Conspiracy, all you tinfoil-hats and conspiracy-freaks are part of it. If you value information by it's source you surely cannot take any of this serious. And that makes you a little more deaf to other, more plausible theories.
Why is it, that many of you americans (sorry for the generalization) simply cannot think critically and still have commonsense at the same time? - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You're funny, broomette.
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's funny @SupaFupa shows that the title of this story inaccurate.
FTA - The claim was that "The wheels seem to be coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense "
NOT "Bush Administration's "Wheels Coming Off""
And he got dugg down.
Way to spread your crap around @GKorff, you purposefully changed the meaning and pretty much everyone bought it. - mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I wonder if the backlash will result in a Grand Jury hearing the case for violations of 18 USC 371 for Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ thefirelane
I will be the first to tell you that these buildings could have very easily collapsed..... in due time... if these fires had burned at their maximum efficiency or anywhere near maximum for several hours.
Their structures could have easily failed.
But you are saying that two structures
with two completely unique patterns of structural damage.
With two unarguably distinct fire spreads.... locations and intensity.
Clearly inefficient fires creating heavily sooted dark smoke
In around an hours time fell in EXACTLY the same manner.... relatively straight down into their own footprint at near free fall speeds passing directly through the path of most resistance. Somehow creating instant visual evidence of pulverized concrete. A complete and symmetrical catastrophic failure of all structural elements of this building.... damaged and undamaged.
Should I include all the other characteristics of a conventional controlled demolition which this collapse / implosion resembled?
These collapses if not aided by a controlled demolition would have met resistance at some point as they fell and either:
1. caused the falling structure and debris to topple sideways into the streets and other buildings leaving much of the lower part of the structure still standing.
2. caused the upper portion of the falling structure to be impeded thus halting the collapse leaving the lower portion of the structure mostly intact.
3. slowed the fall of the falling debris at the very least 100% causing the time of the total collapse to double.
Without question .....at the very minimum..... in at least one of the THREE collapses that day.
Please argue this...... I DARE YOU! - morphkons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Let's see if I've got the facts here.
1. All eight (so far) of the fired US Atty.s were Bush II appointees.
2. Prior to their being fired no one was suggesting that they were doing anything but exemplary work.
Republican Congressman "Duke" Cunningham had been convicted (actually pled guilty in tears)
to serious corruption charges brought by one of the attorneys fired an is now in a federal prison.
3. Some, if not all, had ongoing investigations into executive/legislative branch corruption.
4. No one is suggesting that any of the replacements (who will not require senate confirmation)
are anywhere near the caliber of the people they will be replacing.
If this doesn't constitute an impeachable offense what would? - enki25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Many Presidents fire us attorneys at the beginning of their administrations. It is unprecedented for so many to be fired in the middle of an administration.
- Favre4Favre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder when the indictments for perjury will come down, after they cant find any laws were broken.
When are you going to call for an investigation into Jefferson's $90,000 IN THE FREEZER? - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. But will the dems do it is the question. I don't see it happening. What I DO see happening is a whole lot of taxpayer money being spent on investigations. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind spending it on the investigations, IF they are going to take action on their findings.
- YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Rome survived idiots like Caligula (who made his winning racehorse a senator) - hopefully we can survive our idiot.
- Favre4Favre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No kaeryn, he just used presidential pardons for that.
- faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Got wiki's view, and wow! What a way to scratch each others back, huh? Seems like there is no end to this *****.
- roprot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Even worse .. google "Franklin Coverup", and you'll see that many of the people these Attorneys were investigating were also involved in a child slave ring that goes deep into the current Administration ..
But whats the difference .. its not like the public don't just ignore all this crap .. - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OOPS! Thought she was talking to me...
- Favre4Favre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There is now, its called Carbon Trading and its coming to a city near you. The best scheme since Enron and the Oil for Food!!
- morphkons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2WHEN DO THESE APPOINTMENTS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE SENATE????????
Well... the president used to have 120 DAYS, now he has till the end of his term. Then by God, the senate better approve them or the incoming president will have have to appoint some new ones.
turdinmypocket, you are so typical of the people who support this administration - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, kaeryn, I guess you must think you know it all. Most idiots do, you know. I won't argue my party affiliation with you. You couldn't hear me over the crickets in your head anyway.
- Guitarsenal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Why is it, that many of you Americans (sorry for the generalization) simply cannot think critically and still have commonsense at the same time?"
Fluoride in the water supply? - Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5If you still honestly buy the official conspiracy theory (you know, that tinfoil-hat fringe-lunatic whackjob theory that a gang of arabs defeated NORAD three times in one day, including an attack on the most highly defended airspace on the planet - the Pentagon - using boxcutters, and that two 1300+ foot tall towers collapsed within 13 seconds each into dust without the use of demolition explosives), you fit one or more of the following descriptions:
1. Uninformed (Dependent on the corporate controlled media to spoonfeed your opinions to you).
2. Ignorant (The type of person who isn't concerned about anything unless they stand to gain from it).
3. Simpleminded (Unable to differentiate your ass from your elbow, let alone think for yourself). - thentro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2using CAPS LOCK makes you sound about 75% MORE CRAZY then you do NORMALLY.
or in your words:
YOU will need to be shown that you MUST UNDERSTAND that your [caps lock] DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES. - nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. Way to whine and hate. Nice.
- morphkons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
@faskippy
Excuse me??
What do Democrats have to do with this. We're talking about Republican US Attys investigating Republican corruption being fired by a Republican President to keep the investigations from being completed. What part of this don't you understand - RexRed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, they call it a university these days... with highly esteemed professors like "Ward Churchill" and daffy duck.
- Favre4Favre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its a crock, if they really thought we were all going to die in ten years like they say why not just call for mandatory cuts? I don't think you can bribe global warming but that is what they are trying to do. resembles the Catholic church in the middle ages where you could just pay to have your sins absolved.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is