digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Gore: "Bush Has Repeatedly Violated The Law For Six Years"

abcnews.go.com — While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -37/+303Maybe Gore really is too smart to be President. I remember in 2000 some were decrying him as "too intellectual" and now I can see what they meant. How very ***** sad that one can be too smart to be President of the US.
  • DiggUmFrog, on 10/11/2007, -44/+24Gore. As much as i dont like bush i still dont like gore. as a matter of fact i dislike all politicians cause they are all con artists.
    • mthode, on 10/11/2007, -37/+13but gore isn't a very good con artist. This allows us to tell when he lies (like Pinocchio).
    • enki25, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Good. Stay home on election day. Leave Democracy to the adults.
  • DiggerDoombot, on 10/11/2007, -23/+120What a nice presidency that would be. To have a president that writes books verses one that can barely read them.
    • joshua5, on 10/11/2007, -14/+110The President doesn't trust books, they're full of facts. He goes with his gut.
    • stevebee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're believing your own propaganda now.
      Bush was a fighter pilot.
  • truthnetworks, on 10/11/2007, -28/+4http://youtube.com/watch?v=-6SYeVUC21c
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=-6SYeVUC21c

    YEA! Check this guy out he knows whats up!
  • Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -108/+22Sounds like Al Gore is still bitter over Florida 2000...Al you lost, you lost in every recount, you lost over all, get over it.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+44Yeah, that's obviously what this is about.
      /sarc
    • netdawg, on 10/11/2007, -16/+45Hey moron, did you even read the article?
    • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1really dumb..... 5th grade, maybe?
    • enki25, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Even though your comment is dumb because it's irrelevant, it's also dumb because it's wrong. The Supreme Court stopped the last recount.
  • tierpinho, on 10/11/2007, -56/+3Gore is a hack just like Bush... they both are taking goig to end up at the same place, just with different routes. Don't be fooled becaue Gore says the Earth is going to melt and calls Bush a failure. Of course he is a failure and loser! That is a given! Support a candite who actually wants to bring change and restore the Republic, eg Ron Paul. Gore's role is global warming is to institute a carbon tax and everyone. I am not saying the global warming is a myth, I am just saying it isn't such a crisis as his movie makes it out to be. Do some research of your home and gets both sides before you blindly support this man. They want to be left or right so your mind stays inside the little box and stops thinking outside the box. Look at the big picture and you will discover that Gore is a coporate elistist like the rest of them.. just look at his holdings in companies that benefit from the global warming crisis.
    • KingMoses, on 10/11/2007, -30/+10It's worse than that. "The world is going to end unless we do X" is such a good excuse for pushing any policy you want to push, if he can get everybody buying into it like he's had much success doing, it's a nice and easy road towards steering the government in an even more totalitarian direction.

      A government that's powerful enough to save us all from global warming is powerful enough to do a whole lot of other things, too. People forget that when you make the government bigger and stronger, you've made the government bigger and stronger.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -16/+15@kingmoses

      You correctly point out that Libertarianism cannot deal with scenarios like Global Warming.

      Now if only you would think about it a little bit harder.
    • KingMoses, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7You want the government to deal with issues the way China deals with overpopulation.

      I'd rather freedom, thanks.
    • enki25, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Hey give me the research you've done at your home that contradicts the consensus of every peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm a little bored and I could use a good laugh. Illustrations would be great!
  • tierpinho, on 10/11/2007, -42/+2Gore is a hack just like Bush... they both are going to end up at the same place, just by taking different routes. Don't be fooled because Gore says the Earth is going to melt and calls Bush a failure. Of course he is a failure and loser! That is a given! Support a canidate who actually wants to bring change and restore the Republic, eg., Ron Paul. Gore's role is global warming is to institute a carbon tax and burdon those who can;t afford it. I am not saying the global warming is a myth, I am just saying it isn't such a crisis as his movie makes it out to be. Do some research of your own and gets both sides before you blindly support this man. They want to be left or right so your mind stays inside their little box and so you stop thinking outside the box. Look at the big picture and you will discover that Gore is a corporate elitist like the rest of them. Just look at his holdings in companies that benefit from the global warming crisis.
  • mandarin, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3Submitter sure has some obsession with Malkin...LOL...
  • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -73/+14gore sure has come a long way since he invented the internet
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -15/+45@mikesbaker (#6825467)

      Apparently, you've been living under a rock. That charge was debunked 10 years ago. Please crawl back under and try again in another 10, when it might be funny.
    • drburgos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually anyone who has actually done research on that comment would know that Gore was instrumental in getting the internet up and running. There was even a hearing in which many of the engineers actually responsible for the first years of the internet claimed that Gore was definitely one of the main forces behind making the internet a reality. Learn to read.
  • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -26/+12Very unlikely scenario for Gore to win the nomination. Once a guy gets the stink of loser on him its hard to come back. Fortunately for Gore it was a close election. Last one to lose an Presidential election and then win the office was Nixon.

    Any historians out there? who else has done this in history?

    • swordphish, on 10/11/2007, -16/+90Am I the only one who noticed that the entire world pretty much went to ***** after Bush was elected, and remained that way for his entire term in office?
    • Platypus3333, on 10/11/2007, -12/+41Though this is true, Gore lost under fairly unique circumstances such that, in the eyes of many people, he arguably won.
    • bigspruce, on 10/11/2007, -10/+64@edebolt
      "Last one to lose an Presidential election and then win the office was Nixon. "

      No. The last one to lose a Presidential election and then take the office was GW Bush.
      Does anyone else feel like they live in a banana republic (and I don't mean the clothing store)?
    • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -19/+8fair is fair but Gore did not win in Florida in 2000. Every news agency and university sent auditors down there to recount and the potential story of the century evaporated. Gore lost by about 100k votes. Thank you Ralph Nadar who got those 100k votes.
    • ralphie81, on 10/11/2007, -26/+13@ swordphish

      Wow, is your life really that bad? What happened to you since 2000 that you have to blame Bush for? The entire world went to *****? hmm...so nobody was poor while Clinton was in office? No one was fighting? Please...get rid of whatever is blinding you from the truth and you'll see that the world ain't much better or worse now than it was 8 years ago. People that are poor now were probably poor then too, countries that are mad at each other now were probably mad at each other then (remember, Clinton bombed Iraq too...not like they just all of a sudden turned bad once another Bush took the helm). As for America, the only major bad things that happened were 9/11 and Katrina. Gee, no wonder the far left loves to blame Bush for those.
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12ralphie - my life has become worse. Bush has been so horrible that I can't even remember the petty things that used to concern me before he came along. I have a great deal of shame that I have to deal with thanks to Bush and his actions. When someone comes along and forces you to even consider questioning your own love for your own country, it's a bad thing. When people go from being proud to be an American to being embarrassed to admit it, that's a bad thing. It's bad for the psyche. Sure, all the presidents that we've had in my lifetime have done things I've disagreed with, but prior to George, they haven't gone so far as to embarrass me to my core and to make me far less safe than I ever was before. Sure, maybe 9/11 was plotted and planned through much of Clinton's presidency - but big deal, Bush has killed and maimed and downright disgraced a hell of a lot more of our own people than 9/11 ever did - and if you think we're safer now (or in any way 'better off') with George running things, then you need to proceed to your nearest mental institution and admit yourself promptly.
  • WanderLink, on 10/11/2007, -16/+39Why the ***** havn't those pussy democrats in the Senate impeached that bastard yet? What more do they need?!
    • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -8/+32lack of votes. Need 2/3 of senate to pass.
    • WanderLink, on 10/11/2007, -11/+41If the Republicans can impeach Clinton for lying about having sex in his office and blow it up like the Apocalypse I think the Democrats can easily get Bush into trouble.
    • VinceVolker, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13Why? Well, it's american politics. Neither of the two polarities are clean. They both have dirty laundry, and far worse some of these corrupt politicians swore an oath to their secret societies to never let your fellow man down. Clinton, Bush, etc.. All belong to the same socieities. Infront of the cameras, in public, etc.. they all wage war against each other, just to mislead the public and show them that they have options in life. When the truth is far more fictitious. People have no longer control over their country. Behind the closed doors, in the Bilderberg, and Carlyle meetings, they plan the economic, future of the world. In its entirety. So forget about making a difference, the worse kind of governments are those who rob us blindly. I would perfer one corrupt politician for a lifetime than, 100! that way atleast i know that only one of them is getting it all.

      This is the NWO. Common people such as you and me no longer rule our countries, or decide who is in power. It's all decided by money, corporations, religious factions, and worse of all, those who believe they are entitled to everything.
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7>>Why the ***** havn't those pussy democrats in the Senate impeached that bastard yet?

      Why impeach Bush when you can use him? Dems want pork, Bush wants guns.

      Bush will comprimise in order to conduct his war and the Dems will bring home the bacon.
    • TheSmitty, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3impeach on what grounds?
    • 69sofine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The House of Reps has to pass articles of impeachment before the Senate can do anything.
  • Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -24/+11Quick question....Did Al Gore violate the law when he and Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998? Did Al Gore and Bill Clinton violate the law when they declared that it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam from power?
  • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9Aren't you supposed to pretend that the emperor is fully dressed?

    NOT ANY MORE.
  • Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -19/+14Speaking of blood on your hands...read the first chapter of the 9/11 commission report.

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

    It was Al Gore's system (CAPPS) that red flagged half of the 9/11 hijackers, and it was Al Gore's procedures that allowed them to board the planes anyway.
  • fesceptor2, on 10/11/2007, -23/+7Bush Sucks.

    No one will impeach him. Despite 99% disapproval rating. Why?

    The Democrats have far more to gain by hanging in there.
    • dev0null, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8If what fesceptor is saying is true, then the recently-empowered Democrats:

      a) Are opportunistic
      b) Aren't following the will of the people
      c) Lack integrity, backbone
      or d) All of the above

      They're squandering the opportunity to carry through due process. Are they doing "the right thing"? If they aren't maybe they've lowered themselves to their enemy incarnate, W. Bush?

      Maybe we need a third party.
    • CDHarrisUSF, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Here's a thought:

      We don't need ANY parties. We need to vote for candidates based on their qualifications... not their affiliations.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9"...Despite 99% disapproval rating..."

      Pulling things out of your ass may be fun, but it doesn't help your argument. His real disapproval rating is bad enough.
    • dev0null, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@CDHarris: "We don't need ANY parties."

      That works for me too.
    • theone3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No no no no no no no.. We need parties because it provides people with the ability to stereotype themselves and their beliefs without questioning them - that is, it allows people to not think. Americans have perfected the art of not thinking - it's probably the nation's greatest stregnth. Forcing people to actually think about politics would be catastrophic. Can you imagine?!
  • OrganicDrew, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7HR 4752 look it up on Google you will be shaking in your pants! , i doubt we will have an election if the patriot act 2 is combined with this monstrosity of a bill
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Yeah, if the terrorists manage to strike again on any significant scale before 2008, we're royally ROYALLY screwed.

      Like many Americans, I sincerely hope with all my heart that we never see another major terrorist attack in our homeland, but if we do, then I sure as hell hope it doesn't happen while the wanna-be-dictator Bush is still in office.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@bsmang (#6829660)
      Bush's newest directive doesn't require a terrorist strike for him to assume control. The language is written such that only a "significant disruption in government services" would be enough. In other words, all he needs to do is call in a nuclear or bioterror threat on Washington DC, evacuate the city, and he's got the keys to the kingdom for as long as he wants.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1OrganicDrew: " HR 4752 look it up on Google you will be shaking in your pants! , i doubt we will have an election if the patriot act 2 is combined with this monstrosity of a bill"


      HR 4752 was a stupid bill created by Democrat Charles Rangel (no co-signers) in an attempt to make Bush look bad (this is a bill to bring back the draft) - it is dead. Even Rangel would not act to get it out of committee.
  • derekknight, on 10/11/2007, -8/+43Thank you, Mr. Gore! I'm so glad he's bringing relevant issues to the forefront.

    I for one am sickened when I see non-stop coverage of Paris Hilton going to jail when 71 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan this month alone. What the hell is wrong with this country?
    • shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13The people of the United States simply aren't visually aware of what is going on. Do we see daily images of men women and children being shot in the streets? Do we get to see pictures of the caskets our soldiers are returning in? This war has been so sanitized that most of this country has no idea, or even really cares what is going on over there.

      Blame the media blackout.
    • kiltederic1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I wish I could digg you twice.
    • flink405, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Yeah, and 200 died in traffic accidents, 100s of murders in the streets across the U.S., brutal gang violence in our cities, drug use is growing but everyone ignores those problems and concentrates on Paris Hilton and wars.
  • MackPrime, on 10/11/2007, -16/+17I HAVE RIDDEN THE MOON WORM
    • endlessoul, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9Oh, come on.

      No one watched Futurama? As a matter of fact, the episode that quote was from had a clip of a global warming film that Al Gore liked so much, he put it in An Inconvenient Truth.

      Digg him up.
    • underthelinux, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Oh, i would have dugg it but i was too busy reading the more popular "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth".
  • Lylepalooza, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11I have to say, I like Americans and America in general, what's not to like?

    But seriously, the USA is going to have to pull some absolutely spectacular rabbit out of its habit to get out of the hole the current administration has put it in.
  • gravtex, on 10/11/2007, -12/+31I'm not a democrat, but I still can't believe how we got stuck with Bush - FOR EIGHT FRIGGIN' YEARS!!!
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5xeno - you must've meant 'morTality' instead of 'morality'...
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3You can safely ignore xen0. He's so contemptuous of anyone with intelligence that he delights in showing his ass as a debate tactic.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Jim - OH BUT CLINTON! Christ. Quit repeating tired rhetoric. Did Clinton dig this country into billions of dollars in debt? Did Clinton let Israel and Palestine slide? At least under Clinton I had enough government loans to attend college. Now it's back to the old "only the rich deserve an education."
    • stevebee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Really. I disagree.
      When I watched those towers crashing down on Sept 11, all I could think was:
      Thank god Gore didn't get elected.

      Remember, it was him and Clinton who allowed the stinking jihadists to attack us over and over again in the nineties. They did almost nothing. That's why Sandy Berger went to the archives and stole documents last year. To cover up Clinton and GOre's lack of activity.
  • bigspruce, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20In the article, it says that Bush and Cheney must have been either "gullible or too dishonest".

    I think we got one of each - guess which is which!
  • cp101, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3Why is this ***** news? People have been saying this for the past ***** six years, a lot of people, not just Gore, ***** you for thinking this is new.
    • Keach, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3***** you for saying ***** you for thinking this is new.
  • BlackStormBT, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Does this remind anyone else of Prison Break and how the government is portrayed in the episodes? Seems both have close similarities to the topics and comments discussed here. Its actually a little scary.
  • LnghrnEngineer, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9I think gore is just still pissed off that he lost.
    • ChrisGranger, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11I think millions of Americans are too. :P
    • atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11And other millions of people in the world.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I think we're all just pissed that he DIDN'T.
  • ChrisGranger, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18As a Canadian, it boggles my mind that Clinton was impeached for having an affair and Bush hasn't been, even when he makes end run around the Constitution when it suits him; illegal wiretaps, misleading people to war against Saddam's Iraq in spite of al-Qaeda being behind 9/11, atrocious handling of Katrina, etc.. I literally wonder just what he'd have to do to get impeached... kill puppies on live TV?
    • flink405, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14None of the things you listed regarding Bush are impeachable offenses - wasn´t Clinton was impeached for lying under oath? That is a crime. Not the sex he was having in the White House.

      You all need to educate yourself on what impeachment is all about.
    • P5ycHo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Are you actually implying that bush didn't lie in teh past several years?
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6P5 - no he's implying that Bush hasn't lied under oath... But... ***** 'under oath'... What's important is what is being lied about! But nobody seems to care about that. There's one false bonus -- if the religion of Bush and his supporters were true, then they'd at least burn in hell for a nice eternity or so when they die.
    • TheSmitty, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2As a Canadian you clearly do not know what you are talking about. End run around the constitution? LOL
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Shouldn't lieing during the State of the Union address count? How about going to war under false pretenses?
  • lopla, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5How can Bush break the law when he is above the law? The law does not apply to Bush, it never has and never will so Gore's point is moot. Like I've said before, Bush could be filmed and witnessed raping a class of pre-schoolers and not a single thing would happen to him. For the record I will also state that there will certainly be NO 2008 election. Bush now has everything in place for martial law and WILL launch a tactical nuclear assault on the USA. Once this happens martial law will be in place and the elections will be void. America is over.
    • saranagati, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I've always thought bush finding a way to remain in office after 2008 was just paranoia. I mean i'm sure he wants to but i really think that would be the final straw (maybe the only one we really needed?) before the people revolted. It just occurred to me though if we really were attacked by some of these 'terrorists' who 'hate our freedom' before the election, this probably would cause bush to declare marshal law and delay the election. There would still be a sense in many people to revolt (I probably still would) which could put us into either a civil war or revolution. In effect the 'terrorists' would have finished completing there goal.
    • jellygraph, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6I don't know if Bush will do this... seems like a big risk to take. I'd imagine they will simply manipulate the system and elections further... its more practical to do everything subtly, than do something so dramatic, because people will be more likely to respond to something like that. if you subvert the system quietly, even if you are caught, the public at large will either just accept it or argue about it (like the good old "blame clinton deferense", etc) until they get sick of it and life will go on...

      but, fukkit, at this rate, anything is possible with these criminals in power
    • hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Tinfoil much?
    • ethnicman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Bush is behind the nuclear bombs in Jericho.
  • flink405, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Watch your back Hillary, the Gorecal is coming after you!
    Al can´t stand Hillary Clinton & vice-versa so this will be a real cat fight!
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5'Gorecal' must be Freeper-speak.

      It reeks of something that the unwashed think is funny.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Proof that Gore does not like Clinton?
  • morsosky, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5glad hes speaking out too; that ***** bush administration called Jimmy Carter 'increasingly irrelevant' after he spoke out against them last week. cant wait to hear what they say now those bitches.
  • Robopath, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8You don't have to wear a seat belt while on private property in Texas. . . He is on his ranch!
  • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2What is sad is this: Bush has no bloody shame. The whole country cannot stand the bastard, yet he doesn't have the balls to resign. Same for Cheney.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You don't need people to like you in order to bleed their pocketbooks dry.
  • smek2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Gore: "Bush Has Repeatedly Violated The Law For Six Years" — wow, that's news. We need action, not more tough talk. Where's a Snake Plissken when you need him?
  • cappslite, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5MAN-BEAR-PIG?
  • rhinohelix, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4That's right. When Al Gore violated the law, there was "no controlling legal authority". Now the Bush Administration has a political tin ear but they have done nothing to even compare to the corruption of the Clinton administration. Hell, even Al Gore was sane before he joined it.
  • Anachronus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Indeed Gore could be the second coming of Woodrow Wilson.

  • stealthboy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Ok, I know this has no place on liberal Digg, but can someone please outline the exact laws Bush has violated that would then lead to an impeachment? Seriously, I know you all cry for impeachment, but can you please explain the exact offenses? Oh, and not just your opinions, but actual U.S. code law. Thanks.
    • dylansbeard1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9none, this site is such a ***** joke. history doesn't matter to liberals before 2000. this is a typical left wing media site, all the comments Against a left wing position is dug down so that no one reads it, just like the national media.
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2We don't really know all the exact offenses. But we have some of them, and we have the end result. I'm certainly no lawyer... But we know he lied to congress to start a ***** war to kill thousands of our service members and guide billions of our tax dollars toward his and his buddies' pockets - there has to be something illegal about that. And there's the illegal wiretapping and who knows what other spying on Americans. That's illegal. And I'm sure lots of his 'signing statements' could be found to lack a proper legal basis. And those are just a few that we know about... I'm sure some serious criminal investigations would turn up plenty more - if they could happen and could access the information they need.

      But I guess he never really got under oath and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" - so I guess it's all good, eh? I am all for impeachment, but in light of the notion that it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, the next best hope we have is that in 2008, we'll elect a decent and respectable person who has some sense of patriotism for their country and some sense of responsibility for their actions and the wellbeing of the people. And with any luck, that person will devise a way to revoke the then-former-president's SS detail.
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2dylan... It's not so directly tied to left or right. It has to do with people who wish they could get back the same amount of respect for their own country as they had in the past. People who wish they could at least respect the goddamned president of their own country. I certainly WISH I could respect George. And I REALLY don't give a flying ***** if he's a lefty or a righty or a republican or democrat or whatever. If he wasn't such an evil, greedy, self-centered and stupid son of a bitch, I would respect him. If the worst thing he did was get a blowjob and deny it under oath, I could still respect him. Unfortunately, I guess it does, after the fact, bleed over into 'left or right' and 'democrat or republican' simply because so many 'righties' and 'republicans' DO respect him and ONLY because he carries the same tags they do. Apparently for most republicans, all one has to do is claim to be a republican and they get the key to the city. I for one would rail against him every bit as hard if he were a democrat or a lefty and everything else happened the same.
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Digg might as well be Kuro5hin politially, so much for balanced viewpoints...

      "We don't really know all the exact offenses..."
      BAHT VEE VILL FIND DEM ALL!

      "But we know he lied to congress..."
      Oh do we? Since when does, not having 20/20 hindsight vision constitute lying? I know you folks feel better when you say it, but it's just not true. There is an obvious difference of knowing based on current intelligence.

      "And there's the illegal wiretapping and who knows what other spying on Americans. That's illegal."
      No, not when you make it legal. And if he wants to personally listen in on Habib's plans to commit a terrorist act on our soil, I say, let him do it.

      "And I'm sure lots of his 'signing statements' could be found to lack a proper legal basis."
      Believe me, after all this time, with the press up the Left's ass, if they haven't found any evidence of this sort of thing yet - they never will.

      "But I guess he never really got under oath and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman!" - so I guess it's all good, eh?"
      So... Having sex with an intern and actually lying about it is ok with you? Impeachable? Maybe not. Ethical, give me a break. Stop hiding!

      "I am all for impeachment, but in light of the notion that it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon," ...and it's not...

      "...the next best hope we have is that in 2008, we'll elect a decent and respectable person who has some sense of patriotism for their country and some sense of responsibility for their actions and the well being of the people. And with any luck, that person will devise a way to revoke the then-former-president's SS detail."
      With any luck, our next president will continue to be vigilant with these terrorist bastards and do something about border security, illegal immigration, and have a sound fiscal policy. Those last items should be the real concerns with G.W.
    • bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3chordonblue - "Continue to be vigilant against these terrorist bastards" ????

      Ok, I can write off most of your replies as simply nose-in-ass syndrome, but that one? How many of these "terrorist bastards" were in Iraq prior to us turning it into their personal training camp? I could argue the ***** out of that one, but ... sensible people reading this don't need me to, and unsensible ones won't be moved by it anyway, so why bother.
    • stevebee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They can't. And there will be no impeachment for "lying" cause then the truth, that the Dems were insisting that Saddam had WMD back in 1998 would come out.
  • anthonyk28, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7"by mikesbaker:
    gore sure has come a long way since he invented the internet"

    "by EntropyMan:
    ...That charge was debunked 10 years ago. Please crawl back under and try again in another 10, when it might be funny."

    By me:
    EntropyMan needs to get a sense of humour. Anyone who actually cares to know what Gore said can find it easily on the web. Anyone who doesn't will either find it funny for any number of reasons or not because of any number of other reasons.

    You, however, find it offensive to your sensibilities because of an entirely different set of reasons too assinine for me to speculate on. Either way, someone needs to teach you that just because you've heard the chicken-crossing-the-road joke, doesn't mean I have. And you don't speak for everyone.

    Jackass.
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6The only sense of humor the Left has is sarcasm about the Right. Just try and tell a joke - any joke - that's not actually mocking G.W. or some other conservative figure to a lot of these types and you're met with derision here. Seriously, you guys need to get over yourselves. It's funny! :)
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@anthonyk28 (#6828117)

      I wouldn't leave it to a conservative to judge humor. Simply put, a joke repeated 10,000 times is not funny, even if it was funny once, except perhaps to kids. A joke that was based on an intentional misinterpretation of someone's comments wasn't even funny in the first place.

      For the record, what Gore said is that he was that he was the lawmaker most responsible for helping the internet come to be, from a federal, not technological perspective. And his comments have been backed up by the very technologists who built the internet. That's why it's not funny -- because it's the opposite of true.

      Humor requires some semblance of truth to be funny. Or don't they teach that in Conservative Funny School?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6EntropyMan: For the record, what Gore said is that he was that he was the lawmaker most responsible for helping the internet come to be, from a federal, not technological perspective."

      You are making up "facts" - you are spinning to defend your man. (and you are not telling the truth)

      This is what Al Gore actually said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (that is a DIRECT QUOTE - it is not paraphrased or spun) This happened on CNN's "Late Edition" show on March 9, 1999.

      Spin all you want - that is actually what he said. Spinning is easy because everybody including Gore knows he did not invent the internet or did he take the initiative in creating the Internet. Clue: the ARPANET started in 1969, IP was created in 1973, TCP/IP came together in 1978, ARPANET was being used by the DOD in 1975, the term "Internet" was created in 1974, ARPANET was connected to machines outside the US in 1974, CERN (European Internet) was using TCP/IP in 1984 - Al Gore ENTERED congress in 1985 - no matter if he thought he invented the Internet or was "the lawmaker most responsible for helping the internet come to be" he was still lying - nuff said.

      To quote the move "Stripes" - "Dat's da facts, Jack!"
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@lastvisibledog (#6830351)

      To repeat the quote: "...took the initiative in creating the Internet..."

      You're the only one using the word "invent." Find that word anywhere. Go ahead. And then tell me who's "spinning."

      You're lying, pure and simple. Gore never said he invented the internet or anything else. "Taking the initiative in creating the internet" is completely accurate, and only means "inventing" if you intentionally misinterpret it.

      Again, even the actual inventors of the internet defend Gore on this. He is a legislator, and for him, "taking the initiative to create" something means _passing_a_law_ to make it happen. Gore never said anything about inventing. You're full of *****.

      And this debate is 10 years old. If you don't get it by now, you never will. Return to your rock.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2EntropyMan: "You're the only one using the word "invent."

      I am the only person in the world that even made reference to the "Gore invented the Internet" statement - yeah. right. First of all - the joke is on Gore - he had diarrhea of the mouth on CNN and he made a silly untrue claim - the term "invent" is part of the joke - and the joke is on Gore. EntropyMan, get your Mom to buy you a dictionary.

      Invent - to originate or create (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)
      Al Gore: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

      I presented the actually quote (what Al Gore actually said) - you statements are spin-job paraphrase wishful-thinking nonsense. You are the one spinning - I presented the facts.


      EntropyMan: "You're lying, pure and simple. Gore never said he invented the internet or anything else."

      I never claimed Gore said he invented the Internet - Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" which is not true (the Internet was created long before Al Gore was in congress.


      EntropyMan: "Taking the initiative in creating the internet" is completely accurate, and only means "inventing" if you intentionally misinterpret it."

      No it is not true. The Internet was created many years before Al Gore was in congress. This is a cold hard fact and I am sorry it makes you unhappy. Al Gore could not create something that existed many years before he was in congress.


      EntropyMan: "Again, even the actual inventors of the internet defend Gore on this"

      *****. The guy that wrote Mosaic Browser credited High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (a bill Gore actually did do) with getting him a grant so he could create his browser - this is not considered the "creation of the internet". Gore did good things related to funding computing projects but he did not take the "initiative in creating the internet" (the Internet was created many years before Gore was in congress). Nobody says Al Gore did nothing - but he let his bragging get the best of him and made a very stupid statement.


      EntropyMan: "He is a legislator, and for him, "taking the initiative to create" something means _passing_a_law_ to make it happen."

      First of all - one Senator cannot pass a law. The Internet was created many years before Gore was a legislator so Gore could not take the initiative to create something that already existed. He helped expand the Internet but he did not take the initial in creating the Internet.

      Get a clue and try again.


      EntropyMan: "And this debate is 10 years old.."

      You can't get anything right can you? Gore made the "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" in 1999 - that was 8 years ago - dim wit.
  • nickbgsu, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Gore wants political discourse to move to the Internet because he has a monopoly on it as sole inventor.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@nickbgsu (#6828229)
      You're an idiot. See the above discussion to (possibly) understand why.
  • bil4l, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6Yeah, Al Gore is smart. First he invents the internet, which was AMAZING! Then he manipulates all the Wild Oats going douchebag leftists into actually believing that driving a piece of ***** 78 HP hybrid will change the climate of the earth. Meanwhile he's using 20 times the national average in electricity and has a smooth 3 monitor set up in his office (real practical and energy efficient). "Too smart to be president"...give me a *****' break.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@bil4l (#6828281)

      Ditto my previous comment. Where do you people come from?
  • TheSmitty, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Gore too smart to be president? Gore is a puffed up fool who accomplished nothing worthy on his own and stood on shoulders of Clinton (which who needs to figure out what the definition of 'is is). I finding simply hilarious that so many libs keep crying and whining that the election was stolen from them... wahhh, wahhh. You lost, you suck, see ya.
  • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Oh and BTW,

    Michelle Malkin Is An Idiot - But Then You Already Knew That

    http://www.michellemalkinisanidiot.com/
  • Nlewis4, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6Anything Gore says is crap. yeah global warming. hows your mansion that uses 20 times the national power consumption average?
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Yeah - digg him down you ***** idiots. While you're at it, keep conserving energy so our rich political elite can use the rest. It stings, I know, but stop ***** yourselves about this. Gore flies all over the planet in SUV's of the air and his mansion should have it's own wind farm, and you dare digg down someone for pointing it out?

      You left-wing nut-jobs always talk about how the right is so hypocritical, then you have the temerity to do everything you can to silence the very oppositional viewpoints you claim are part of the process. So go ahead, put your headphones back on and digg me down too.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4The Digg Democrat Children (the DDC) just love drinking the kool-aid - but unlike Jim Jones, Gore is not joining in the festivities - Gore just flies around the world in his private jet or sits in one of his many mansions while burning twenty times the carbon-based energy as an average American. Drink up children, the Kool-aid is extra-fine today.
  • mannyv, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3

    So he's just like, say, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara, and the Committee for Public Safety?

    • stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Really,

      Can you back that up and then tell us about those people you listed, because your point of view is soooo extreme, I think your explanation would expose your true lack of intellect even more. But hey, give a try.... I dare you.
  • chickengeorge, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4More Bush bashing on Digg. Typical. If Bush was eligible for impeachment then why doesn't Congress begin a serious impeachment process?
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6The quick and dirty answer is: Because the Dems have no other message than 'Hate Bush'. What happened to those first 100 days since the Left took over Congress? I thought the grass was supposed to greener, the sky bluer, and everyone happy all the time. At the very least, you'd figure they could pass a bill or two once in a while.

      As far as I can tell they haven't gotten ***** done. They 'work' on putting out useless pork-laden bills that they know won't be signed by the president and that they have no overriding majority for. They 'work' to suspend the rules so that anyone not a Democrat cannot debate. Campaign finance reform was backburnered. The war rages on, and even Moveon.org is pissed at their inaction over it.

      In spite of their, 'Let's all work together in a non-partisan way' *****, the reality is that they are trying to shut down any opposition - any DISCUSSION - and that's not going to work either.

      In short, they talked a lot of ***** about 'cleaning house' before they came in but I don't see it - and neither do the rest of America not up Pelosi's ass.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The Democrat Congress has accomplished one thing - they have a lower approval rating than Bush. That takes hard work and diligence.
    • st1nkf1nger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@lastvisabledog:

      Funniest thing I have seen all day..

      DIGG 4 U!
  • Jammer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Al Gore is a douchebag and is just spewing sour grapes. The man never got over his election loss and obviously dwells on it each and every day. Buried as lame.
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Your brand of willful ignorance is the reason America has lost its place as the world's premier superpower.

      Al Gore had his fairly-won election stolen from him and you're pleased about it.

      You're beneath contempt.
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4@laserblazer:

      You poor bastard. You seem lost. Let me put it to you in Gore's own words:

      "He played on your fears..."

      Gore and his type laugh at you - don't kid yourself.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4I know the Goreacle is infalliable on matters of global warming. Does this apply to non-environmental law as well?
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Is there no idiocy you won't stoop to?
    • Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3It might as well since there's the same level of actual, concrete, comparative evidence.
  • evanmyers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm in your countriez, breakin your lawz!
  • timothy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Who cares what Gore thinks?!?! I know he "invented the Internet" and all. Buried as lame.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Gore was partner to only president that had been impeached in modern time. nuff said.

    Clinton and Gore's incompetence is the face of numerous terrorist attacks in America or to American interests gave us 9/11. This is no different than Carter trying to hand off his title of "worst president ever"

    This is pathetic. Republicans are clueless, Democrats are morons and there are STILL Americans drinking their Kool-aid
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1manbearpig is better than bush. But i would rather see edwards win the election
    • mikeyeah, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2As long as I'm not drinking whatever the ***** you are, I'll be fine. If Clinton was still President, Bin Laden would be dead or captured by now. Now get back to watching Faux News.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1mikeyeah: "As long as I'm not drinking whatever the ***** you are, I'll be fine. If Clinton was still President, Bin Laden would be dead or captured by now."

      The same Bill Clinton that decided not to get Bin Laden in Sudan when we know exactly where he was and what he was doing - this action alone could have prevented 9/11? Is this the same Bill Clinton that turned tail and ran at the first sign of trouble in Somalia when Bin Laden assisted forces stood their ground - Bin Laden himself said this is when he knew America was a paper tiger and he started the plans for 9/11. You live is a very weird fantasyland.
  • wabbitman1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Hey Al, 30 grand for your electric bill last year?
    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3His electric bill might be 30 grand a year. However what if with all his money he ends up actually causing more good than harm. That still seems like a worthy cause to me.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Jesus, do you all even bother to check your arguments? His bill was so high because he actually pays for clean energy credits. So yeah, the bill's gonna be huge, but only because he is putting his money where his mouth is.
    • mcraigw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
      So it is okay to pollute, as long as you have money to pay for it...
  • GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I hope Al Gore gets a fatal disease. Now I would like you to listen to my well thought out point about why he would be a bad president.

    See how foolish that sounds? And I'm not being nearly as brutal as the Bush haters.
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I hope he gets ate by the manbearpig.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.