What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
The Cruise Industry's Deep Secret view!
howlifeworks.com - What happens to all the unsold cabins and the web service gives you access to them at up to 70% off
80 Comments
- Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+71Wow, just wow....
"It may not be popular with the puplic, it doesn't matter, we are doing what we think is right."
So much for "serving the American people"..... - shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Are people really under the delusion that this Republican party serves anybody but big business?
All of these sheep at the rallies for GOP candidates (esp. when Bush is speaking) are sad people that do NOT pay attention to the issues and day-to-day policy. If they do and they still support this version of the Republican party then they have some sort of Stockholm Sydrome going down. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Yeah. Translation:
"We don't care what the press thinks. We don't care what other politicians think. We don't care what the American public thinks. We don't care what the generals think. We don't care what the soldiers think. We don't care what the soldier's families think. We don't care what the world thinks. We don't care about the consequences. We don't give a damn about anything or anyone. We don't have to run again. We'll do what WE want."
I hate the way he moves his head all fast like that. Sickening. Pure arrogance. - sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28For reference, this is the Vanity Fair article they are talking about: http://digg.com/politics/Neoconservatives_Perle_and_Adelman_We_shouldn_t_have_invaded_Iraq
- bloomanchoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30It was somewhat satisfying to watch Cheney when the word "incompetent" was being lobbed at him.
- PixelNurse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Wow, now that is strong stuff. The man flat-out says it doesn't matter what the public think because they (Bush + Cheney) are not running for office. The conclusion being that once in power they do whatever they want. It's not really surprising, I mean we know that's the truth of it, but for him to so blatantly admit it, and seem proud of it is incredible.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24is it just me, or does cheney always look like he's on the cusp of snapping. it's like his whole attitude when being interviewed is, who the hell do you think you are questioning me?
- prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I blame those of you that were stupid enough to vote for a couple of jackasses looking for world domination.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24[excerpted clip]
george steph: .. and your administration is being called inept and corrupt.
vp cheney: george, you little weasel, do you know i could snatch out your heart?
vp cheney: and then, sit right here and eat it, in front of you, on camera.
george steph: sir?
vp cheney: and there's not a damn thing you or anyone else could do about it ..
george steph: [speechless]
vp cheney: ahrrrgh! [rips heart from steph] - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19He looked pissed. Adelman and Perle threw him under a bus.
- zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Democrats should run this every time Cheney opens his mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY
Dick Cheney in 1991 on "quagmire": "The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and uh uhh somehow take control of the country strikes me as as an extremely uh serious one in terms of uh what we'd have to do once we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of uh the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq uh strikes me as a uh classic definition of a quagmire." - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'm really starting to get confused on the importance of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and all those philosophers who detailed the ideals of Democracy. If these guys are the zenith of America's representation, then what does that have to say on the credibility of these frameworks of Democracy? I think it's time to cast aside these documents and follow the leaders that know what they're doing.
/Dick Cheney Speak off.
Never thought I'd hear when the public in a Democracy doesn't matter. - LilBoyLuver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Ignorant is believing John Kerry was talking about the troops.
- bongo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Watching Cheney's face when George said that was the only redeeming factor for that interview. Nothing Cheney said amounted to a hill o' beans.
- LOLDOORS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Ted Haggard must come over to the white house, and "throw out" his meth on Cheney's desk.
- raz3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12He doesn't just look that way, he really does snap. Haven't you heard about his foul-mouth tirades?
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12No, his job is to uphold the Constitution.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9true and i agree to a point, but there is a point when you have to listen to experience and what the people on the ground are asking for.. aka not the people but the generals. And despite the labeling of "flip flop" as bad, a true sign of intelligence is being able to change your views when you are wrong.
So while you dont run gov by referendum, you also cant expect to continuously make the same mistakes over and over and not be called to task for it. - McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think this video pretty much sums everything up...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr5tx0lcyQc
It's worth 4 minutes of your time... - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As far as I can tell you've had the reigns of congress, the supreme court and the executive the last few years.
There is no one else to blame but yourselves. - PixelNurse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I can only speak for myself, but I find it utterly implausible that 'liberals' or democrats hope the coalition fails in Iraq, for that to be true it would mean that liberals and democrats hope that lots of people die on both sides and continue to do so. Just because you disagree with liberals and democrats you shouldn't attempt to paint them as genocidal maniacs, it's hardly a mature way to engage in the debate.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"There is no doubt in my mind that most liberals are willing to tolerate many deaths of US soldiers to advance their political ideology."
Is that a joke or are you insane? What you accuse the liberals of is exactly what these neo-con wignut clowns have been doing for the last several years: Sacrificing the brave men and women that honor us with their service to further their own political ideology and line their pockets with war profits.
I suspect that it's not insanity or humor... you're just another jingoistic idiot who takes his talking points from Rush and Bill and can't think for him/her-self. - mediatrips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The Executive Branch may lead the country but they don't rule the land. They are permitted to lead as long as they don't break their covenant with the people that elected them. I'm talking about their base (not all voters obviously). If Bush's base leaves him he can be censured. He would, in effect, be a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency.
- tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8canyonclimber.
Liberals want to WIN the war. Unlike you republicans who just wanted to fill the provisional authority with loyal brownshirts with no experience in Iraq.
Liberals want to WIN the war. Unlike you republicans who forced the early retirement of the head of the Joint Chief of Staff when he dared to disagree on troop strength with a man (Donald Numbskull Rumsfeld) who had NO military experience.
Liberals want to WIN the war. Unlike you republicans who handed NO BID contracts to the company of the Vice President. namely Halliburton.
Liberals actually know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Unlike Bush, who had to have it explained to him AFTER he invaded Iraq.
Liberals AND Conservatives KNEW not to invade Iraq. See Bush Sr. who refused to roll into Baghdad when he could have during the first gulf war. Why? Becuase there are 3 different ethnic/religious factions in Iraq. Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. An invasion would result in civil war with each group wanting its own territory. And the surrounding countries like Turkey with a Kurd population WOULD NOT WANT THAT. as it would destabilize their own countries as their kurds would want to unify with the Iraqi Kurds to form a country.
Liberals would NOT have outsourced trapping Bin Laden in Tora Bora to the Pashtoon and Pakistanis. They would have put AMERICAN boots on the ground to get him. Neo con fundamentalist asshats such as yourself would just be happy with getting Saddam and getting big contracts for your friends.
Read that a few thousand times till it sinks in you arrogant MORON. You know nothing about the region or its people.
Why did the neocons take their eye off the ball and fight a 2 front war? Why not stay in Afghanistan and wipe out the taleban. Pursue them into Pakistan and wipe them out? Bring in competant people and REBUILD Afghanistan? Stabilize the country?
9/11 was a DISTRACTION for the BUSH team and their pre-existing STUPID plans to invade Iraq. Bush, Cheny, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice et al had a hard on to invade Iraq at all costs. They still lust after Iran and its OIL as well.
Why hasn't getting Bin Laden and Zawahiri been a priority? Saddam was their own creature, he just made the mistake of threatening to put a hit on Bush Sr., pissing off Bush Jr. That fit in nicely with the bone headed goals of PNAC. Why did we allow the Bin Ladens and Saudis to fly out of the country right after 9/11?
Your MORAL leaders like Limbaugh and Haggard are DRUG Addicts. Haggard is busy having GAY sex along with his METH and Limbaugh is busy having sex outside of marriage. True MORAL christians.
You and your kind are so full of hypocritical ***** your eyes must be brown. - DrinkingNyquil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I am glad the Bush Administration refuses to be bullied by liberals."
Bullied by liberals? Judging by the latests poll numbers that show only 34% approve of how Bush is handling Iraq vs 64% who disapprove, it's looking like they are being bullied by a majority of Americans. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6New catch phase: "Full speed ahead!"
Our objective is clear: Victory in Iraq. I'm assuming the parameters for victory in Iraq are as well-defined as those in the War on Terrorism and Drugs. - smashedcrackpot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It is not about agreeing with the neocons but about pointing out their spinelessness. Cowards like Cheney and Bush (see: war, Vietnem) would be playing the same game, if they hadn't staked the entire presidency on the outcome of the war.
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If the mission is worthwhile, the people will see that and support it. I think the folly is to assume that a small group of people have more wisdom than the other 300 million. If the leadership thinks we're all wrong, then they need to give us FACTS to support their view rather than opinions and lies. If we change our minds and agree with them, so be it, but at present it seems we don't believe a word they say whether fact, lie, or opinion, so perhaps it's time they stop trying to convince us and start obeying us.
The job of the executive branch is to carry out the orders given to it by the people, not to tell the people what the orders are. And it's abundantly clear that the order we the people have given them is to get us the hell out of Iraq. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Given that Rumsfeld and Cheney served in Nixon's administration, this is not surprsing.
- mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@tekmonkey: No. His job is to enforce the laws created by congress. The role of the president is purposely weak, as the framers of the constitution were themselves privvy to seeing what an over-agressive executive can do. Until Teddy Roosevelt's bully pulpit, the presidency was never seen as a position from which one can exert influence and push an agenda.
In modern terms, the president should be congress's bitch: enforcing it's laws and asking permission to do anything. Yes, in war, he is commander-in-cheif... but this title only means he makes the final call, not that his opinion is the only one that matters!
So again, the president's job is to do what CONGRESS thinks is best for the people, not what the PRESIDENT thinks is best for the people. Congress makes laws (legislative), President upholds those laws by executing them (executive). - senorBojangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Watching the video and reading some of the comments here have made me sick to my stomach.
Can Republicans seriously believe that the current administration represents their views and be proud of that?
Why when they are questioned, do they resort to name calling like "liberal", cut and run...?
Isn't America more "purple" than red vs. blue?
Aren't politicians that put party before country committing treason?
I gotta throw up. - sanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Heh, Perle and Adelman were like Rosenkrantz & Guildenstern, trying to press the Bush gang into invading Iraq. Hell, I'd even compare them to Lady MacBeth, in the sense that they put this cockamame idea into Bush's head, and now they've bailed out, leaving MacBush to plod on grimly to the bitter end. Sometimes I really have to pity gullible, simple-minded Texas idiots.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"No, his job is to uphold the Constitution," not decimate it like he's been doing.
- thepaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Cheney is right about the vote on Tuesday having no effect on the President's policy in Iraq.
that's because you actually have to HAVE a policy for something to effect it.
Cheney keeps saying the policy is victory in Iraq, ummm, didn't the President announce that on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier a couple of years ago. You know, when he declared "Mission Accomplished". - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Pixel: Not to be snarky, but you're just noticing this is their style now? They can't win using logic or facts. They only win through lies and distortions, that is their only hope.
Most conservatives do not have a consistent base of principles to provide a foundation for their views. Their views change depending on the subject because they are reacting emotionally to each stimulus on its own. Ever notice that conservatives are about "respecting life" and "the sanctity of human life" when talking about abortion, stem cell research, or the right to die, but when you talk about the death penalty or torture there isn't a peep from them about those principles? Fetuses and grandmas are warm and fuzzy so we should protect them, murderers and terror suspects aren't so *****'em. How about when it comes to taxes? They say that Americans know best how to spend their money and the government can't make better spending decisions than them. But wait! Now when it comes to euthanasia, even you aren't qualified to make decisions about whether you continue to live or not. The government can't figure out how to spend your money, but they damn sure know what kind of life is best for you. Notice how they're for States' rights when they think it will allow states to draft laws making abortions more difficult, or reducing welfare, education, or other social programs? Yes, States' rights are good right? Well, not when a state filled with wacky communists like California uses those rights to place limits in CO2 emissions from cars. Suddenly states' rights are terrible because it creates a patchwork of regulations that is bad for business.
How about the special prosecutor that the Republican Congress kept on board for five years investigating a $25,000 land deal (yes, that's twenty five thousand) in Whitewater, but they have only voted to block investigations of domestic spying, billions worth of fraud by contractors in Iraq, and even initially to block investigation into 9/11.
All of this seems crazy until you realize that they just don't have principles. They are for whatever benefits them right at this moment. That's why their policies don't work. Sure you borrow a few billion and throw it into the economy and it looks good for a while, but only for a while. - PixelNurse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5While I'm sure you're correct that there will be a fair amount of 'I told you so' going on when we (the coalition) inevitably fail, if I as a liberal had a choice? I would choose for it to be a success. I dearly would love to be wrong about it having been a mistake, I mean that.
- Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9True incompetency is not being able to put these people out of office two years ago.
- tsteele93, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, mediatrips is correct. If the Dems take control over congress, Bush will be very limited in what he can do. That may be the ticket from here out, whichever party has a president in office, we should strive to vote the other party in control of congress. This creates a situation on both sides where compromise MUST be excercised or nothing gets done.
- PixelNurse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I think you're right about that, the problem here seems to not be so much about the administration not following every whim of the public, but more about them not even being prepared to fully discuss and debate the issues raised by the public. Sadly this exact issue is mirrored here in the UK too with Tony Blair using pretty much the same rhetoric in the face of overwhelming opposition.
- rmmcclay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That is AWEsome, McShaken...
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unless the Congressional Leadership is in Bed with the President and his Multinational Corporation War Profiteering buddies.
- slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No kidding! Watch his heaving breaths. He's perfectly aware of the fact that at that exact moment he is watching his own downfall. The jig is up.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow - echoes of the Vietname era - McNamara, Johnson, et al.
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Well, Dickie Cheney! You look like someone just walked all over your grave!"
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4*****, I'd settle for having them serve big business. We're serving Israel by way of PNAC, AIPAC, and neocons in general.
These people have nothing in common with fiscally conservative, non-interventionist, small-government Republicans, and they have wrecked a GOP that could have been dominant for decades. - minox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't think that liberals want the US to lose in Iraq, but I do think that the war has been overly politicized and used to the party's favor. In that sense, bad news in Iraq means good news for the Democrats. I think this can be seen in part in this coming election. In reality Iraq is a big issue, but these candidates are really local officials who have more say in domestic policy than foreign policy, so in some ways using Iraq as the main issue is a bit ridiculous.
- Toloran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And, once again, Dick Cheney lives up to his name.
- tucsonwc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah we'll be crying for the state of the US if the republicans stay in power to do more ruin to our nation.
And by the way from the looks of things it is the Republicans who are REALLY engaging in circle jerks these days isn't it?
Would you like some Meth with your gay se^h^H^H "massage"? Oh Holy Warrior? - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still want to know why Bush even bothered to announce Cheney and Rumsfeld would be staying. Even among republicans they have pathetic approval ratings. Cheney has 0 chance of running for president in 08, Rumsfeld even less. So what is the point of showing confidence in them? The only thing I can think of, is that Bush knows he's going to be universally hated by the time he leaves office and he wants to set up himself as a strawman for whoever the repubs run in 08. Basically make himself and his cabinet so reviled that the next repub can say "I'm going to clean up Bush's mess".
It seems like a pretty weak strategy to me. Figuring the next repub is going to have to play to the right wing base and convince them he's not a sick and twisted freak. All the while, the head freak is making everyone in his party look worse. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I still want to know why Bush even bothered to announce Cheney and Rumsfeld would be staying. "
Because that's what Cheney and Rumsfeld told him to say. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
