What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
5 Futuristic Applications that Are Here NOW view!
openforum.com - 5 up-and-coming applications - and how to turn them into daily tools
106 Comments
- NessTheHero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+110"Say I don't know again. I dare you, I DOUBLE DARE YOU ***** SAY I DON'T KNOW ONE MORE GOD DAMN TIME!"
- ViRaZ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52I was waiting for her to jump across the room, grab him by the balls and say "What do you really know bitch!"
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+46This is what I don't get: why don't you know?
It's a very simple series of questions:
1. Who created the list of attorneys to be fired?
2. Why was it decided to fire these attorneys?
3. What steps were taken to ensure that firing these attorneys would not interfere with ongoing investigations (such as ties to Abramoff or Cunningham, or investigations into voter suppression complaints)?
These should not be difficult questions - out of, what, 200 attorneys, 8 (now 9, it may turn out) were fired. OK - why? So far, all of the reasons given have been either lies or straight ***** (such as "Well, they didn't prosecute enough illegal alien cases", when a month before the attorney in question was praised for their prosecuting of illegal alien cases!).
If the cases were politically motivated (such as firing people who didn't prosecute democrats right before the 2006 elections), then there is a problem. If the cases were criminally motivated (such as firing people who were looking into who else had ties to Randy Cunningham), then there is a problem.
If it's not potically or criminally motivated, then it should be this hard to remember who made the list, why they were fired, and what steps were taken to do so. But just saying "Well, I don't remember, let's move on" certainly doesn't tell me Mr. Gonzales is either competitent enough or ethical enough to keep his job any longer. - diggerydood, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43I hope she gets to question Karl Rove.
- Winters, on 10/11/2007, -3/+38See you're thinking more along the lines that I have been since this started.
The fact that he "doesn't know" by itself should be enough to declare him incompetent to hold the job. - StantheBat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38>especially the bitch from LA. "The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They were fired. Period. End of Sentence. Go ***** yourself."
The President serves at the pleasure of the people. The 'bitch from L.A.' and other questioners are in the process of identifying abuses of power and attempts to subvert our democracy, which we should all despise. - walkingdogs, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31I hate this term but it's so fitting here: PWNED
- Thuktun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25"why is this not in the video section?"
Although I didn't submit it, which video topic would you have used? Animation, Comedy, Educational, Gaming, Music, or People? It doesn't really fit in any of those. - Satanael, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20It's good to think twice about the news you hear, but I don't think this is "blindly" being dugg... The guy is clearly clinging on to his job for dear life and feeding the congress as much ***** as he possibly can...
- eggo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18You know what would help jog his memory? Waterboarding. It's not torture, right guys? Given that it's an acceptable method of extracting information from an unwilling subject, he should have no objections, right?
- torgos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21I think we'd do better with a stoner as Attorney General. At least he'd have a valid reason for forgetting *****. And he might, you know...legalize it.
- rmock, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24You go, girl!
- toddcat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22pwned.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Actually, that's what should happen to people like Gonzo.
- ironrex, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13I Dont Know aint no country I ever heard of. Do they speak english in I Dont Know?
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16And this article aims at trying to stop Democrats from making criminals accountable. Pretty pathetic.... I see right through this...
Accountability sucks for Republicans, doesn't it? AWWWWWWWWWWWW.......
partisan magot - br0ck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10They passed the legislation they promised, now the laws just need to get through the senate and the president. (I think 4 have made it through). From the donkey's mouth: http://www.dccc.org/100hours/
- TheBogie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17She has more balls than most of the dems seem to.
The rest of them need to grow some sack and go after the folks who told Gonzo what to do.
If Mike Gravel was on that committee, he would make Gonzo crap himself.
Mike Gravel has a pair of high quality samurai steel balls. - pattherat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11The answer as to why he is answering in this manner (I don't remember, I'm not responsible for that, etc.).
Is because he is LYING. He remembers everything he says he has forgotten. But pleading memory loss cannot be contested.
So, yes he looks like an idiot saying he can't remember what amounts to something that happened 4 or 5 months ago, but he will keep his job for not letting the cat out of the bag in regards to the political motivation of letting these attorneys go; in favor of the party that appointmed him attorney general in the first place.
He can't be forced out. Only the president can fire him. And why would he? Do you think it will affect his approval ratings? Their already in the *****, a few more points mean nothing... - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10More like when you were your high-school football team's captain, and you cut 9 of your best players from the team because they were not members of your 'clique.' Then the coach is riding your ass to explain why your team is short 9 people, and all you can say is "I don't recall why I kicked those guys off the team."
- dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10gonzo looks like such a weasel
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Aside from that, *hiring* US attorneys with consideration to their political affiliation is illegal.
We know that they tracked potential US attorneys, and gave them extra consideration for being members of the Federalist Society.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/federalist-attorneys/
You see,
THAT'S ILLEGAL YOU MORON!!! - weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -1/+10This was not submitted to Videos because it is political news. In my opinion, the fact that it is a recording of an actual event (in politics) and not some lady smashing her car in a parking lot places this in the politics category, not the videos category.
- ljohnblaze, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Oh wow... She reminds me of my mom getting on my case for lying about something even though she didn't have proof but was 150% sure that I was lying about it (i.e. how porn got in my backpack on it's own). And I'm not sure if it's just coincidence that my mom's black too... But if it isn't just coincidence, then my next statement stands true: Educated black women know just how to talk to make you feel like ***** when you should feel like *****, and you WILL feel like ***** even if you haven't felt like ***** prior to their talking. So chances are you SHOULD feel like ***** you big dummy, and look at you now... getting chewed out by this ***** dealin' Congresswomen. I Love it. PWNED
I just wish she could say "You sir, Mr. Gonzalez, are PWNED!", once she was through with him. - defektiv, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12or maybe the house is finally realizing that the vocal minority does not represent the entire country. and maybe they want to find some truth where people have been hiding it for years. if anyone in the inner secret circle of the administration has nothing to hide, then there should be no question about the legitimacy of what congress is doing.. IT'S THEIR FREAKING JOB!!! (fyi, loyalty to the president because he says so and proves otherwise is NOT)
- farcast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Um...The Democratic Congress accomplished all their goals of the first 100 hours in the first couple days of the session. Next question?
- ATH025, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R70DFU1M6F8
- 1159, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Amazing. When presented with facts, you Bush apologists will either:
1. Claim Clinton did X
2. Outright deny any wrong doing because of the lack of proof, then decry congress investigating as a witch-hunt
You refuse to see any wrong-doing by members of your party, EVER, despite fact and common sense. Every incident is the Democrat Boogie-man coming to get you. I swear, if Bush or one of his cronies were videotaped shooting babies in the head, you all would claim the babies were Democrats or terrorists, and they deserved it. - Azio, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11"For Democrats, arguing loudly and preventing your opponant from being heard is part of the tactic."
Preventing your opponent from being heard? You ***** dumbass, Gonzales doesn't *want* to be heard. You Americans sure hate accountability. - Hoov, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11It's about friggin' time someone said it. Why doesn't anyone have any balls anymore? (no pun intended)
- Dadelus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@missinglink
"For Democrats, arguing loudly and preventing your opponent from being heard is part of the tactic. Observe this in action as this comment is Dugg down into obscurity!"
I have to say I agree with you but there is one problem. You seem to have typed "Democrats" when you meant to type "Bill O'Reilly". You may want to make sure you get that right next time. - Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"The President serves under the terms of the Constitution."
Congressional oversight is necessary to ensure that the Executive is serving under the terms of the Constitution and upholding the laws passed by Congress, hence these hearings. The DoJ telling Congress "it's none of your business" is not a sufficient answer, this was established in the Supreme Court case McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927, if not earlier. - meuge, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14@nessthehero
I couldn't help but hear your post be narrated by Samuel L Jackson... - Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"He can't be forced out. Only the president can fire him."
Cabinent members are impeachable.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm - stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@missinglink,
Have you convinced yourself? Doesn't look like it to me. Just admit it, you don't want these creeps held accountable for their crimes. You support corruption of the judicial system, as long as it's the GOP doing it. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The House hearing was much more boring than the Senate hearing. The highlight was actually Gonzo's argument that, not only does he not remember anything relevant, but he is *unable to find out* the answers, because that would "interfere with the ongoing investigation."
- sifupaul, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Remember this..."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"
- bsmang, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think it's funny (not to mention incredibly ridiculous) that the news for at at least a couple of weeks before his questioning was all about how he's spending all his time studying up and getting prepared to face the questions that congress will ask him about the firings. Maybe Bush bought him a 2-week binge over at the DC Madame's place and told him to make sure he remembers that he doesn't remember anything.
- ipodsweatshop, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8You don't understand because you don't work for a man who talks directly to God, everyone else must be wrong....
- Winters, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@pattherat
See the thing is that everyone already KNOWS he's lying, but have to proceed as if he's telling the truth. Even if it's really 100% true that he just doesn't know, he's still not fit to have his job. - gdm9000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"mwayne" - is that you, Gonzo?
- angrykeyboarder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@diggerydood (#6620362) said: "I hope she gets to question Karl Rove."
That would rock. Rove is a manipulative evil ass. - Satanael, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Nothing like an angry black woman to get down to business and get ***** done.
- vvvvvvv, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7He should be on Dancing With The Stars.. thats all he does
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4In his senate hearing, he was asked a question that caused him to give the following answer: "I dont...I don't recall recalling..." Does that count as stumbling?
- ironrex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Its a double edged sword that this whole thing is taking so long. To me it should an in and out case. Either he knew about it and let it go or ordered it, in which case he should be fired for politisizing the justice system (Those attorneys serve me, not the president, I pay their salaries). Or, if he didn't know anything about it (likely story), he should be fired for incompetence as others in this thread have suggested.
The only good thing about this taking so long is that this guy's suffering is prolonged. Getting grilled out one times sucks enough, this guy keeps having to go back for repeats. He's probably one of the most stressed out guys on the planet right now. - stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@Thuktun,
I would have submitted it to Bush's someday Presimental Library. Maybe we should start one here.... hard to keep track of all the scandals. - mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8"Reasons!? We ain't got no reasons. We don't need no reasons! I don't have to tell you any stinking reasons!!"
- montek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I can't help but think that would be a better response than this "I don't recall" approach. It might not be the one we want to hear (at least me), but at least it would be accurate.
- GravitySpec, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@sifupaul
Great selection from the Declaration of Independence... particularly that last part...
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security" -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
