What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
58 Comments
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -2/+47“a little bit of a non-story” >>>> TRANSLATION>>>>> "we REALLY need to stop this before it gets momentum"
- ideaofprogress, on 10/11/2007, -0/+32It's just a little bit of treason. No biggie.
- coryvb123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19If EVER there was a reason to start a HUGE investigation on Cheney.... this is IT! With all the Halliburton deals flying around, and the war in Iraq..... give me a break. If Cheney wasn't doing anything wrong, then why act is this ridiculous manner? This is outright contempt. It's outrageous!
- Gadren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19No, Clinton's BJ was "a non-issue," but that didn't stop you neo-cons from picking at the scab endlessly. Having both the President and the VP ignoring the rule of law and evading accountability ... that is in no way a "non-issue."
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12jtsnyc...just another fascist-enabling sheep.
- thedarkrabbit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Come on people... He is the Devil... Why are we still surprised by this *****?
- Davede70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Americans are so stupid they don't get how serious this is. Cheney and Bush are trying to turn this country into a dictatorship and Americans just sit by and read about when Paris Hilton will be released.
If we ever have a time in America where we face repeated terrorist attacks on our own soil and a Republican like Cheney is in office, they will surely move us towards a dictatorship.
1984 was a warning. - brister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Once again this administration spits on the constitution.
- bradym80, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9They know nobody is going to stop them.
- friend18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Angel of Death
- bobzibub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@liberalPlacebo
Scooter, is that you? I never thought they'd give you access to digg from jail. Must have got that Martha Stewart suite you asked for then. So why did you spill those CIA undercover beans anyway? Was it for crass political gain? Shame shame! - dougbell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5...and...
If he's not part of the Executive Branch as his office asserts, he can not claim Executive Privilege. Let the subpoenas fly. - JamesWilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Anyone want to take a guess how many times Bush and Co have committed treason?
- spxiii, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"Four legs good! Two legs bad!"
- coryvb123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Are you serious? What Cheney is doing is the awful.
And if you don't like anyone at Digg.... why are you here? Why make your life worse by associating with people you don't like? Go someplace else - davecor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be overjoyed by this kind of news.
A lame-duck millionaire who has nothing to lose in the headlines instead of policies or Republican candidates.
Watch for the White House to put out even more bait like this! - m2313, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That just means you better have some firearms when they come for you
- miketrin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4dug down for pdf. ... just kidding, ffing pdf.
You do realize that according to homeland insecurity anyone that signs up for the kick them all out will be considered terrorist? - spurtle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Good. When a Democrat pulls the same *****, then what? This is bad for the country no matter what side of the political spectrum you are in.
- Davede70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If the president and the vice-president need exemption from oversight then the terrorists have one because they have forced us to create a government without checks and balances, which is also called a dictatorship. Perhaps if what they were hiding wasn't so amazingly unAmerican and unconstitutional it wouldn't get leaked.
By the way. It was a Republican in the Bush White House who leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent AND the name of her cover business putting other agents and missions in jeopardy. - Hobofuzz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I woudn't say the left wing has been frothing at the mouth by any stretch of the mind... It's more like asleep at the wheel.
The right wing has balls but no shame, the left wing has shame but no balls. We're screwed either way. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6TPOCS, while I agree with you and support your cause...will you PLEASE stop spamming your link on EVERY DAMNED POLITICAL STORY?!?
- howiehedd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Of course its a "non-story"
Just like the gutting of the Constitution....
Move along....
.... Nothing to see here.... - HinDeSky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If Clinton had done this or any of the other countless evil things Bush and his cronies do, the right wing fanatics would be frothing at the mouth in anger.
- m2313, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Cheap shot? Hell we don't even have to try. They have commited treason and broken the laws of the Constitution so many tims it's not even interesting when they do anymore. And I think it's time a few bullets flew in their direction/
- sabach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Pelosi is just another Republicrat, they're all a bunch of ex-lawyers. Ah, for the old days when politicians were farmers who considered politics an unwelcome interruption in their business lives.
- Dgen_X, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I only have the 10 fingers and 10 toes of my entire neighborhood to count with....so I don't think I'll be able to
- evilregis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I hate to sound flip or crass, but why are these stories "news" anymore? This administration has been thumbing its nose at the law for years. And what has been done? The populace votes them back in.
You know what will be news? When the public (or ANYONE for that matter) ***** DOES something about it and holds these thieves and criminals accountable. When that happens, please submit the story. I'll be happy to digg it. - FredoBerfil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ah, situational law and ethics. Gotta love it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You know, other coutries laugh at we Americans. Our "political spectrum" is so narrow compared to the REAL political spectrum that foreign visitors have trouble seeing the difference between the left and the right in America.
- coryvb123, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Hey, if you don't like the comment system, take your bitching someplace else. This article has nothing to do with the comment system. GET OVER IT.
- rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe they have misjudged
- sabach, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2OK, you're literally correct. But that means 36% were farmers, soldiers & business owners. What do you think that percentage is now? And how is it better?
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Dana Perino: "PAY NO ATTENTION..TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!"
- HallsOfMandos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I would love to hear your defense for this blatantly illegal stance that the White House is taking. *straps in*
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've perused that site a bit. It looks to me like your entire plan involves me sending you money and voting against all incumbents. Somehow this is supposed to result in the congress becoming so shaken up as to edit the 14th amendment with the result that corporate lobbyists are removed from Washington. There are a few things I don't quite understand though.
1. Exactly how would you use the money you ask us to send you?
2. Since the voting machines are rigged, how do you suggest we successfully vote for or against anyone?
3. Why is it realistic to expect congresspeople to care more about the possibility of themselves being voted out than losing the billions of dollars they get from corporate lobbyists?
4. You state that if the 14th amendments didn't say "persons" than it would give corporations the same rights as people. I'm not a legal expert, but that doesn't sound entirely convincing to me, aren't there plenty of other laws and rulings that have defined corporations as people, (many more directly), which would need to be changed? And further, even if the "corporate person" status was removed, wouldn't laws still need to be passed specifically to prohibit corporate lobbyists? Couldn't those laws be passed without a need for altering the 14th? - Novion76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1disgusting
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Are you even trying to know what you're talking about? There are proportionally fewer lawyers in Congress now. Currently 56 of 100 senators have legal backgrounds. That means 44% are farmers, soldiers, business owners, and otherwise not lawyers. In the 109th Congress (the one before the current 110th), 170 Representatives out of 435 and 58 Senators out of 100 had law degrees-- that's 61% and 42% non-lawyers respectively, or about 57% non-lawyers combined.
I know talk radio told you to hate lawyers, but this is a nation of law, and lawyers are people who study and practice law. They're the mechanics of society.
(edit: did I just reply to myself instead of you? This new comment system blows.) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Lier lier, pants on fire...... with cancer.........
- AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not that I'm a Bush supporter by ANY stretch of the imagination, but it can't be contempt of Congress if it's an Executive Order.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, if only people with agricultural degrees were writing the laws instead of people with law degrees. Lawyers are eeeviiil.
You know that golden age never happened, right? 35 of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were lawyers. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I love it when she doesn't answer one of the questions because "I'm not a scholar". The reporter really should have followed that up with "Ok, so what you're saying is that you are not qualified to answer questions the media might ask about the Vice President's actions. So why are you doing it?"
- bromac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How about you?
Wait...you just said you'd Digg a story about someone doing something. Bravo! Way to take action!
"Will someone else PLEASE do something?!?!" - gernblansted, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There is frothing at the mouth? Maybe I live in a different world than you, but I see very little froth compared to, say, the froth that covered the nation when Bill Clinton lied about his private sex life. Man, now THAT is a crime worth frothing about
Forget about that little illegitimate Iraq war thing, you know, lying to get us into an war which cannot be won, and exposing national security networks which insures that foreign nationals will no longer step forward to hand sensitive information to the CIA, and signing statements that say "I sign this into law, but this law doesn't count, 'cause I seds so. Nuculer. Nuculer. Nuculer.", and now "yah, I signed that executive order, but I didn't mean what I signed, so I'll purtend it dudent exist!". Oh and I really like the "I'm the VP, not part of the executive branch, because the constitution says that I occasionally can cast a vote in the senate. I'm an undeclared branch unto myself!".
Froth? I'm still watching the news, reading papers, listening for the same conversations about how bad all this is - like the one's I heard when Bill had oral sex, but I'm just not hearing anything or seeing froth.
Except in little discussion groups like this. Wow - now this group is JUST as important as, say, most of America.
Ha. - evilregis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm not an American. So your attempt at putting the onus back onto me falls flat.
- sabach, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes you did but that's OK. It does blow but I'm starting to get used to it.
Piss on talk radio, the last talk radio I listened to was Art Bell back in the '90s.
Obviously you must be a student of political science, I can't imagine how you'd have those statistics at your fingertips otherwise. And probably involved in the legal profession judging by your reaction. I believe the statistics you present, you don't strike me as a ***** and I'll take your word on it. Me, I'm a simple engineer with no interest in politics, but I do work in municipal government. I concede that I misspoke, but only slightly. I will rephrase my statement thusly..."they're all a bunch of career politicians". I think that captures my gripe better anyway. But the rest stands. I wanted to address your statement re: "mechanics of society" further, my feelings on the subject are clear but I want to make sure my statements are coherent and well thought out.
This is, by the way, a genuinely satisfying discussion. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And another attempt to gloss over MORE corruption by the Bush regime by a sad little rightard.
- sabach, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Yeah, you must be a hippie, pinko, fag, left-wing comment seeker. ;) (See pogfreak below)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"the right wing fanatics would be frothing at the mouth in anger"
You mean kind of like the left wing moonbats are doing now and have been for over 5 years? - hayzeus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Two words: eminently bonable -- Dana Perino, not Dick Cheney.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is