cman: cman: Cue letsseehowlowthevotesgo.png

Cant have a thread on fark against liberals, now can we?

Whoever the idiot was that thought Autocorrect for the desktop is a good idea should be shot

Don't worry, you know it takes Breitbart, Hot Air, Townhall and all those other reputable news sources longer because they're so busy fact check-BHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm sorry, I couldn't keep it together...

I'm not exactly a fan of the Republican party lately, and I have no argument that this Holder BS is just a bunch of weapons-grade-DERP political grandstanding.... but Pelosi is a goddamned idiot, and shiat like this is exactly why I think that. If she could have had Hot Karl arrested she would have done so in a heartbeat. It wasn't out of the niceness of her heart or the greater good of the country that she did so. That's a bunch of crap from the woman who just endorsed Charles "dirty as they come" Rangel.

She couldn't have his arrested because he didn't do anything she could have successfully brought charges against him for. She mouths off like this all the time. Remember her childish snickering about how she supposedly had all kinds of hidden dirt on Newt Gingrich, but she wasn't going to release it because she was just too nice (but then why the fark was she opening her mouth about it)? This is just more of her usual bullshiat.


If she could have thurstonxhowell: Somacandra: FTFA: "Oh, any number" of charges could have been brought against Rove, Pelosi said. "But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress."

Came here to point out that his brazen and repeated refusal to show up when subpoenaed by Congress would be the obvious one, good to see Nancy did it for me.

No, she actually couldn't have arrested him for that or she would have. Pelosi's just a goddamned idiot with a big mouth. Hell, I don't care what party they're a member of being a goddamned idiot who spews BS all the time seems to be a prerequisite for serving in congress these days.

lennavan: The real point to make is Obama and his justice department could have opened an investigation into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez and their use of torture. Talk about your trump cards, I wanna see Obama troll the GOP by starting that shiat.

and why don't you think the Bush Administration hasn't had to account for their misdeeds?

Obama is looking out for the good of the country? Obama (and the democratic majority congress before him that also could have investigated) is trying to heal the partisan divide by letting sleeping torture dogs lie?

you are very smart. I know those motivations sound incredible to you.


the answer to the question "why would democrat leadership on the hill (who had a majority in both houses starting in 2006) and the Obama administration leave such a devastating political card as torture investigation on the table?" is the democratic leadership, including Pelosi, got up to date torture progress reports back in 2002 and so signed off on it through acquiescence.

that is the only reason the bush administration wasn't held to account by the democratic majority in congress, and then by the Obama administration. the democrat leadership were complicit in the torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pe lo si-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html


/and I called this back in 2009 when all you farkers couldn't understand why obama wasn't quick to indict bush. it's been clear for a long time that the only reason a torture investigation wouldn't be used as a political weapon was if torture implementation was a bipartisan consensus and thus couldn't be.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: TIKIMAN87: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: TIKIMAN87: The things this woman has said makes blood shoot from my ears.

And brains. Don't forget about all the brains that fell out of your ears along with the blood. Lots and lots and lots of brain matter. Gone forever. So sad. You could have been somebody.

lol looks like your trying out your new trolling motor!

Hows it work?

Smooth like peanut butter.

More like chunky

Apparently no one remembers Karl Rove repeatedly claiming executive privilege and refusing to testify before congress. I think he was under supeona during the Valerie Plame investigation.
But Pelosi let it go. She didn't even try to get treatment for Alberto Gonzales' severe acute amnesia.

Clearly this means dems are the true monsters.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-10/pol itics/rove.subpoena_1_robert-d-l uskin-subpoena-longtime-political-guru ?_s=PM:POLITICS


Wow that took all of ten seconds to find

lincoln65: Apparently no one remembers Karl Rove repeatedly claiming executive privilege and refusing to testify before congress. I think he was under supeona during the Valerie Plame investigation.
But Pelosi let it go. She didn't even try to get treatment for Alberto Gonzales' severe acute amnesia.

Clearly this means dems are the true monsters.

sure.
I just don't remember the bush whitehouse testifying to congress that it had nothing to do with a program, that it didn't even know that it existed, then once documents were subpoenaed from the justice department, the white house suddenly claiming executive privilege applied to documents that it just said it had nothing to do with it.

obama either lied about what was known to congress, or he is knowingly misusing the executive privilege to shield things that have nothing to do with the whitehouse's internal communications.
either option is fairly despicable, but many of you cheer it on. you're cheering on the very definition of bad governance as it is being displayed because it is your team. you're disgusting human beings.

lincoln65: Apparently no one remembers Karl Rove repeatedly claiming executive privilege and refusing to testify before congress. I think he was under supeona during the Valerie Plame investigation.
But Pelosi let it go. She didn't even try to get treatment for Alberto Gonzales' severe acute amnesia.

Clearly this means dems are the true monsters.

Sadly, it means that the Dems were toady sycophants to the Republican Nazi Party of 2001-2009, frantic to get their hands onto the flagpole and carry it around a few times, shouting "USA! USA! Remember the Heroes!" Rove kept swatting their hands away and chiding them the way a mother chides impatient children, "Now now! You wait your turn or no dessert!" And they went doe-eyed and their clamoring fell to a low pleading, "Please, Daddy! Puh-lease! We'll be good now!"

Then the whole thing went sick on them and Rove said, OK, here, wave the flag now. It's your turn. Go ahead! And the Dems were foolish enough to go for that, and try to suck up the last dregs of the jackbooted patriotism bandwagon. So they're thoroughly compromised and implicated and dirty. Not to mention gullible.

Pelosi as much as any of them.

Drop the Democratic Party in the ocean and let it sink, I say. That doesn't mean that I fail to see for one second which party started the whole thing, which party was drunk on power and glorying in what it thought was a Thousand Year Reich. But sink the Democratic Party in the ocean. Good riddance.

Something really important about our republic died, or was at least knocked into a deep coma, during that ugly, nasty, vile era. It may eventually recover, but I have my doubts, and even if it does, it won't be for a long time.

An Uncle of mine is a big wig in his own right and recently got to take a tour of congress and check out their offices and meet some of them in person.

He said it was really kind of cool because behind the scenes it's much different than the craziness we see on TV. Most of these people get along pretty well personally. He saw many of their offices and got to mingle with the staff and have lunch with a few of them.

From what he gathered....

A. John Boehner is personally very well liked and a fun guy.
B. Paul Ryan is the "real deal" and widely respected by his peers.
C. Jim Webb is the "real deal" as well and widely respected by his peers.
D. Everyone hates Nancy Pelosi including her own staff.

Poor Nancy, it's sad when dementia and partisanship meet.

lennavan: No, seriously, that's what they actually believe. And now Eric Holder has to answer for it and explain why this isn't a sekrit plot to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you look at it like that and ignore that the gun walking started under Bush, was stopped, and then a new operation under Obama was started again.

On the other hand, selling guns to drug cartels so you can find out where they buy their guns doesn't make any sense either.

relcec: lennavan: The real point to make is Obama and his justice department could have opened an investigation into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez and their use of torture. Talk about your trump cards, I wanna see Obama troll the GOP by starting that shiat.

and why don't you think the Bush Administration hasn't had to account for their misdeeds?

Obama is looking out for the good of the country? Obama (and the democratic majority congress before him that also could have investigated) is trying to heal the partisan divide by letting sleeping torture dogs lie?

you are very smart. I know those motivations sound incredible to you.


the answer to the question "why would democrat leadership on the hill (who had a majority in both houses starting in 2006) and the Obama administration leave such a devastating political card as torture investigation on the table?" is the democratic leadership, including Pelosi, got up to date torture progress reports back in 2002 and so signed off on it through acquiescence.

that is the only reason the bush administration wasn't held to account by the democratic majority in congress, and then by the Obama administration. the democrat leadership were complicit in the torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pe lo si-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_story.html


/and I called this back in 2009 when all you farkers couldn't understand why obama wasn't quick to indict bush. it's been clear for a long time that the only reason a torture investigation wouldn't be used as a political weapon was if torture implementation was a bipartisan consensus and thus couldn't be.

Secretly briefing opposition leaders, telling them they'll be prosecuted if they release any of the information disclosed to them, doesn't constitute "bipartisan consensus."

Next.

actualhuman: Cletus C.: pacified: and hey, we all know Mitt Romney wouldn't abuse executive privilege.


Wow. Conceding the election already and getting a jump on the "President Romney is a crook" talking point.

Impressive.

You managed to string together a whole English sentence, apparently without being familiar with the future conditional tense. Bravo.

Uh, I think you'd need "and hey, we all know Mitt Romney wouldn't abuse executive privilege, if elected president" part of that to officially qualify as a "future conditional tense."

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

lennavan: relcec: so signed off on it through acquiescence

You and I will agree to disagree on this specific point. I think this is fundamentally stupid. You presumably think it is logically sound.

what do you disagree with?

the fact that pelosi was told about water boarding and didn't have any problem with it indicates her acquiescence? you think her hands are clean?

there was another form of torture she was told that had not been approved and she told the CIA that form was definitely not kosher. read the link. waterboarding she had no objection to.

if you think the leader of one of our two political parties staying silent when being briefed about torture while objecting to other forms doesn't amount to acquiescence then you aren't as intelligent as I thought.

and more importantly if the democrats didn't believe the same exact thing as I do about their own acquiescence they would have investigated and charged bush administration officials and they would be in jail right now. the truth is they are thick in it.

that's why nothing has happened. and you all should have realized this years ago. it would have been insanity for any political party that was going to engage in torture to first not guarantee themselves that the other party was going to implicate themselves as well.

BillCo: I think the botox has gone to her brain.

But, in her defense...

Warlordtrooper: Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is TREASON.

digistil: Treason? I don't know about you, but that's a big one in my book.

pacified: Remember the last time a Republican used executive privilege it was to cover-up treason of outing a CIA agent.

Silly Farkers! It's only Treason when a librul does it!

MFL: An Uncle of mine is a big wig in his own right and recently got to take a tour of congress and check out their offices and meet some of them in person.

He said it was really kind of cool because behind the scenes it's much different than the craziness we see on TV. Most of these people get along pretty well personally. He saw many of their offices and got to mingle with the staff and have lunch with a few of them.

From what he gathered....

A. John Boehner is personally very well liked and a fun guy.
B. Paul Ryan is the "real deal" and widely respected by his peers.
C. Jim Webb is the "real deal" as well and widely respected by his peers.
D. Everyone hates Nancy Pelosi including her own staff.

I don't doubt any of this. But I do question it. As in, I'm sure that Ryan and Webb really are seen by their peers as the real deal. That's what they said about Bob Packwood too. "Total policy wonk, knows what's going on, the guy is sharp. One of the brains, not a party drone."

Then the scandals hit and we learned that when he wasn't busy fussing with his hair, he was busy writing in his diary about fussing with his hair; and when he wasn't doing either of those, he was pursuing women young enough to be his granddaughters.

So the widespread respect for him among his peers tells me more about his peers than about Packwood.

In any case, when you realize that just reading the bills these guys vote on is a full-time job for about six people, let alone fully understanding them, and researching everything goes into them, I think about 98% of the work is done by staffers and bureaucrats (and of course lobbyists). The guy in the suit is there to be told how he's going to vote, and then make speeches on it. I don't think that any member of Congress read even 5% of Obama's health insurance reform bill, for example.

Now when it comes to "so-and-so is hated/loved his/her staff," that gains more traction with me.

bugontherug: /and I called this back in 2009 when all you farkers couldn't understand why obama wasn't quick to indict bush. it's been clear for a long time that the only reason a torture investigation wouldn't be used as a political weapon was if torture implementation was a bipartisan consensus and thus couldn't be.

Secretly briefing opposition leaders, telling them they'll be prosecuted if they release any of the information disclosed to them, doesn't constitute "bipartisan consensus."

Next.

first off, then explain why bush officials have neither been investigated nor prosecuted if the democrats hands are clean?
second, never heard of parliamentary immunity? you can't prosecute congress for doing their job. you can't even prosecute congressional aids, you supremely ignorant f*ck. god you are one stupid son of a biatch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

pacified: and hey, we all know Mitt Romney wouldn't abuse executive privilege.

Issa is on a partisan witch hunt. This all has nothing to do with Holder or Obama. They have given over 99.5% of all the documents related to this.

Did Obama plan this? NO.
Did Holder plan this? NO.
Did either Obama or Holder execute the plan? NO.

But hey, GOP, KFTC.

Remember the last time a Republican used executive privilege it was to cover-up treason of outing a CIA agent.

Not true. Bush appointed a special prosecutor to investigate (which was justified) the leak and Libby was convicted NOT for the leak but for lying. I think Holder is not telling the truth and should GTFO.

I see a lot of "area man" action going on in this thread. Here are some basics on contempt of congress since it seems most people are completely unable to do five seconds of research on the internet before making assertions about things they don't actually know anything about.

Contempt of Congress...
Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[5]

From wiki

Coelacanth: Murdering 2.5 million dead innocent Iraq civilians (according to the 200 year old British medical journal, The Lancet)?

Anyone with any statistical knowledge can tell you that study was pretty flawed. Not that the war was good or justified or anything, but quoting studies that were debunked years ago is not helping.

What amazes me is that the Democrats are showing they are as retarded as the GOP is. The GOP is potato-level retarded right now (anti-gay stuff, fark the middle class, love corporations, fark unions, etc...), and the Democrats are not absolutely cleaning up. You know why? They elect the same retards like Pelosi.

lennavan: I gotta agree, it does seem pretty stupid to me as well.

I just hope I get the same treatment when I win the lottery and I begin Operation Hookers and Blow. We have to do something to combat illegal drugs and prostitution.

relcec: lincoln65: Apparently no one remembers Karl Rove repeatedly claiming executive privilege and refusing to testify before congress. I think he was under supeona during the Valerie Plame investigation.
But Pelosi let it go. She didn't even try to get treatment for Alberto Gonzales' severe acute amnesia.

Clearly this means dems are the true monsters.

sure.
I just don't remember the bush whitehouse testifying to congress that it had nothing to do with a program, that it didn't even know that it existed, then once documents were subpoenaed from the justice department, the white house suddenly claiming executive privilege applied to documents that it just said it had nothing to do with it.

obama either lied about what was known to congress, or he is knowingly misusing the executive privilege to shield things that have nothing to do with the whitehouse's internal communications.
either option is fairly despicable, but many of you cheer it on. you're cheering on the very definition of bad governance as it is being displayed because it is your team. you're disgusting human beings.

I haven't been following the F and F story because IDGAF, but obviously they screwed up and should have resolved this thing years ago. It has been stupid not to.

Did I sound like I was cheering on the DOJ for stonewalling and backtracking? Because that's dumb too.

But thanks for outting yourself as someone who just wants to put words in the mouths of strawdems.

even tho i consider myself a Dem, i just can't stand Pelosi

Because People in power are Stupid: [0.tqn.com image 400x354]

Why not for his role in exposing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent.

Uhh, I'm thinking because he had nothing to do with it? Richard Armitage admitted it was he who leaked the information. Google "Richard Armitage Valerie Plame". You probably also think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

lennavan: bikerific: So, let's try to sum up and paraphrase.
:
Republicans: We're going to find Eric Holder in contempt of Congress!
Pelosi: We Democrats could have found Karl Rove in contempt of Congress, and even had him arrested. But we didn't, because that's juvenile and unproductive.
Republicans: OMG Nancy Pelosi wants to arrest Karl Rove!
Am I wrong?

Sounds about right. But it was an amazingly stupid response from Nancy Pelosi. The charges the Republicans are going after here are frickin retarded.

Fast and Furious started under George W Bush where they sold guns to shady dudes to try to track them to mexican drug cartels. Obama took over and appointed Holder. Then, and...

this is what the GOP actually believes:
Holder and Obama thought up a sekrit plot to ban guns. All of the previous big shootings didn't do anything to help gun bans occur so they had to think bigger, like mexican drug cartels. So Obama decided to relax gun laws during his first 4 years and directed Holder to create Fast and Furious (by the way we forgot Bush started it) with the hope that mexican drug cartels would have a huge massacre with the guns so Obama could then get re-elected to a second term after lulling all the gun advocates into believing he was okay and then ban guns entirely and constitutionally remove the 2nd amendment.

No, seriously, that's what they actually believe. And now Eric Holder has to answer for it and explain why this isn't a sekrit plot to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

You actually belive that's the what the GOP thinks, don't you? You really honestly belive that? You know, I bet you do.

At first I was under the impression that you were just an immature troll, but you've convinced me that your not just a a-hole troll, but rather a dimwit who belives the entire Rebulican party is as stupid as you.

What you just wrote is one of the most incrediably stupid things I've read on FARK this week. Congratulations.

lincoln65: I haven't been following the F and F story because IDGAF it makes dems look bad, but obviously they screwed up and should have resolved this thing years ago.

Yeah, only 200 or so Mexicans and American law enforcement officials have been killed because of it. No reason to GAF. Dumbass.

Today she said that the Fast & Furious scandal was nothing but a nation wide right wing conspircy to supress the vote in november...



what a farking coont

Because People in power are Stupid: [0.tqn.com image 400x354]

Why not for his role in exposing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent.

Because that was done by a guy named Richard Amitage Link

Wait... The current administration deliberately, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug gangs, and is trying every trick in the book to cover it up, and Pelosi's greater concern is Carl Rove? Really?

As for exposing Valerie Plame, isn't spying illegal?

rufus-t-firefly: "America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people." - Nancy Pelosi

Rufis... what she is saying here is that rather than diminish the civil liberties of our own people (as she believed the Bush administration was doing), it might be better on focusing locally on reducing terrorist attacks in our cities, because that would make us safer. This sentence was in a speech opposing Bush's war in Iraq.

I happen to agree with your sentiment that reducing civil liberties is not worth the illusion of safety, so I won't mock you excessively. But please, before you post, learn to read.

pacified: and hey, we all know Mitt Romney wouldn't abuse executive privilege.

Issa is on a partisan witch hunt. This all has nothing to do with Holder or Obama. They have given over 99.5% of all the documents related to this.

Did Obama plan this? NO.
Did Holder plan this? NO.
Did either Obama or Holder execute the plan? NO.

But hey, GOP, KFTC.

Remember the last time a Republican used executive privilege it was to cover-up treason of outing a CIA agent.

Did Holder lie to congress about it (twice)? YES

pelosi would make one helluva wicked warden.

that is all.

"but but...Rove!"

Hey Nancy, you should have done it then you twit. You know how easy it would be to get this contempt thing against Holder to disappear? All he has to do is HAND OVER THE FARKING DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REQUESTED MONTHS AGO. But no, YOUR side has been a bunch of partisan hacks and won't pressure him to hand them over. So we get this retarded sideshow instead of any actual work getting done.

Oh and btw, I don't recall Rove being the Attorney General of the United States.

bullwrinkle: pacified: and hey, we all know Mitt Romney wouldn't abuse executive privilege.

Issa is on a partisan witch hunt. This all has nothing to do with Holder or Obama. They have given over 99.5% of all the documents related to this.

Did Obama plan this? NO.
Did Holder plan this? NO.
Did either Obama or Holder execute the plan? NO.

But hey, GOP, KFTC.

Remember the last time a Republican used executive privilege it was to cover-up treason of outing a CIA agent.

Not true. Bush appointed a special prosecutor to investigate (which was justified) the leak and Libby was convicted NOT for the leak but for lying. I think Holder is not telling the truth and should GTFO.

It's amazing that people know of the Plame mess but don't know that they figured out what happened.

The person who 'leaked' that she used to be a spy was a guy named Richard Armitage of the state department. No one in the Bush administration was directly involved.