Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a ********* piece of paper'

[Bob Hubbard]

From Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a ********* piece of paper'
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By DOUG THOMPSON[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
Capital Hill Blue
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a ********* piece of paper!”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]



Full article: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml



I read this, and I swear I heard Jefferson spinning in his grave.

After all

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But then again, not even his supporters insist this is an intelligent man.


[/FONT] [/FONT]

 

[Makalakumu]

I wonder if anyone got that on tape?

 

[michaeledward]

We are long overdue for the House of Representatives to issue Articles of Impeachment with this President.

Which may be one reason why the President commented on an 'ongoing investigation'; when he publicly pronounced his belief that Thomas Delay is innocent. ... Talk about tainting a jury pool. Although, if it wasn't so hypocritical (e.g. his stance of not commenting on the Libby-Rove-Plame investigation) it would be sad.

 

[arnisador]

I'm gonna hope this story ain't true. Sheesh!

 

[sgtmac_46]

From Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a ********* piece of paper'
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By DOUG THOMPSON[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
Capital Hill Blue
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]



Full article: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml



I read this, and I swear I heard Jefferson spinning in his grave.

After all

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But then again, not even his supporters insist this is an intelligent man.


[/FONT][/FONT]

Is this story fake, but accurate? You guys gotta be careful about believing every story you read on the internet. I'm going to make a prediction. This is another Onion article another moron has passed off as real. The style is definitely Onion-esque.

We are long overdue for the House of Representatives to issue Articles of Impeachment with this President.

You do have a rich fantasy life.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As far as I've been able to tell, it's real. I'm still researching it. If it is in fact true, then he's a lot dumber than I thought. I would love to debunk this one.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually, I failed to note that your quotes came from Doug Thompson. Thompson is a pathological liar who makes up quotes from 'anonymous sources' then plasters them all over the internet. You will find these quotes requoted all over the internet, but if you follow back the original source material, it will all end at Doug Thompson's website. Funny how none of this can be traced back farther than Doug Thompson. What's even funnier is that only Doug Thompson has 'special access' to this information. Perhaps he picks it up with his fillings.

Of course the far left loves to quote Doug Thompson. They really don't care that he's making this crap up, because, hey, the truth isn't important, attacking Bush is.

The way to debunk Doug Thompson is try and verify ANYTHING he says, independent OF him. Hint in the future, when quoting Doug Thompson, make sure to validate him with a source who isn't, themselves, using Doug Thompson AS their source.


What this really brings up is the question of why so many people believe any asinine statement someone decides to publish on the internet, without support or proof. You guys have to be a little more critical readers than this. Just because you WANT it to be true, doesn't always make it so. Have some respect for yourselves. You don't see me going around quoting every looney right wing website I find that says that leftists are the anti-christ. Lets keep a modicum of credibility going, even if we disagree.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Can you point at any evidence that this is fiction? Previous articles by Thompson that were debunked?

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of GB, but I do believe he deserves a fair shake. (His Wiki entry I think holds the record for most vandelized, btw)

 

[Makalakumu]

(His Wiki entry I think holds the record for most vandelized, btw)

:rofl:

Tim Hartman, eat your heart out!

 

[Kane]

If he did say it.........shame on you Mr. Bush!:angry: The constitution is in my opinion one of the greatest documents on government of all time, and it sort of offends me when someone as high as the president calls it a "piece of paper".

But then again the president was probably really pissed and perhaps he did not mean it. Still, he really needs to be careful not disrespect such a important document!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Can you point at any evidence that this is fiction? Previous articles by Thompson that were debunked?

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of GB, but I do believe he deserves a fair shake. (His Wiki entry I think holds the record for most vandelized, btw)

Ok, answer this one question. Who is Doug Thompson that he is privy to information nobody else on the planet has? We have only Doug Thompson's word for any of this, and it's not indepently verifiable. Is that not debunking enough?

Are we to assume that any person who makes up a story is to believed until we prove the negative, that he is NOT telling the truth?

It is the duty of Doug Thompson (and now, you for quoting him) to prove the veracity of his story. It is not my duty to prove a negative. If that were the standard of evidence, then everyone would be telling the truth until proven otherwise. Apply some reason to this, and it'll be clear who the liar is.

I mean, come on, we operating under the assumption that some guy who runs a web page and makes an incredible claim is presumed to be credible. Why? Because you want to believe it? If that's the only reason, that isn't enough.

And yes, many Doug Thompson stories in the past have began and ended only with Doug Thompson.

I remember back during the Clinton administration. About every couple months someone would come out with a documentary proclaiming to PROVE that Clinton was a....Traitor, selling us out to the Chinese.....a Soviet operative......or murdered Vince Foster. I never believed that crap then, even though I didn't care much for Clinton. I knew Clinton was likely a lot of things, but it was far fetched to think he was a Soviet Spy intentionally selling us out to the Chi-Coms.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, answer this one question. Who is Doug Thompson that he is privy to information nobody else on the planet has? We have only Doug Thompson's word for any of this, and it's not indepently verifiable. Is that not debunking enough?

Considering the amount of secrecy this administration is operating under, it does strike me as possible. I'll be looking for more information. Until then, it's neither proven nor debunked.

Are we to assume that any person who makes up a story is to believed until we prove the negative, that he is NOT telling the truth?

No, as I said above, it's a "maybe" for now.

It is the duty of Doug Thompson (and now, you for quoting him) to prove the veracity of his story. It is not my duty to prove a negative. If that were the standard of evidence, then everyone would be telling the truth until proven otherwise. Apply some reason to this, and it'll be clear who the liar is.

You said he is a "pathological liar who makes up quotes from 'anonymous sources' ". That is youre claim, which I asked you to validate. Not his story.

I mean, come on, we operating under the assumption that some guy who runs a web page and makes an incredible claim is presumed to be credible. Why? Because you want to believe it? If that's the only reason, that isn't enough.

You're right, it's not. Which is why it's important to do some digging, from both angles to find some truth.

And yes, many Doug Thompson stories in the past have began and ended only with Doug Thompson.

Again, can you point me at that information? If he is unreliable, then I'd like to add him to my 'not trustworthy source' pile.

I remember back during the Clinton administration. About every couple months someone would come out with a documentary proclaiming to PROVE that Clinton was a....Traitor, selling us out to the Chinese.....a Soviet operative......or murdered Vince Foster. I never believed that crap then, even though I didn't care much for Clinton. I knew Clinton was likely a lot of things, but it was far fetched to think he was a Soviet Spy intentionally selling us out to the Chi-Coms.

Well, he did need that cash for the "Bubba Burger" franchise....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Considering the amount of secrecy this administration is operating under, it does strike me as possible. I'll be looking for more information. Until then, it's neither proven nor debunked.

So your argument is that it makes sense to you, so it's probably true?

No, as I said above, it's a "maybe" for now.

Then lets be clear about this. The only source for this is Doug Thompson, who cites 'anonymous' sources as his source.

You said he is a "pathological liar who makes up quotes from 'anonymous sources' ". That is youre claim, which I asked you to validate. Not his story.

Doug was caught before printing false stories. That time, when caught and confronted, he created a story about being 'duped'. The reason he got caught was that he listed his source, who was then proven to be a liar. He did manage to spin it to make himself appear to be the victim, but the reality is that he knew he was going to be made to look stupid if he didn't retract, and fast.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030710_extra.asp#1


At the time CNN used him as a source. They were made to be even bigger fools, as he managed to beat them to the punch and retract the story before they used him as a source of information (He printed a retraction on his website before CNN went to air).

Now, Dougie's side-stepped the issue by using 'anonymous' sources, instead of giving names that can be verified. I guess it makes it far harder to prove or disprove if you don't provide one shred of evidence.

You're right, it's not. Which is why it's important to do some digging, from both angles to find some truth.

But you do the digging before you post it, not after. Once you've quoted it, people start assuming it's true. I always try and use, at minimum, two independent sources to verify something that will be questioned. Two independent sources is NOT one source that uses the other source as it's source.

Again, can you point me at that information? If he is unreliable, then I'd like to add him to my 'not trustworthy source' pile.

I think I noted one above that will start you on the way. Doug and those who like what he says will call him credible, but they can't support that. Evidence of his incredulity are numerous. What is most telling is his current reliance on 'anonymous sources' after he got busted using a cited source, who turned out to be a fraud. He said, in his apology, he would be more careful in the future. I guess he meant he'd be more careful to cover his tracks.

Well, he did need that cash for the "Bubba Burger" franchise....

:rofl: A greese-burger, a massage and a fine cigar, all under one roof.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:cheers: Now we're on the same page.
I'll try and find a second source on the hotter topics as I can in the future.