OT: Is this true?!

"D'ohBoy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - A couple of weeks ago, Doug Thompson, the proprietor
of the political news Web site Capital Hill Blue, reported that
President Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece
of paper."

This remark came during a November meeting with Republican
Congressional leaders about renewal of the Patriot Act. They were
trying to tell the president that some of his conservative supporter
are still upset over what they believe is an overreach of federal
power.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush allegedly retorted. "I'm the President
and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. ... Stop throwing the
Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

This story, according to Thompson, vouched for as true by at least
three people present at the meeting, reinforces our view that not only
does the Bush administration not care about the Constitution or civil
liberties, it also is quick to confuse dissent with disloyalty.

Holy S***!!!

D'ohBoy

Spoof:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i9885

D'ohBoy said:

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - A couple of weeks ago, Doug Thompson, the proprietor
of the political news Web site Capital Hill Blue, reported that
President Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece
of paper."

This remark came during a November meeting with Republican
Congressional leaders about renewal of the Patriot Act. They were
trying to tell the president that some of his conservative supporter
are still upset over what they believe is an overreach of federal
power.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush allegedly retorted. "I'm the President
and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. ... Stop throwing the
Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

This story, according to Thompson, vouched for as true by at least
three people present at the meeting, reinforces our view that not only
does the Bush administration not care about the Constitution or civil
liberties, it also is quick to confuse dissent with disloyalty.

Holy S***!!!

Written by the same guy that claimed he was drinking heavily and pacing the
White House halls, randomly cursing at people?

Come on, D'oh Boy, that's weak...even for YOU.

(Now Hairless Reid, leading cheers for "doing away" with the Patriot
Act...that's a different story. Why? It's true.)

N&F

According to N & F:

Quoted message said:

... that's weak...even for YOU.

Just taking a page from my Karl Rove's Little book of Lies ... oops, I
mean Strategerie ;-)

It's funny cause it's true. Whether he said it or not, that is his
attitude. What a load of [censored] - he asks us to trust him to protect our
rights NOW!? He stomps on the law and then says the law (i.e., the
Constitution) will protect us?!

Toss the criminals out!

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

According to N & F:

Quoted message said:

... that's weak...even for YOU.

Just taking a page from my Karl Rove's Little book of Lies ... oops, I
mean Strategerie ;-)

It's funny cause it's true. Whether he said it or not, that is his
attitude. What a load of [censored] - he asks us to trust him to protect
our rights NOW!? He stomps on the law and then says the law (i.e.,
the Constitution) will protect us?!

So let's get this straight. When Clinton repeatedly used "warrantless"
wiretaps (for /economic/ reasons, by the way, NOT national security), it
gets written up on page A-18 of the NYT -- AND defended by Jamie Getalick.
(Lookitup.)

When Bush does it, while at war and ONLY when it's documented AQ-related
(not US citizen to US citizen), it's pasted on the front page -- timed to
sell some [censored]'s book AND affect debate on the Senate floor.

Got it.

N&F

<snippage of Clinton bashing and other [censored]>

Jesus, you're still [censored] you lost on that whole blowjob thing!
Clinton is gone! However, he IS still making Bush look bad, I would
agree. I'm not surprised your angry.

Quoted message said:

... timed to sell some [censored]'s book ...

Is that a "major-league [censored]"?

Quoted message said:

... AND affect debate on the Senate floor.

Goddam right it should affect debate. We gave that lying motherf***er
the store and he took the f***ing factory as well, without asking!

Throw the criminals out!!!!

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

<snippage of Clinton bashing and other [censored]>

No bashing -- the truth. Clinton conducted warrant-less (unwarranted many
would say) wiretaps; why do you feel the need to delete this (along with the
rest of your..../interesting/ editing; what happened to Jamie Getalick?)?

Quoted message said:

Jesus, you're still [censored] you lost on that whole blowjob thing!
Clinton is gone! However, he IS still making Bush look bad, I would
agree. I'm not surprised your angry.

My, my. Who brought up blowjobs? (And apparently YOU'RE so angry your
grammar skills flew out the window to the left! LOL)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... timed to sell some [censored]'s book ...

Is that a "major-league [censored]"?

Just the author of the NYT article -- which was NOT disclosed in the piece.
Journalistic integrity?!?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... AND affect debate on the Senate floor.

Goddam right it should affect debate. We gave that lying motherf***er
the store and he took the f***ing factory as well, without asking!

Throw the criminals out!!!!

Like leakers Leahy and Rockefeller? Couldn't agree more!

!!!!

N&F

I said:

Quoted message said:

Throw the criminals out!!!!

To which N&F responded:

Quoted message said:

Like leakers Leahy and Rockefeller? Couldn't agree more!

If they're also Constitution-violating, lying scumbags who exist only
to bleed this country's wealth into the coffers of the rich, then hell
yes!

Throw the criminals out!!!!!

D'ohBou

Quoted message said:

So let's get this straight. When Clinton repeatedly used "warrantless"
wiretaps (for /economic/ reasons, by the way, NOT national security), it
gets written up on page A-18 of the NYT -- AND defended by Jamie Getalick.
(Lookitup.)

I googled for various combinations of Clinton, Warrentless Searches,
and/ Jamie Getalick. I could not find the connection you are talking
about. I think you should supply a better reference if you are making
the claim.

Nuck 'n Futz said:

(Now Hairless Reid, leading cheers for "doing away" with the Patriot
Act...that's a different story. Why? It's true.)

Ya can't preserve your freedom by giving up your freedom. But the
Republicans and Democrats have been taking away your freedoms at a
staggering pace for the past 5 years.

"Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So let's get this straight. When Clinton repeatedly used "warrantless"
wiretaps (for /economic/ reasons, by the way, NOT national security), it
gets written up on page A-18 of the NYT -- AND defended by Jamie Getalick.
(Lookitup.)

I googled for various combinations of Clinton, Warrentless Searches,
and/ Jamie Getalick. I could not find the connection you are talking
about. I think you should supply a better reference if you are making
the claim.

He means Clinton's deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick.
For some men, women in positions of power are scary, so making
up derogatory or vulgar nicknames for these women is reassuring,
I guess.

I think he is referring to the Clinton admin's expansion of powers
of the FISA court, which is still supposed to be for approving national
security related wiretaps, searches and the like, not economic.
You guys can fight over the distinctions between this and the
surveillance currently under discussion (some of which bypasses
the FISA court entirely).

[email hidden] wrote (following missing attribution):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So let's get this straight. When Clinton repeatedly used
"warrantless" wiretaps (for /economic/ reasons, by the way, NOT
national security), it gets written up on page A-18 of the NYT --
AND defended by Jamie Getalick. (Lookitup.)

Quoted message said:

I googled for various combinations of Clinton, Warrentless Searches,
and/ Jamie Getalick. I could not find the connection you are talking
about. I think you should supply a better reference if you are making
the claim.

Two seconds: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

Tim McNamara said:

Nuck 'n Futz said:

(Now Hairless Reid, leading cheers for "doing away" with the Patriot
Act...that's a different story. Why? It's true.)

Ya can't preserve your freedom by giving up your freedom. But the
Republicans and Democrats have been taking away your freedoms at a
staggering pace for the past 5 years.

"Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin

"The Constitution isn't a suicide pact."

-- various smart people

Nuck 'n Futz said:

Tim McNamara said:

Nuck 'n Futz said:

(Now Hairless Reid, leading cheers for "doing away" with the
Patriot Act...that's a different story. Why? It's true.)

Ya can't preserve your freedom by giving up your freedom. But the
Republicans and Democrats have been taking away your freedoms at a
staggering pace for the past 5 years.

"Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin

"The Constitution isn't a suicide pact."

So you did drink the Koolaid.

Nuck 'n Futz said:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ya can't preserve your freedom by giving up your freedom. But the
Republicans and Democrats have been taking away your freedoms at a
staggering pace for the past 5 years.

"Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin

"The Constitution isn't a suicide pact."

-- various smart people

They had to kill the Constitution in order to save it.

D'ohBoy said:

D'ohBoy

Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.

There is enough argumant about bike [censored]...

No Nutz said:

When Bush does it, while at war and ONLY when it's documented AQ-related
(not US citizen to US citizen), it's pasted on the front page -- timed to
sell some [censored]'s book AND affect debate on the Senate floor.

Got it.

N&F

Bush asked the Old Gray Lady not to publish. They held out for a year.
If it had been released at the time they had the story, it would have
been during the election and then watch yer whiny a** [censored]!

You know, your references to possible criminal activities of past
presidents doesn't really make a difference - sounds like some little
kid whining "he did it first!" Which, of course, we all know is a free
pass to "Above the law" land.

Got it?

D'ohBoy

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

D'ohBoy said:

D'ohBoy

Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.

There is enough argumant about bike [censored]...

Exactly (and it was a VERY lame troll at that - I'd be insulted if
anyone thought I was naive enough to buy into it).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Peter observed:

Quoted message said:

Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
There is enough argumant about bike [censored]...

Not necessarily looking for an argument, just blown away by the
continued revelations of ethical and criminal abuses of power by the
current administration.

OT means "proceed at your own risk" to me.

At least I'm not like that lame-o highracer dude - and I realize that
comparison doesn't automatically put me in a good light.

D'ohBoy, chastened slightly, but still outraged.

P.S.: At least we can be heartened about the Bush appointee's judgement
on ID.

What where your search criteria? Obviously Getalick wasn't going to
help. And when I tried Clinton and Warrantless search I got alot of
junk in which I did not see the article you just link. Anyway...

I never knew that the conservatives where so respectful of Clinton's
views on constitutional law that they would advance his questionable
opinion into an entire policy.