OT: Is this true?!



D

D'ohBoy

Guest
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
 
D

Dan

Guest
"D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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
 
N

Nuck 'n Futz

Guest
D'ohBoy wrote:
> 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
 
D

D'ohBoy

Guest
According to N & F:

> ... 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 **** - 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
 
N

Nuck 'n Futz

Guest
D'ohBoy wrote:
> According to N & F:
>
>> ... 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 **** - 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 asshole's book AND affect debate on the Senate floor.

Got it.

N&F
 
D

D'ohBoy

Guest
<snippage of Clinton bashing and other ****>

Jesus, you're still ****** 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.

>... timed to sell some asshole's book ...


Is that a "major-league asshole"?

> ... 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
 
N

Nuck 'n Futz

Guest
D'ohBoy wrote:
> <snippage of Clinton bashing and other ****>


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?)?

> Jesus, you're still ****** 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)

>> ... timed to sell some asshole's book ...

>
> Is that a "major-league asshole"?


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

>> ... 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
 
D

D'ohBoy

Guest
I wrote:

>> Throw the criminals out!!!!


To which N&F responded:

> 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
 

> 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.
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> writes:

> (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
 
[email protected] wrote:
> > 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).
 
B

Bill Sornson

Guest
[email protected] wrote (following missing attribution):

>> 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.


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

Nuck 'n Futz

Guest
Tim McNamara wrote:
> "Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> (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
 
T

Tim McNamara

Guest
"Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> "Nuck 'n Futz" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> (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 wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:


> > 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.
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
D'ohBoy wrote:

>
> D'ohBoy


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

There is enough argumant about bike ****...
 
D

D'ohBoy

Guest
No Nutz wrote:
>
> 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 asshole'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** *****!

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
 
M

Mark Hickey

Guest
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>D'ohBoy wrote:
>
>> D'ohBoy

>
>Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
>
>There is enough argumant about bike ****...


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
 
D

D'ohBoy

Guest
Peter observed:

> Snipped, OT it is and it seems like yer looking for a argument.
> There is enough argumant about bike ****...


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.