Bush says Constitution is just a GD piece of paper

As if we didn't already know what he thinks of it, Bush apparently cleared up any misconceptions.

If supporting the Patriot Act didn't show it, this outburst about the constitution definitely should.

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a g-d piece of paper'

Even if this outburst didn't happen, we already know that Bush doesn't support the Constitution. And to think, he LIED when he took his oath of office! But, he and his cronies are professional liars, so go figure...

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

I am glad you had the (fill in the blank) to post this one

I saw it the other day and i was going to post it, but decided not to, counting on a fellow poster to do just that!

I have read this little story several times and it convinces me more than ever that THE Constitution is the equivalent of the White House's Charmin.

What a presidential president. This is just too much.

I cant wait for those to say this is unreliable info and its not true.

Next.

So, in your own words, the premise of your thread is - whether or not the accusation that Bush actually said this is true, we're going to procede to villify Bush as if he actually did anyway.

Another typical Bush-basher tactic. Make up something, or take something somebody else has made up and run with it as if it were a proven fact. All the while aware that some will accept it as gospel just because it seems to agree with their prejudicial beliefs.

Thanks, so-called "truthseeka" for the demonstration. Now let's hope that rational people will see this for what it is and reject it.

You ever have something real, by all means post it.



[edit on 12/14/2005 by centurion1211]

I cant wait for those to say this is unreliable info and its not true.

Umm... maybe because it is unreliable and unconfirmed? The original poster said it himself, and I quote
“Even if this outburst didn't happen, we already know that Bush doesn't support the Constitution.”
What kind of argument is that? ‘Yeah we don't know if its true or not but we'll assume it is anyway and just keep repeating it like its a proven fact‘.

What a pack of lies, and how inappropriate for this hard news forum.

The author of this thread ought to be ashamed of himself. :shk:

Seems his lil outbursts aren't so uncommon after all

seems being the operative word, I don't believe things as soon as I hear or read them but I have heard and read about this quite often lately.

That search in itself is damning enough info, even if not true but go ahead and claim all these sources unreliable ... it's enough to raise the questions at least.

Originally posted by ImJaded
That search in itself is damning enough info, even if not true but go ahead and claim all these sources unreliable ... it's enough to raise the questions at least.

I think the fact that the first result that came up was from the same person spreading this is the most damning thing of all -- damning of this story as pure fantasy.

Aren't all presidential conferences taped ala Nixon. Let's have a listen.
If there is nothing to hide, no problemos eh.

Well, I will say now, I'm not a "Bush-basher, I dont even like posting in politically themed threads.

But, this really would not surprise me if it is true.

Anyways, I think the person who should be ashamed here, are the people who are automatically putting Truthseeka down, just because they support Bush, look at things before you make a decision, dont just decide that it cant be true, just because you dont want it to be.

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination.

From 1994 until 2001, when Bill Clinton led the follies at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the cackle of disapproval came from hardcore Democrats who couldn't believe we would dare question the actions of their beloved President.

Since 2001, the rabid right-wing packed the cheap seats and showered us with catcalls because we uncovered the many misdeeds of George W. Bush and the questionable Republican leadership of Congress.

Oh, we still get raspberries from the lefties. They remember what we wrote about Clinton and we still go after Democrats who screw up. To partisans, anyone who doesn't write from a politically-biased point of view is automatically suspect.

Our latest story on President Bush's disrespectful comments on the Constitution ("it's just a goddamned piece of paper") brought the usual flurry of emails from readers who wanted to let us know that (insert name of web site here) is (pick one) "questioning your integrity/calling you a clown/saying your web site is a joke/etc."

Often, when we check into who's calling us what we find the questions come from an anonymous poster on a bulletin board or a partisan blogger who publishes under a nom de plume. They question both our use of anonymous sources and the credibility of those sources.

There is a laughable irony that comes from some keyboard commando who hides behind an anonymous "handle" criticizing us for publishing a story that uses anonymous sources.

The first journalism award I won, a Feature Writing First Place from The Virginia Press Association in 1967, came from a story about an anonymous teenager in Roanoke who obtained an abortion that was illegal at the time. I've won more than 30 journalism awards over the last 38 years and about half of them for stories that depended heavily on anonymous sources.

In a political system where retaliation rules, you can't expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on use of anonymous sources.

Continued....

People love to point fingers at one side or another, but it takes someone special to point them at both sides.

CHB has no partisan agenda, and has written countless articles using unnamed sources.

So does the mass media.

How do you think we 'know' that Zarqawi is head of AQ in Iraq?

Because the media says they saw it on a web site, but never gave a link to the place.

Same with all other information they 'find' on the internet.

I give the CHB story more credit than most of what you see on TV....

Yeah, most of those websites that came up on your littles search are either socialist, leftist or just opinion blog sites, that doesnt substantiate anything. Further more, none of them are from a legitamate news source, besides, why would it be public, its called HIPPA, the patient privacy act. When someone is prescribed drugs for anything it stays between the physician, pharmacist, and the patient. Swing and a miss, strike 2.

It's not surprising at all considering Bush is nothing but a criminal but hey, I see the Bushies are trying to shoot the messenger again, LOL

It’s About A Lot More Than A "Goddamned Piece of Paper"

Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon "Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power.


But after all, what's the big deal about Bush trashing the Constitution? Fox News didn't report it, that means it didn't happen, doesn't it?

Besides, I thought that if you defend the Constitution, you were now considered a terrorist? That's what this FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure says anyway. Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as Nazis and the KKK.

Therefore George Bush was right to say “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”, otherwise he's a terrorist.

Link

Dear President Bush; about that "goddamned piece of paper."

Yeah, that sounds like Bush alright when things don't go his way, his temper tantrums in the white house has become legendary.

Actually his outburst has been known to be followed by bible studies and repentance.

Sounds like somebody going dried for to long.

Originally posted by ludaChris
Yeah, most of those websites that came up on your littles search are either socialist, leftist or just opinion blog sites, that doesnt substantiate anything. Further more, none of them are from a legitamate news source, besides, why would it be public, its called HIPPA, the patient privacy act. When someone is prescribed drugs for anything it stays between the physician, pharmacist, and the patient. Swing and a miss, strike 2.

Capitol Hill Blues has been online since 1994.

Back in the day they beat on Clinton the same way they do Bush, and Congress today.

They are not biased left, or right.

Read their rebuttal at the link I posted above.

Debating a story is more important than merely shooting the messenger.

If it is true, it would certainly be explosive, no doubt enraging much of the American public. I can't think of anything which could potentially have more detrimental effect on his Presidency than such a revelation.

However, we don't really know how accurate this story is yet.

The fact that truthseeka brought it into the 'Other Current Events' should not reflect badly on him. I'm only questioning the validity of the source he provides. Who is Doug Thomson and how reliable is Capitol Hill Blue?
.

Edit to add....Thanks, Archangel, for clarifying things a bit

[edit on 14-12-2005 by masqua]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the fact that the first result that came up was from the same person spreading this is the most damning thing of all -- damning of this story as pure fantasy.

I have learned during my time here how most of U feel about CBH lol, but I had read it and heard it elsewhere first.
Shouldn't it be that things like this just shouldn't be surfacing at all ?
If they indeed are, people will question and have every right to. I for one wouldn't be quick to discredit that any of this has happened, and if it indeed hasn't, it still taints how I view him until U can present proof that it hasn't happened.

I want to see things that give me faith that he is not this evil man that "some" make him out to be. Unfortunately that is what is usually not presented, only the bad it seems.
Ever stop to really wonder why they label him that way ? I know I didn't just wake up one day and decide to not like him.

I believe actions speak louder than any words any person can say and his as of late have been pitiful to say the least.

I personally don't think he is of sound mind, it's evident from his appearance, behaviour and speech he is usually drunk or high on something. And if he's normally like that, well wow.




[edit on 14-12-2005 by ImJaded]

Originally posted by marg6043
Yeah, that sounds like Bush alright

Yeah, Marg, thank you too for helping prove my point since "sounds like Bush" = "the truth" as far as you're concerned without any further substantiation other than it "sounds like Bush".

Somehow knew that if there was a thread bashing Bush, you'd be there.

Still think you have the best avatars, though.

Umm... Marge why don't you tell us of the first hand accounts you have had of his tantrums? Oh wait I forgot, its just your opinion which like most times is backed up by nothing.

Still think you have the best avatars, though

I’m going to have to second that

[edit on 14-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... Marge why don't you tell us of the first hand accounts you have had of his tantrums? Oh wait I forgot, its just your opinion which like most times is backed up by nothing.

Since when do we board members only get to comment on what we have first hand knowledge of? Do you have first hand knowledge of hospitals being built in Iraq?

There are plenty of stories lately, sourced by people who claim to be in meetings with him, about Bush throwing temper tantrums in those meetings. Regardless of how many you refuse to accept or what you think of the sources, the stories are there. And they are as valid as any other stories we find on the Internet and bring here to discuss, like all the good things happening in Iraq.

When it comes right down to it, all we have are the media to report these stories. There's no reason to believe (or disbelieve) one source over the other. Thankfully, there are alternative media like CHB that report the stories that CNN is afraid to report or being paid not to report.

I believe this story because it is supported by other stories, not to mention the blatant trampling of the Constitution already being done by this administration. And it's time some of this stuff get out into the public for the public to see and judge.

Forgive me, but why is everyone taking the word of a hick with HTML skills and a modem? It's just his word without absolutely any corroboration or basis in facts. He claims to have spoken to three Republican Congressmen who were present at the meeting with President Bush. Why on Earth would a Republican Congressman be talking to this liberal blogger and actually confirm to him something negative that was said by their fellow Republican President?

I'm sorry but I refuse to take this guy at his word, especially when its so obvious that he has an agenda of his own. I'm seeing more and more on ATS lately the willingness of some people to take the word of someone else, no matter how unreliable and/or unknown that person may be, so long as it fits with their agenda or their line of thinking. Meanwhile they will refuse to believe the words of anyone who disagrees with their point of view, no matter how many facts back them up.

Say what you will but I will not believe that the President of the United States called the Constitution a "goddamn piece of paper" in the Oval Office in front of a group of congressmen. As soon as a congressman who was present steps forward and verifies this man's claims I will do the right thing- and that is take the allegations of a Bush-hating mountain man with a grain of salt.