From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53




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 goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they
all confirm that the President of the United States called the
Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States
is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this
group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned
piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel,
wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It
doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It
doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite
our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the
defining document of our government, the final source to determine –
in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath
of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone
calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says.
“We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean.
The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution
is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over
the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define
marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress
have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging
from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on
abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a
loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns.
“Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a
necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that
infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave
aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution
of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a
goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding
of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.

Snipped it all

Source this stuff from a more credible source (Perhaps "The Weekly World
News") and I might take it seriously.

Here's an example of a more reputable news story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438

You'll notice they don't make up quotes without attributing them to
someone they name. Some of the names are even real.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:32:33 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Snipped it all

Source this stuff from a more credible source (Perhaps "The Weekly World
News") and I might take it seriously.


What's not credible? Where's the official denial?

David wrote:
From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53



Definition of a troll:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory
messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to
disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean
the inflammatory message itself posted by a troll or be a verb meaning
to post such messages. "Trolling" (the gerund) is also commonly used to
describe the activity.

Disruptive trolls
Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the
forum.
Page widening: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters to
make previous posts unreadable.
Offensive media: Annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a
message, or linking to shock sites that contain such media. Often these
links are disguised as legitimate links.
Inflammatory messages, including racist comments.
Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book.
Bumping an old discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past
topic, particularly in smaller online communities.
Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order to
disturb or irritate them in a conversation.
[edit]
Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and
to absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.

Advertising another forum, especially a rival or a hated forum.
Messages containing an obvious flaw or error: "I think 2001: A Space
Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
Asking for help with an implausable task or problem "How do I season my
Crock Pot? I don't want everything cooked in it to taste the same."
Intentionally naive questions: "Can I use olive oil instead of water,
when cooking pasta?"
Messages containing a self referential appeals to status. "Evian is
bottled water for white trash. I prefer Dasani water imported from
Italy."
Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed
around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster
will become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead
continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this
is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved
mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may
not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically
interesting.
Politically contentious messages: "I think George W. Bush is the
best/worst President ever."
Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.
Off-topic complaints about personal life, or threats of suicide:
sometimes, this is the "cry for help" troll.
Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by
individuals: "I don't believe that all of you really believe that, you
are teaming against me."
Paramour trolls get a thrill from establishing serial online affairs
with females of a group. This incites public rivalry among the women
who once thought the nicknames, poetry, love statements were exclusive
to them. Since the online love affair is developed separately in chat
programs, it takes a long time for the online cat-fight to be detected.

Any combination of the above: For example, a troll will combine
inflammatory statements with poor grammar and AIM-speak (which is also
known as "netspeak" or "chatspeak"). "lmfao u are so weak minded and
predictablei thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card"
[edit]
Other Examples
Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup,
though historically, this would have been called "flamebait". Like
those who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged internet trolls
sometimes resort to innuendoes or misdirections in the pursuit of their
objectives.

A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves
posting content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or
unstated) focus of the group or forum; for example, posting cat meat
recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a
creationist forum (or vice versa), or posting messages about how all
dragons are boring in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.

The "sock puppet" troll often enters a forum using several different
identities. As postings from one identity attract increasingly critical
comment from other forum members, the troll enters the forum using a
second identity in support of the first. The troll may even use
postings from the second identity to criticise those from the first in
order to develop credibility on the forum.

Cross-posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a
cross-posted article can be discussed simultaneously in several
unrelated and/or opposing newsgroups; this is likely to result in a
flame war. For instance, an anti-fast food flame bait might be
cross-posted to healthy eating groups, environmentalist groups, animal
rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic artificial intelligence
newsgroup.

An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy
American students" USENET thread which had 3,000-odd follow-ups. A new
USENET newsgroup, "alt.genius.bill-palmer", was created by Igor Chudov
for the purpose of creating an outlet for discussing a controversial
USENET personality, Bill Palmer, himself an alleged USENET troll who
managed to make his personality the center of all discussions. A swirl
of messages attempting to disprove his alleged status as genius,
cross-posted to hell and back, made "a.g.b-p", the most popular new
"alt.*" newsgroup of the year. Its creator was nominated for the "Troll
of the Year 1996" award.

"David" wrote in message
...
From Capitol Hill Blue
What a load of crap.

"David" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:32:33 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Snipped it all

Source this stuff from a more credible source (Perhaps "The Weekly World
News") and I might take it seriously.


What's not credible? Where's the official denial?

This would have been all over the news if it has actually happened.

David wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:32:33 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Snipped it all

Source this stuff from a more credible source (Perhaps "The Weekly World
News") and I might take it seriously.


What's not credible?

You're not credible, dip****.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Where's the official denial?

David wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:32:33 -0500, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:


Snipped it all

Source this stuff from a more credible source (Perhaps "The Weekly World
News") and I might take it seriously.



What's not credible? Where's the official denial?


The basic premise of the story isn't credible.

Why would the White House officially deny a screwball claim like this?

As it stands now, relatively few people are even aware of this
fabrication. Most of the ones who believe the story would believe
anything critical of President Bush no matter how far fetched it is, and
they'd summarily reject a denial.

If the President responds, he creates a news story, and gives the web
site free publicity.

"MnMikew" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
From Capitol Hill Blue
What a load of crap.

Bush or the Constituition?