Bush on the Constitution...

[FWiedner]

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

By Doug Thompson

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Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”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

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10352

*FW Note:

There you have it.  Directly from the horse's mouth...

 :shock:

[Graybeard]

Sorry but I do not believe it. I say the reporter is a bold faced liar.

However IF I did believe that Bush actually did in fact say that I'd say impeach him IMMEDIATLY.

[dawei]

Sorry but I do not believe it. I say the reporter is a bold faced liar.

However IF I did believe that Bush actually did in fact say that I'd say impeach him IMMEDIATLY.

I'm with you Bill!

[IntrepidWizard]

Ditto,Fwed do they know about you in Allen TX where you got releaved of your Federal job for cause?

[FWiedner]

I've been trying to get more information about the author.

I wanted to try and get his email address so you folks could share your thoughts.

Apparently, He's been taking some flak over the above article.  

Here's a follow up piece that he wrote:


Where there's smoke, there's ire

By DOUG THOMPSON

Dec 12, 2005, 08:33

The firestorm over Friday’s column quoting President George W. Bush’s obscene outburst over the Constitution continues to grow with our email box overflowing from outraged readers who think the President should be impeached along with pro-Bushites who want my head on a platter.

I’m surprised by the public’s anger over this. When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper,” I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President’s temper tantrums.

Bush lashed out at an aide who dared question him on the USA Patriot Act. That’s typical Bush. We started reporting on the President’s outbursts last year and those tantrums are  now widely reported now by the so-called “mainstream media.”

As Evan Thomas and Richard Wolfe write in the current edition of Newsweek:

“A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president… How many people dare to snap back at a president? Not many, and not unless they have known the president a long, long time. (Even Karl Rove, or "Turd Blossom," as he is sometimes addressed by the president, knows when to hold his tongue.) In the Bush White House, disagreement is often equated with disloyalty… his attitude toward Congress was "my way or the highway," according to a GOP staffer who did not want to be identified criticizing the president.”

We get tips about Bush’s temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don’t get used because we don’t go with information from just one source. The tip about “the goddamned piece of paper” seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

“Who told you about that?”  I told him I’d picked it up from two other sources.

“Look, you know how the President is,” he said. “He gets agitated when people challenge him.”

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper.”

“Yeah. He did.”

So I went with the story. To me it was just another example of a President who too often lets his anger get the better of him, particularly with anyone who dares disagree. I didn’t see it as a rallying cry for those who either want Bush’s head for his various misdeeds or mine for daring report them.

Some say Bush should be impeached. Sorry, I don’t agree. He’s not the first President to consider the Constitution an expendable document and he won’t be the last. Most Presidents have complained that the Constitution gets in their way.

When Teddy Roosevelt decided to send the Marines into North Africa, his Secretary of State cautioned him such an act would be unconstitutional.

Teddy snapped back: “Why destroy the beauty of the act with legalities?”

Presidents, by their nature, look for ways to skirt the law when that law gets in the way of their agendas. If we impeached every President who disregarded the Constitution when it didn’t suit his purposes we probably would have tried just about every President in the last 50 years.

Those who support the President no matter what now demand that I release the names of aides who passed on the information.

Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. I don’t burn sources. Never have. Never will. And, as every news outlet that covers Washington knows, the Bush administration comes down hard on anyone who talks out of school about the President.

“Sometimes the only way to get a story is to promise confidentiality,” Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press advocacy group, told the Christian Science Monitor recently.

In a White House where any disagreement with the President is branded as disloyalty or, in some cases, unpatriotic, the only sources who will tell us what’s really going on are those who choose to remain anonymous.

It ain’t perfect but in these imperfect times, it’s the best we’ve got.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7797.shtml



 

[alsatian]

I too find this story dubious.  Not a single named source for these statements was given.  Oh ya, Phillis Schafly and Bob Barr were supposed to be in the meeting . . . but they weren't identified as the sources, in fact the utterances cited don't sound like something a politician would say in the presence of lobbying groups.  So I'm not buying it.  Is Bush a constitutional scholar?  No.  Is Bush hell bent on destroying the constitution, I don't think so.  These quotes sound more like someone interested in kicking up trouble and outrage.  Just my $0.02.

Is our constitution at risk?  I think so, all the time in many ways.  The greatest danger is the lack of engagement of people in thinking. People are lured to taking the easy way out, to going with the flow, by being led by slick speakers, by believing everything they read or hear on TV.  Why people are in such a hurry to surrender their second amendment rights I will never understand.  It is THEIR right, not the right of the criminals to keep and bear arms they are giving up.  The criminals have no right to keep an bear arms but this doesn't deter them from owning and using arms contrary to the law . . . duh! that is why they are criminals, they don't adhere to the law!!!  But this is a separate and distinct rant from the questionable depiction of GW Bush as a constitution trampler.

[Graybeard]

I place great trust and confidence in Bob Barr. Given the chance I'd vote for him as President in a heart beat. IF I saw him come out and say he indeed heard the President make such remarks I'd have to rethink my position on this. But until I see a credible source quoted I'll continue to say it didn't happen.

No President has any sway over Congress. They are a completely different branch and in fact can remove him from office. A fact not lost on Klinton for sure. No I continue to say I think the article is BS and not truth.

However I still say IF it were true he should be impeached if he refused to step down first.

[jgalar]

BS, as are most of the rantings in this forum.

[FWiedner]

Another voice on the subject...


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

 
Dear President Bush; about that "goddamned piece of paper."
 
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Let us start out with the fact that the Constitution is actually written on parchment, not paper. A trivial point, I grant you, but one that reveals (along with your inability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear") a shocking lack of education in a head of state.
But to get to the point, the Constitution is not the parchment itself, but the ideas written upon it; ideas which form the foundations of our nation, ideas which would carry equal weight if written on stone, glass, metal, or even paper. These ideas are the soul of the nation. They include the recognition that the people of this nation have certain rights, rights which the government does not have the authority to remove. These rights include freedom of speech, to say what we think about the nation at any and all times, to write that opinion down and share it however we choose to. These rights include the freedom to worship as we choose, free from coercion. These rights include the right to privacy, in our homes and businesses, free from government intrusions other than in very specific and well-defined circumstances.

Maybe those rights are inconvenient to you, as such rights are always inconvenient to tyrants, but you are not allowed the choice which rights you will abide by or not. That too is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution.

The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper or parchment. It's a contract; the original contract with America. It's the contract you yourself swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. You attached your name to that promise. You swore that oath before a judge of the United States Supreme Court, with your hand on a bible. That isn't just scenery for the cameras. Swearing an oath before a judge carries legal obligations with that oath, and legal penalties for breaking that oath.

The election process by which you claim authority is defined in that Constitution. And as you claim authority by Constitutional process, so too are you limited by Constitutional process. If you act outside the limits of the Constitution, you are no longer acting as the President, but as a private citizen abusing the powers with which you were trusted. A government that acts outside the Constitution ceases to be the legal government of this land.

The Constitution exists not only to tell the government what it may do, but more importantly what it may not do. You, as the President, are not allowed to declare wars without the US Congress. You, the President, are not allowed to seize people at random and send them off to be tortured. And most of all, you, the President, and not allowed to lie to the people and to the Congress.

Every President before you, including your father, swore that oath to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution. Millions of Americans died in wars in the firm belief that the form of government describes on that parchment was worth such a sacrifice. To state that the Constitution is just a "dammed piece of paper" is a slap in the face of every American who ever donned the uniform of the military forces of this country.

Go over to Arlington National Cemetery. It's not that far from where you live. Look at those tombstones. By your statement, you have written across and every one the words, "Died for a goddamned piece of paper."
 
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pieceofpaper.php

.

[FWiedner]

And another...


Did President BushReally Say That?

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Internet news site Capitol Hill Blue founder Doug Thompson wrote in his column on December 9 that in a private meeting with congressional leaders, President G.W. Bush was urged to take caution in implementing his new Patriot Act because it would potentially "alienate conservatives." According to Thompson, the president retorted by saying, "I don't give a g-d-, I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!"

During that same meeting, Thompson quotes an aide as telling Mr. Bush, "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution." Thompson quotes the President as screaming back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g-d- piece of paper!"

Thompson said he talked with three people who were present for that meeting and that they all confirmed that President Bush called the Constitution a "g-d- piece of paper."

Please understand, Thompson is a career journalist. To my knowledge, his news site only produces credible news. For the sake of this column, therefore, let's deal with the possibility that what Doug Thompson wrote was truthfully told him by people who were in attendance at that meeting. (No, Thompson did not name those persons.)

Before going further, let's acknowledge that Doug Thompson is not a fan of President Bush. In fact, he is an outspoken critic of the President. But then again, it seems to me that he is an outspoken critic of most politicians. In my opinion, that's not all bad. But that's not the point. All that matters is the truthfulness of the report. If it's not true, Thompson must bear responsibility.

However, what if it is true? What if President Bush actually said the things Thompson said he said? In that case, every American must bear responsibility!

If President Bush said the things Thompson accuses him of saying, it is monumentally important! It reveals a side of G.W. Bush that has been heretofore hidden from the public, a side of the President that should cause all true Christians and all lovers of liberty deep consternation!

If G.W. Bush said the things he is quoted as saying, it means that our President is not only the worst kind of liar but also a very clear and present threat to freedom!

Remember that President Bush twice put his hand on a Holy Bible and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Such an oath carries with it the most sacred of intentions and the most serious of consequences.

It is one thing for a president to proceed upon the conviction that his actions are constitutionally justified even though he is criticized for those convictions; it is another thing altogether for a president to feel in his heart and to verbalize with his lips that the very document which he swore and oath to uphold is nothing more than a "g-d- piece of paper."

Americans must understand that the only reason (humanly speaking) that this country has been able to maintain a 200 plus year legacy of liberty and individual freedom is due to our respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the U.S. Constitution. To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else." Amen.

The Constitution is better than anything else! It is the most magnificent governing document ever written by man! Along with our Christian heritage and common English language, the Constitution has formed the glue which has held our republic together. Rightly did Daniel Webster say, "The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."

If President Bush truly believes the Constitution is "just a g-d- piece of paper," he is capable of any attack against it.

Yet, there is another revelation contained in President Bush's remarks, if they be true: his repeated blasphemy of God's name.

It has been long known that G.W. Bush is a prolific swearer. That much we know is true. One former congressman told me of hearing Bush repeatedly use the "f " word. Most Christians would not want their children using that or any other swear word, but probably don't mind too much (sadly) that their president, even one who professes to be a Christian, would use profanity. But what about repeatedly using God's name in vain? Is that insignificant?

To many people, swearing is nothing more than everyday communication. However, using God's name in vain is more than vulgar talking: it is blasphemy!

The Holy Scriptures are very clear on this point. The Third Commandment is emphatic: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Furthermore, Psalms 139:20 states, "Thine enemies take thy name in vain."

We need to get something settled: George W. Bush (or any other U.S. President or Congressman) is not above the Constitution or the Word of God! And while we are at it, let's settle something else: those conservative Christians who would allow G.W. Bush (or anyone else) to trample our Constitution and our Biblical values have become idolaters in their own hearts by giving to man (any man) the kind of preeminence that only the Bible and the U.S. Constitution deserve!

Did President Bush really say the things Doug Thompson quotes him as saying? I sincerely hope not. And if he did not, Mr. Thompson certainly owes his readers and the President an apology. However, if it proves to be true, will conservative Christians admit that everything they were led to believe about G.W. Bush was a lie, because indeed it would be?!


http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10363

.

[FWiedner]

..and yet more...


More than ‘a piece of paper’!

By Geoff Metcalf

“You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything…”

Aaron Tippet and Buddy Brock wrote a song titled ‘You’ve Got To Stand for Something’. The warning to the lyric notes “or you’ll fall for anything.”

I often say, “It’s not a question of WHO is right or wrong but WHAT is right or wrong that matters.”

Different people have difference guidelines for determining what is ‘right’.

In this polarized/acrimonious/perpetual contact sport between left and right, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, (demonstrated by Ann Coulters and Al Frankens), so much emphasis is put on sizzle, we rarely get to sink our teeth into the steak.

It was disconcerting to read Doug Thompson’s recent rant in Capitol Hill Blue in which he claims President Bush diminished and marginalized the Constitution. Thompson reportedly talked to three people who were in a meeting in which the President of the United States called the Constitution just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

No, Mr. President, blasphemy notwithstanding, the Constitution is much more. The constitution is the essence of what America is, and for many, a yardstick for measuring what is right.

From military recruits to congress critters to Supreme Court justices to the President of the United States, all take an oath in which they solemnly swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is beyond hypocritical for someone to swear, “to preserve and protect the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic” and subsequently focuses on undermining, mitigating, or abrogating the very document to which they have sworn protection…in effect becoming a domestic enemy.

Debate continues if those so engaged are guilty of fraud, perjury or treason. Since 9/11 there has been a lot of ‘talk’ about patriotism. It has been implied that to resist what the administration wants to do is ‘unpatriotic’. What was it Mark Twain said about “Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel.”? I don’t think/hope Twain meant everyone who embraces patriotism is a scoundrel but it becomes a challenge to differentiate between true patriots and politicians intent on using it as a tool to further a personal (unconstitutional) agenda.

By the way, any effort to undermine the Constitution from beneath a mantel of ‘patriotism’ is oxymoronic.

Teddy Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

I admire President Bush for a variety of reasons…however; I am not a GOP sycophant who will defend the indefensible because of a myopic ‘us verses them’ group think.

According to ‘Capitol Hill Blue’ when confronted with facts that contradicted his preconceived opinions, Bush said, “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

When an aide (as reported by Thompson) said, “Mr. President, there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” Bush blew up and screamed, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

No, Mr. President we won’t stop throwing the Constitution in your face. You put your hand on a Bible and swore to defend that ‘piece of paper’.

The reason famous conservatives like Phyllis Schafly and Bob Barr have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union to oppose overly ambitious plans for renewing the USA Patriot Act is THEY stand for something…and won’t fall for anything dictated by an imperious ‘Do it MY way’ leader.

The USA Patriot Act is a sticky wicket and smarter folks than me are tasked with solving the challenges.


Is the Patriot Act a valuable tool for intel operators fighting the war on terror?

You damnbetcha!

Is it potentially dangerous?

Absolutely!

Does it represent a significant threat to God given, inalienable Constitutional rights?

Duh?!?

Ben Franklin said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

The Patriot Act personifies that admonition.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence closed the document by affirming, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” The Declaration, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are more, much more than mere ‘piece(s) of paper’.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10362

.

[fe352v8]

Look at the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, who was arrested in May of 2002 in Chicago, declared an enemy combatant, and finally after over 3 years in jail he has been indicted and charged with a crime.

Mr. Padilla’s criminal history leaves little room for sympathy, however he is a US citizen who at the direction of the President of the United States was declared an enemy combatant, and was subsequently denied the rights we are all afforded under the 5th Amendment.

While we may never have verification of the Bush’s alleged outburst, this case alone would seem to indicate that his regard for the Constitution is at best limited.

It is ironic that, those charged with defending the Constitution, feel they must disregard it, to do so.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[magooch]

My instinct about these articles is to be very skeptical.  The only purpose of them is to disparage the President.  Even if they prove to be true, they do not rise to the level of high crimes, or misdemeanors, so the notion of impeachment for having an outburst in a moment of ire, is ridiculous.

The Constitution is not a sacred document, nor is it equivalent to an edict from a deity; it was written and endorsed by fallible humans and it has been changed/modified many times.  My greatest fear about the Constitution is that it is completely at the mercy of the Supreme Court.  Strain its sweet refrains through a liberal court and see what we end up with.

[jimster]

If this really happened, and since this is posted on a public site, and since Bush has many enemies....maybe you could explain to me why the enemies in the media has not plastered this all over every television and radio site in the US.
Rumors abound, and when something is said, it can be blown way out of the spectrum also.

I would expect something this serious that Bush said, and if it was heard by a reporter and got all the way to this site...we all would have seen something on it by now. So...I'm passing it off as a rumor.
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat,  I hold no special loyalty to any party. I'm just an American that does not listen to any rumors, and only believe what I see or hear myself, short of good reporting and good journalism.
My 2 cents on this

[magooch]

If this really happened, and since this is posted on a public site, and since Bush has many enemies....maybe you could explain to me why the enemies in the media has not plastered this all over every television and radio site in the US.
Rumors abound, and when something is said, it can be blown way out of the spectrum also.

I would expect something this serious that Bush said, and if it was heard by a reporter and got all the way to this site...we all would have seen something on it by now. So...I'm passing it off as a rumor.
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat,  I hold no special loyalty to any party. I'm just an American that does not listen to any rumors, and only believe what I see or hear myself, short of good reporting and good journalism.
My 2 cents on this

Well, there ya go being sensible and prudent.

[FWiedner]

The Constitution is not a sacred document, nor is it equivalent to an edict from a deity; it was written and endorsed by fallible humans and it has been changed/modified many times. My greatest fear about the Constitution is that it is completely at the mercy of the Supreme Court. Strain its sweet refrains through a liberal court and see what we end up with.

I find myself in disagreement with you Mr. Magooch.  Before our Constitution was written, the world in all it’s ages had never seen a document like it, had never seen a government like the one established by that document, and it had never seen the likes of our Bill of Rights.

It is a sacred document, just as the oath that Mr. Bush swore was a sacred oath.

The Constitution is the foundation of our law in this country.  And that is god enough.

G.W. Bush raised his right hand before The People and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and swore an oath to protect and defend that document and it’s ideals, in letter and in spirit.

I’m not entirely convinced that Mr. Bush ever made the statement that is the subject of these articles, and truthfully I find the discussion to be quite amusing, but having observed his demeanor, his style of leadership, and his actions as the chief executive of the United states since the year 2000, I do not consider it to be outside the realm of possibility that the statement was made.

In my opinion, every bit of evidence, his speech, his actions, and the legislation he has supported demonstrates that even if the words were never spoken, this is actually the way he views the subject.

If in truth, Mr. Bush did speak these words, he should at the very least apologize publicly to the nation and resign his office, or he should simply be divested of his wealth and exiled, never to to return to these shores during his life, because he has deceived and betrayed us all.

If this really happened, and since this is posted on a public site, and since Bush has many enemies....maybe you could explain to me why the enemies in the media has not plastered this all over every television and radio site in the US.

I’d say that his “enemies” aren’t beating him up in the major media because they probably agree with what he is doing.

If Bush is successful, they will inherit that power when next their party leads the government.

 :?

[jimster]

I guess it all boils down to..."If in truth, Mr. Bush did speak these words, "
or "I’m not entirely convinced that Mr. Bush ever made the statement that is the subject of these articles".....
These are your words...and that in itself is enough to pass it off as rumor in my humble opinion.  Which was my point in my post.
"I’d say that his “enemies” aren’t beating him up in the major media because they probably agree with what he is doing."
I don't buy that at all...the far left media would POUNCE on anything like this if given half a chance. He has people in Congress that would LOVE to bring something like this into the light.
As I have said before I am not part of any party, I'm my own man, attached to nothing in the way of politics, I listen closely, watch how our Congress votes, and then watch what they say. I have never thought President Bush was all that conservative, I have a list of things I don't like after this many years...but the alternative to President Bush was bleak indeed. There are some things I like about the man. He doesn't care about polls, he stays the course under SEVERE pressure from opposing forces, and this shows me he has some leadership qualities. Although I don't agree with all things, I can respect a man who goes a straight line regardless of polls and public opinion.
Bottom line is, keeping on the subject of this post...I don't listen to rumors, nor do I let hearsay cause me to form any opinions. My opinions come from only what I know to be true.  

"keep yer powder dry"...

Jimster

[spraynpray]

It doesn't matter whether or not he said it, his actions speak louder than words.  Patriot Act, National ID, etc.

[jimster]

I'm not arguing what your saying about losing freedoms, But I'm also not going to believe the Patriot Act or having my name in the Feds data base is anything new...been going on for years.  Long before Bush I might add.

All I'm saying is...if a man is going to accuse someone of doing something or saying something, he damn well better be right. Rumors are for fools.

That is what my post was about.

Jimster

[magooch]

FW, you can spin and rationalize with the best of em.

[FWiedner]

The President of the Unted States may have violated the Oath of Office.

Action should be taken to determine the truth.


Oooooh, I'm gettin' dizzy from all the spin on that one...  :roll:


 

[tallyho]

For the record, I believe Mark Twain's actual quote is "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel... not “Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel.”

Small difference? I think not actually.

By saying "the last refuge" Mark Twain alludes to the 'scoundrel' having sought other refuges - presumably without success, and finally falls upon patriotism to defend his/her scoundrel-ness.

To take the other quote "usually the refuge of the scoundrel" at face value, tarnishes all who are quite sincerely patriotic, and have no scoundrel-ness abou them.

It is also just kind of a wimpy quote, not at all of the caliber (IMHO) of Mark Twain.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

This is the first time I heard this story.  Like many of you, I thought it sounded like BS, that is, until the new revelations that came out in the last couple of days.  You heard the news about the President authorizing the NSA to tap, without a warrant, the phones of US CITIZENS?  Holy Cow, talk about walking on the 4th Amendment!!!  Sorry folks, I don't care if it makes it easier for the terrorists, I am not willing to give up my Constitutional Rights!  

Jim

[magooch]

Oh, now I understand, terrorists should be free to plot to plant a nuke on your butt, but by God don't step on your civil rights.  Again guy, get all the facts before you go off on a tangent.