T Nation

Goddamned Piece of Paper


#21

LMAO. You write some truly funny shit.


#22

I'm incredibly anti-Bush. I realize he is one big idiot. However, nobody is that stupid. Article is fake.


#23

Bush Trashes Constitution, Few Notice

Kurt Nimmo | December 10 2005

Here in Oceania, if something does not appear in the New York Times or mentioned on Fox News, it did not exist. For instance, it is reported that our fearless leader believes the Constitution is little more than a worthless piece of paper. ?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,? writes Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue. ?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.? Thompson reports the following exchange:
?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.?? Thompson adds.

Of course, for Bush, the neocons, the corporate neolibs, and the authoritarian rabble currently in control of the United States, the Constitution is indeed a worthless ?goddamned piece of paper? of use only on the Fourth of July. Instead of constitutionally limited government, the Bushcons advocate ?democracy,? in other words mob rule?and the mob is brainwashed by the corporate media and ?entertainment? industry. ?We have the freedom to elect our dictators every four years,? remarked a friend of Jacob Hornberger?s from Latin America. Here in Oceania?thanks to Diebold voting machines and vote rigging?we don?t even have the ?freedom to elect our dictators every four years,? they are basically appointed by the plutocrats who control the government and run it for their own gain.

If you defend the Constitution, you?re now considered a terrorist. Consider this FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure. ?Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as the bottom-feeding Skinheads, Nazis and the KKK,? notes Angel Shamaya.
?Each Fourth of July, the speeches are filled with oratory about how fortunate Americans are to live under ?free enterprise.? And now that the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights is approaching, the platitudes of freedom will inevitably increase,? Hornberger wrote in 1990. Of course, most of us here in Oceania are oblivious to such oratory nor do we realize ?free enterprise? means the freedom for a small raptorial class to rape, pillage, and steal from people who cannot defend themselves against the onslaught of neoliberal capitalism.

?Unlike their counterparts in the 20th century,? Americans in the 1700s ?did not trust politicians, democracies, or governments?and especially not their own! They required the passage of the first ten amendments to further expressly restrict the powers of their democratically elected authorities,? writes Hornberger.
Before he was ?elected? (appointed) in 2000, Bush ?joked? about dictatorship and said it would be fine and dandy by him so long as he was the dictator. Now we have this authoritarian cretin on record trashing the Constitution and the corporate media does not take note and for obvious reason?the corporate media is owned by the same ?free trade? (unhindered depredation) marauders and amoral charlatan neolibs that own the government and just about every whore (politician) in Congress.


#24

Jlesk,

Your new jewel of information is merely quoting the dubious source from the first article you posted.

Ridiculous.


#25

He just likes stirring crap up and then standing back to watch everyone freak out over it. He does not tend to respond unless it is to post yet another goofy article (which at times is kind of amusing, I must admit).


#26

Hopefully it was democrat who was bringing up isolated incidents. You know, 3 seconds of indiscretion as opposed to 7 years of professionalism and somehow thats supposed to mean something. Yea, hope it was that person he told that to.


#27

Professionalism is about not having those three seconds of indescretion...


#28

This saying is so true,

Remember you cannot believe everything you read, you do not know first hand what was going on that day. If I believed everything I read on line I could gaurantee that everyone on this forum was built like a brick shit house and could bench press a Mac Truck. But I know this isn't true, There are some techno geeks in here who pretend to work out so they can post Bush hating political rheteoric.

Remember, don't judge a book by it's cover, unless it's Playboy and the pages are stuck together,

2Cents
Bullpup


#29

Yes, too bad no one can live up to that standard. Its called being a human being.

It was meant as sarcasm. And I disagree that professionalism=perfection


#30

I don't think professionalism is about perfection either.

Professionalism is about when you get frustrated that you don't reveal a complete lack of adherence to important principles...

By this, I mean that everyone gets frustrated and upset. That is a time that you let out your real feelings. If you are a professional, the revelation won't reveal a total disdain for what your position, company or office stands for.

However, at this point we are left assuming this is all some baloney cooked up in a left-wing blog. If so, perhaps we'll get to see less argument supported by right wing blogs for a while?


#31

I doubt it. Both sides are littered with, and I cannot find a word for it, but I think crapola sums it up quite nicely.


#32

From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
Consider the source
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 11, 2005, 06:44

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.

We put our reputation on the line every time we publish a story that depends on information from anonymous sources. Sometimes we get burned and when we do we admit it publicly, take our well-deserved lumps, and move on.

In 2003, we published reports that intelligence professionals had raised doubts about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and questioned claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Our detractors claimed we made the whole thing up. Two years later, we were proven right.

Last year, when we published reports on the President?s increasing temper tantrums, the doubters again claimed the reports were fantasy. Yet mainstream media outlets reported the same thing this year. We were right?and we got it first.

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America?s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn?t mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We?ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we?ve had to retract two of them. That?s a record I?m willing to stand on.

So the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a ?garbage site? or claims I?m a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I?m an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one.

When I?m wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven?t had to do that very often.

When I?m right I don?t give a damn who doesn?t like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: ?If you piss off both sides you?re doing your job.?

That?s good enough for me.


#33

I didn't read the details, but, from a philosophical perspective, it is just a goddamned peice of paper. It was written over 200 years ago and there's no reason to think that it can't be improved upon or changed to suit todays world


#34

Then we can make all KINDS of crazy laws!!


#35

3 articles, one quoting itself, and still no sources and no corroboration. I'm shocked, shocked.


#36

No real commentary on the drivel, but why is it that when you attatch the prefix neo to something, it suddenly becomes evil?
The one that realy jumped out was Corporate Neo Libs. They must be subversive double agents bent on the destruction of the liberation of who the hell knows what.


#37

If this "Neo" is "Evil" thing keeps up, I'm not going to know what to think when I watch the Matrix again...


#38

...and from the ashes of his former self rises NEOSKYZYKS.

A nasty little toddler with a penchant for filling diapers and disrupting public speakers with his shrieks for change.
A criminal minded, tantrum throwing subversive? NO.
Just an angry little bugger in dire need of a clean diapy and some powder.
(and maybee some titty now and then)


#39

I am an amendment to be
an amendment to be
and I am hoping that they ratify me

Cause theres a lot of flag burners that have got too much freedom

I want to make it legal for policemen to beat them


#40

My daughters are into neopets. I think they are evil.